easycure

NGW, you’ve made the classic example that doesn’t matter one bit ; ) ...it’s obvious that the difference between Smashing Pumpkins and Cremonini is abyssal, and I didn’t make anything up: just listen again to Thru the Eyes of Ruby and you’ll realize the progressive influences in 30 seconds flat. I specifically cited those tracks; again, I’m not making anything up. Regarding Shoegazer, as usual, you have an excessively rigid view; and again, it’s not that Billy Corgan (rightfully) makes the same music as My Bloody Valentine; but 1) Billy Corgan doesn’t give a damn about making Shoegazer, he has a much broader—and let’s face it, presumptuous—vision of rock and what he intends to do with it. 2) Shoegazer isn’t just My Bloody Valentine; it also includes Slowdive, Ride, Lush, Swervedriver, Spacemen 3, Velocity Girl, and whether you like it or not, Jesus and Mary Chain. All these bands have a vision that is far less brilliant, extreme, and original compared to My Bloody Valentine; it's clear that if you identify a band with a movement, a band as incredible as MBV, then you can never say of anyone "oh look, that one is inspired by Shoegazer." 3) As already mentioned in point 1, Billy Corgan draws inspiration from the SOUNDS of Shoegazer, not the whole attitude of Shoegazer because, as already stated, he doesn’t give a damn about covering MBV.

NGW, as I said, it’s not that I feel the shadow of Shoegazer, but Billy Corgan himself admitted to being inspired by Kevin Shields... and indeed, looking closely, the use of dreamy melodies accompanied by saturated distortions, though very different from My Bloody Valentine (and thank goodness, this confirms Corgan's quality), is still an element in line with the Shoegaze aesthetic. ... Then there’s the fact that this album undeniably has moments of downfall that confirm its epicness! It’s an ambitious album, certainly presumptuous and overflowing, but also one of the few attempts (today, as I’ve already mentioned, it would be unthinkable and that’s a shame) to want to bring forth the absolute masterpiece, the non plus ultra, and it’s for this reason that Billy Corgan (look at Tonight, Tonight, Porcelina, Thru the Eyes of Ruby) deliberately uses an epic tone, which in fact also looks to Prog for example... and there’s no doubt about his ENORMOUS ability to transcend genres while still giving a homogeneous aspect to the whole, regardless of any falls or not. If you don’t find this album so essential, perhaps compared to others, that’s an opinion; clearly, I can’t say anything about that... Bye.

It's not bad... but let's not turn this into a competition to see who can write the best review of Mellonn... let's agree that this should be the last one, okay? ; )

The Smashing Pumpkins have created a unique and modern blend of pop elements, especially the very melodic compositional attitude in their use of scales and vocal melodies, and Hard rock roots—a definition to be taken VERY broadly, encompassing everything from the shoegazer influences (by Corgan's own admission) derived from the always saturated guitar sounds to classic Hard rock identifiable in many of the riffs coined by Corgan, to the dark psychedelia reminiscent of Iron Butterfly/Black Sabbath, evident in the somber rawness of many Smashing Pumpkins tracks (see "Bodies" or "Zero," for example), all bolstered by an undeniable 80s Indie gene that intrinsically oozes from the very contemporary heterogeneity (for the '90s) of their pieces... ultimately, one of the most successful and personal forms of stylistic crossover, characteristic of the past decade in attitude, as well as one of the last albums truly deserving to be called "classic," as it maintains an epic and grandiose standard while still sounding indebted to the past, which is completely lacking in today's rock bands. Monsters.

we like everything

A review that’s too cold for one of the high points of the '90s, in the lyrics before the music, which is still excellent... for me, this is one of those sacred albums that require a LOT of expertise to be reviewed properly...

Truly NGW, what distinguishes Shoegazer more than anything else is the noise. Noise used in psychedelic terms rather than punk, but still noise. From here, no one can ever deny the mastery of such an attitude by the Jesus and Mary Chain, and not for the style, mind you, but for the intent, for what they communicated with their music. I agree regarding the Cocteau Twins who brought the dreamy component to Shoegazer, but I would say that My Bloody Valentine, for all their greatness, did not actually invent anything... rather, they reinterpreted it in such a brilliantly original way that they reached absolute and unmatched heights. Moreover, it’s enough to listen to the early EPs of My Bloody Valentine to understand how much they themselves depended on the influence of the Jesus and Mary Chain; in the beginning, My Bloody Valentine made a sort of Rock/dark that was decidedly unpersonal... it was when they started making feedback-pop, precisely in the wake of the Reid brothers, that their true career began.

Well, I'll tell you, I find the Husker Du of "warehouse", especially Hart's melodies, very much reflected, perhaps emptied or changed in meaning, in Green Day... anyway, yes, in the end it's all about preferences... ultimately, however, Guglielmi perhaps forgets that the Sex Pistols, first and foremost, were a gigantic and ephemeral commercial operation...

it's not about finding a middle ground; it's about the criteria that I disagree with... for me, a three-star album is an imperfect album, not a superficial one, and there’s a big difference.

Well, NGW, if you look closely, the Shoegazer style was more invented by the Jesus and Mary Chain, not for nothing, but they debuted in '85... then again, in my opinion, My Bloody Valentine remains one of the greatest bands of all time... but maybe too "out there" to be truly influential.