easycure

Congratulations! The smartest comment of the year :D ..let me give you some advice: if you want to criticize, but in this case we are dealing with the usual pathetic anonymous insult, to have any "success" you should be careful not to say bullshit.. well, this is a classic case where you really shot yourself in the foot, and I pity you, truly, even though the offensiveness of your "note" only brings a pitying smile to my face :-)
..so let me explain: the fact that they personally are not from Chicago (but from New York state, if I'm not mistaken, and anyway who cares), doesn’t mean that they don't come from the "hub" of Chicago Hardcore... as you well know, in fact, Snapcase was under Victory Records, a label FROM CHICAGO which also produced other interesting (post) hardcore proposals... do you get the point? It’s like saying about Dischord, of course not all Dischord bands were native to Washington, but a label with a precise aesthetic constitutes, as such, a "hub", a movement, or whatever you want to call it... now I can also understand that such a difficult concept was beyond your reach, which is why I hope I have been clear enough. Bye bye :-)

They seem VERY but VERY interesting.. they are hard to find online though, I notice..

And what does it matter if it's longer? : D ..You can reiterate the concepts however you want, but they remain... :-) However, it seems that your sources of inspiration are different, I'll check, I'll check. heheheh ;-)

I appreciate your attempt... it’s not very stylish to make comparisons with other reviews ; ).. is "berlusconismo" dangerously spreading among the average Italian? :-( ...well, aside from these personal digressions, it honestly seems to me that I could turn your argument upside down: your writing is very nice, but it doesn’t seem exactly transcendental to me.. moreover, and more importantly, it doesn’t seem to me that you add anything particular compared to mine, in fact it seems to me that the arguments are essentially the same.. and not only that, but I would even dare to say that you actually throw the stone and hide your hand, because the use of even identical terms makes me think that you’ve also been inspired by mine.. oh well.. whatever makes you happy :-)

Please, Pros. I don't know, rereading it I recognize a bit of contradiction :-) ..but as I've already written, it's probably unintentional.. and then who cares ; ) ..bye

great hum... to have

What the hell do I want from you?? Your lack of objectivity is terrible... I want nothing from you, it's you who chose to come back here to comment, and I simply replied. 2+2 equals 4, giorgetto, until proven otherwise : D

X Shine: well, first of all, congratulations on the Gestalt quote; are you studying psychology too? ; ) ...I think your point of view is more than acceptable, but I partially share it; if one limits oneself to looking at the credits of the songs, one can only agree with you... but the aesthetic of the Floyd, I continue to say, is extremely indebted to Waters' mind, beyond the credits... it is Waters who always comes through with his paranoia, his delusions, nightmares... the expressive thread that connects Atom Heart Mother, Careful with that Axe Eugene (both credited to the band as a whole), to tracks like Set The Controls for the Heart of the Sun or Eclipse (credited solely to Waters) is undeniable... the morbid, visionary atmospheres, the theater of the unconscious are the same... And on the other hand, "Gilmourian" pieces like Fat Old Sun or A Pillow of Winds, much more sweetened and delicate in their poetry, further contribute to removing any doubt about who was primarily the heart of the Floyd aesthetic. This is not to deny that if it weren't for the band as a whole, nothing would have been the same... exceptional musicians all (by the way, Wright's role from this perspective is not at all inferior to Gilmour's) but it certainly isn't just a matter of interpretation... how could they have been so communicative and fascinating if it were only about arrangement?

X shine: indeed, the nonsense is one, but a big one: the idea that Waters was more important in the lyrics than in the music is a significant absurdity. Moreover, the reviewer himself somewhat contradicts himself (probably unintentionally, I acknowledge this) when he admits, and I agree with this, that Gilmour is the sound of the Floyd. If Gilmour is the sound of the Floyd, he is not the main composer of the group, rather the arranger. Waters was the main creator of the Floyd in Saucerful of Secrets, in More, in Meddle, in Dark Side of the Moon; this is simply evident. Furthermore, as "original" as it may be, the thesis that the Floyd are primarily about the construction of the piece can hold only to a certain extent: it is true that their approach is heterogeneous, but only to some extent; in fact, their poetic style is very recognizable and rather homogeneous from Saucerful of Secrets all the way to Animals included. In this, the review suffers terribly from superficiality and describes the band as a sort of 360° group capable of playing different styles, completely losing sight of the expressive component, which is actually what earns the Floyd their place in history (and what characterized Barrett’s work practically exclusively, among other things).

I mean; I take Pink Floyd in their entirety and I don't understand a damn thing, like really not a damn thing... I genuinely wonder what the reviewer heard from Pink Floyd pre-Dark Side of the Moon or even more HOW they heard them... from the way you described them, they could easily be the Bee Gees or, I don't know, the Jackson 5... a few good songs, a few "guitar heaven" tracks... but what is it? Reducing Pink Floyd to any pop group, do you really think that the "good song" is enough to sum up the enormity of their work and from there you would expect to convince us that this is also a great album... spouting a considerable load of nonsense about Waters too (read a biography or two, come on!)... terrible review.