easycure

You are right; evidently, there are no requirements to speak... Pink Floyd are not pure psychedelia. About 100% of rock historians (forgive the percentages, it's just to clarify that we're talking in "objective" terms) have been ready to argue that there probably isn't a band that fits the definition of psychedelic better. You probably have this album or Dark Side in mind; I recommend you listen to The Piper at the Gates of Dawn or A Saucerful of Secrets again, albums that you clearly haven't listened to carefully (certainly, it's not to be doubted that you have surely heard them, as you say...). You are right, in your confused comment, to say that The Velvet Underground are not simply and solely psychedelia, indeed, just as the Red Crayola and Zappa were not, but they are all artists born and developed in that realm (not like those you mentioned, who all came after '66-'67), and who transcend the psychedelic realm precisely because of the enormous influence they have had on various genres. I keep repeating myself (you evidently purposefully avoided responding to this point): your viewpoint is: "psychedelia is part of blues rock, therefore only those who were great at doing blues rock were great at doing psychedelia" am I wrong? ..this simply doesn't make sense.

the "real music" AHAH pere ubu "pretentious little indie bands" AHAHAH :-D great laughs. I don’t deny Rory Gallagher; it’s just that there are about a MILLION other things besides Rory Gallagher, and especially beyond rock blues, and I don’t understand why, since these millions of things don’t meet Rory Gallagher’s technical requirements or don’t sound the same or maybe don’t share the same idea of harmony, they all have to be “pretentious little indie bands.” It’s such an outdated and out-of-touch perspective that it makes no sense at all.

forgive me, I must once again adopt a somewhat "teacherly" tone :-) ..so let's start from '77: have you ever heard of Pere Ubu? The Suicide? Television (the latter should definitely appeal to you given their blues rock roots). Speaking of technique, during this period we have some of the greatest musicians in rock history. Take Watt for example.. have you ever listened to the Minutemen? Apparently not. That's too bad! Anyway, in general, the new wave was perhaps the most creative period after '67 (I mean the American new wave, not that British pretentious one which, I definitely agree with you, is often overrated). Perhaps, however, it's the creativity itself that doesn't sit well with you. You prefer to endlessly listen to the guitar wankery in E minor from some blues rock group. As I already wrote to you once, good for you.. the important thing is to be convinced :-)

Sorry, the portable device cut off some sentences..

I just read your latest comment... first of all, psychedelia makes sense precisely as a surpassing of the blues rock coordinates: the Velvet Underground strip it down by referring to concepts from the Cream, if we really want to compare one of the most innovative bands (the Velvet Underground) with one of the most conservative (and therefore more useless) bands of the period. The Floyd with Barrett (who, by the way, came from the blues) completely distanced themselves from the coordinates of the same, just as all the English psychedelia post Piper at the Gates of Dawn did. Not to mention the Who (what do they even have to do with psychedelia?) Barrett's childish lullabies are light years away from "blues rock," of which psychedelia is in some cases an evolution (Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, Canned Heat, 13th Floor Elevators, Hendrix, Doors) and in other cases has absolutely nothing to do with it. Love, in fact, referred back to the tradition that had passed through the vocal groups of the '50s, through the Beach Boys and the folk of the Byrds. The Floyd, as well as Blossom Toes and later Twink and many others (including the Beatles) had experimented with the more fairy-tale and childish aspect of psychedelia, emancipating a youth culture that was the real turning point of the second half of the '60s. Moreover, psychedelia has an intent and an approach that has nothing to do with blues rock: psychedelia deliberately positions itself as imaginative, mental music, whereas blues was decidedly more visceral. It’s clear that with your point of view everything is turned upside down, but your point of view is, forgive me, absolutely conservative. If psychedelia were part of blues rock, your logic might make sense, but from any perspective, psychedelia is definitely something else entirely. It must therefore be judged by different standards.

point no. 1) I will try to explain it in simpler terms :-) .."continues only with Hendrix" was referring to the fact that you consider only him (or mainly him) in the realm of psychedelic music. Period. Clear now? point no. 2) I didn't say anything concrete. Reread comment no. 42. I'm not claiming it's the best argument possible; I'm claiming it's a slightly smarter argument than "dicking around for twenty minutes with a guitar in hand," an expression you presume resolves one of the most significant artistic periods post-war. Point number 3) that Hendrix inevitably referred to garage bands that had been experimenting with distortions since '65 is a cliché that stands out in 5 seconds flat when listening to those garage bands. Maybe you relied on the famous forums mentioned above to spout your nonsense about Hendrix; listening a little more, in this case, yes, would do you better.

and I never said you only know Hendrix; so either you don’t understand a thing or it’s you who’s twisting the narrative. I said "CONTINUE" only with Hendrix, which doesn't imply that you can't know every single band formed in the last 50 years. But I see that when arguments run dry, entire comments get lost in nonsense :-) ..anyway, everyone is free to think whatever they want about any album. But taking an entire movement and reducing it to just Hendrix (and Manzarek and some other nonsense) in terms of quality is, forgive my bluntness, the classic bullshit, no ifs or buts.

Yes, it's a pity that if it weren't for how garage bands before Hendrix (like Electric Prunes) used distortion, today 90% of rock bands wouldn’t sound the way they do (nor would Jimi Hendrix have played as he did). It's a shame that without the melodic experiments of the Byrds, Beach Boys, and Beatles, 90% of subsequent bands wouldn't have had the vocal melodies they actually had. It's a pity that without the jams of the Grateful Dead, there wouldn't be like 100% of prog bands, 100% of post-rock bands, and so on. It's a shame that without the Velvet Underground, there wouldn't have been New Wave, Punk, Sonic Youth, and therefore 90% of the bands from the '90s (and 100% of today's bands). But hey, you just keep focusing on Hendrix. The important thing, as in all things, is to be convinced! :-)

Can you imagine... it's a shame that modern rock (that is, from '67 onwards) is essentially based on everything that psychedelia had experimented with... not to mention that psychedelia, more than a genre, is an approach, given the heterogeneity of all the bands that fall under this definition from the '60s to today.

I was also waiting for this to happen, glory :-) here I disagree with you, it seemed overall insignificant to me: a group looking for something different from what it was but not knowing where to go... and then it's rather tedious and very redundant.. at least that's how I found it; your talk on foreignophilia is absolutely right, but often, perhaps for this very reason, it's the national groups that surpass the foreigners just out of snobbery.. and the case of Julie's doesn't seem that far from this. I preferred them by far when they were more carefree and took themselves much less seriously.