easycure

Needless to say, if this is your opinion, regardless of how suspicious you are about what today is "new rock," this is an album to have... Long live decent forums! :D

Well, if all Muse fans are like you, it's already been said but it needs to be repeated, I'm honestly glad I'm not a Muse fan... hehehe : ) ...bye dispe

But if you evaluate it in relation to other things, then you lose the sense of the masterpiece as such... I, for example, cannot exalt a group like this for the "fun little song," because it seems to me to belittle masterpieces that have managed to completely transcend this mediocre logic to elevate rock to the status of pure art, and it also feels like an insult to human intelligence, which, if it has been capable of gifting us with masterpieces in rock form, then it should not settle for such superficial and derivative inconsistency... no no no, I just can't do it.

Alexabder '77, no one has made musical comparisons. I stated that, for me (and not just me), the history of the '80s was shaped by bands like the Pixies, certainly not by G'n'R. Read carefully, otherwise it's better for you not to respond... : ) Whether My Bloody Valentine were groundbreaking might be debatable, but the fact that they were one of the most important, colossal, and absolutely genius realities of the last 25 years is, without a doubt, indisputable.

x roaddogg: none of the groups you mentioned have made any substantial changes to rock, except perhaps Iron Maiden, the ones from the first two albums, mind you, which are also negligible compared to the bands I've mentioned. Not because I mentioned them, but because I brought them up on purpose as they were UNQUESTIONABLY innovative or at least among the most original of the era. From this, I can’t help but think: 1) for you, the history of rock is a "race to see who sells the most"... fine, then Michael Jackson, Madonna, and maybe Britney Spears take the prize, and your idols are relegated to a secondary role. 2) of the groups I mentioned, and here I refer to your trivial, predictable, and unfounded insinuation, you haven't even listened to a single note; if you've heard of them in your life, it’s probably just their name. So (to lighten the mood) here you go!

If one were to evaluate the "fun single," then Madonna would be the artist of the year... because her new little song is seriously fun, it really slays... but since we all know that for all its fun and the result of a monstrously capable and clever production, it basically sucks in its superficial lack of substance, then why should a band like KC get away with it? In fact, it's even worse because they would even have the audacity to claim to be "rock," and maybe even "alternative"... so take that:

Yes, but then why give 1 to the album? And why, if you appreciate them, do you then say you admire only two of their albums? ...you're not much better than the "snobby idiots" then...

Well, then the comparison with Nevermind is hilarious... and it’s not that I’m a huge fan of Nirvana; anyway, there’s really no contest between the two.

One of the most important groups of the '80s? ..For me, one of the most abject ensembles of assholes that the history of rock has given us.. damn, in the '80s there was stuff like Pixies, Yo La Tengo, Feelies, My Bloody Valentine, Jesus and Mary Chain.. the G'n'R in comparison are a pathetic bunch of untalented clowns.

Galakordi, you are out of focus, completely... aside from the fact that their integrity alone would be enough to make them a huge group, as it is this very integrity that has made their production so spontaneous that it has remained great even in less stellar moments (like the latest Argument). Their historical importance is undeniable; their style is as unique as it is original and even innovative. And these three adjectives together inevitably make them one of the greatest bands of all time, regardless of genre. It’s not a matter of being an indie fan; it’s a matter of being listeners and enthusiasts of rock in general.