easycure

larrok, I didn’t say that the VV are niche.. but between being a cultural example for common sense and being niche, the differences are many and nuanced. As far as I'm concerned, it seems absolutely obvious to me how the Beatles are now abundantly part of the common sense of the Western world, something that I don’t think can be said for the VV. Citing as indicators the times the Beatles are mentioned or appear on television, how their new albums (I’m talking about compilations and various goodies) are still sold, etc. etc., it is simply clear that there is no possibility of equating the two groups in terms of notoriety. This is aside from the fact that the VV are still fairly well-known and aside from the fact that, as already mentioned, they were an example. Therefore valid as such. It’s not that I consider a difference in perception in common sense to be "unjust," I find unjust the distortions that inevitably arise from it: that is, the fact that the Beatles or the Rolling Stones are considered a "non plus ultra" when they are not at all, that is a distortion, not the different consideration they enjoy, which is rather a natural effect of the different commercialization to which these varied realities are inherently subjected. For this reason, I have never considered what the viewpoint of the groups might be. It is more than likely that the Slint couldn’t care less about selling millions of copies, just as I wouldn’t care if they sold any. I am making a critical/cultural discourse; that is, in historical terms, the music of the second half of the 20th century is commonly identified with realities that are anything but indispensable, such as the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, etc. Goodbye!

Of course theknife.. but the Beach Boys couldn't care less about the lyrics.. they have always been a fiercely commercial group, and the lyrics are disarmingly stupid (except perhaps for some stuff in Pet Sounds, as you mentioned). Nonetheless, when I judge music, I consider the lyrics at most a complement.. apart from opinions, though, Brian Wilson was one of the first true experimenters. In line, by the way, with the logic of all the underrated surf.. which, as the brilliant sirbony pointed out earlier, with Dick Dale already made one of the first great attempts at "visionary" music (as abject as this visionariness might have been).

But larrok, I was talking about common sense. Do we know what common sense is or not? I'm talking about what people perceive as culture, what is commonly considered their own world, just like drinking a glass of water. And do you think that common sense perceives VV and the Beatles in the same way? You really have to be naive to think that. If you consider who writes in music forums, I tell you: well, no kidding! Common sense is precisely the classic "average citizen": now, while in the Western world in the year 2007 even 5-year-old children know who the Beatles are, the same cannot be said for VV. But then VV was just an example. So, do we want to talk about Captain Beefheart? About Suicide? About Slint? Who knows them? Come on, the difference is like that between a Serie A player and one from the lower leagues (I'm not talking about quality, I'm talking about recognition).

The Beatles need to be contextualized, but: 1) before '66, The Beatles were not particularly abject; they were simply one of many bands playing rock 'n' roll, with the simple luck of having had an outrageous success. 2) As Björk already knows, I would place the Beach Boys in that period, significant in that while they would, for goodness' sake, release some downright embarrassing albums averaging three a year, they were still a few years ahead in melodies, already quite far from the usual classic stylistic tropes of rock 'n' roll with which The Beatles were still filled. It’s no coincidence that at least one masterpiece from that period remains from the Beach Boys: "Don't Worry Baby," which I believe showcases a prototypical and absolutely exceptional vocal harmony. And we're talking about '63.

To me, the field doesn't seem all that different: certainly not from Beggar's Banquet to VV&nico, which share a period and a vibe, albeit obviously with a differing approach (but that is precisely where the difference in creative effort lies); and I certainly cannot consider them on the same level: for me, VV&nico is light years ahead of anything the Rolling Stones have ever aspired to do in their entire career.. thus from my perspective, the fact that the Rolling Stones are regarded as one of the greatest rock creatures of all time and the VV are only recognized by Scaruffi and a few other brainiacs (thus not by common sense) fails to do justice to the VV, as it does to many others. Because the standard of judgment, the approach, at that point is different: the benchmark is the Beatles, not the VV or Captain Beefheart, to evaluate the quality of a form of art (I repeat: for common sense).. but this leads to distorting the very significance of this form of art (i.e., considering it still minor or not even a true form of art) when various albums and artists are nonetheless there to demonstrate that it is a form of art with every right to be so and with nothing to envy from many others.

Well, to claim that they were one of the greatest realities of rock is to overshadow the amazing artists of their time and beyond. But I repeat, I'm not saying they should be completely dismissed. I'm just saying that both they and the Beatles are groups that, despite their merits, certainly did not live up to the many outstanding contemporaries you also mention... I don't criticize the band so much as what has been said about them... it’s what has been said that is a red herring.

beautiful but beautiful beautiful cutie :-D

Well, not to say too much, there are some discreet and interesting things... but they are a group that plays rock 'n' roll while the rest of the world moves on. Where they tried to "expand" (see her majesty), they were simply pathetic; where they succeeded better (exile on main street perhaps?), they were entirely focused on evoking the past (albeit in a rather acid and creative way). They've never gone beyond those two or three truly brilliant pieces, and in any case, the heavy legacy of that "satisfaction" riff has never been surpassed. The Rolling Stones are a destination, not a starting point, of classic rock 'n' roll. Even in '68 they were "old," stale... so considering them one of the greatest entities in rock seems to me like yet another hypocritical form of massification imposed more or less overtly. A decoy, indeed.

Today is the day, what a FANTASTIC name :-) ..too bad it unsettles me too much, I can't approach it.. so essentially what I wanted to say is that just as the greatest classics have been able to read their time with courage, ardor, as usual on the brink of incomprehensibility, so rock has touched the absolute where it has been equally magnificently modern and sharp.. therefore the mistake that has often been made, due to the same universality of approach that has ultimately characterized its novelty and uniqueness (and thus beauty), is to consider rock as a pure set of stylistic elements aimed more or less at dragging (and beware dragging, NOT representing or telling) one or more generations. In reality, such distortions formed by often sordid formalism are an intrinsic admission of mediocrity, as they emphasize how rock can mirror the footprints of cultured music only in form, and not in the ability to read reality, and to express one's feelings and being in this reality through an art form. But rock has TRULY touched the absolute, as classical music has. Only, a great contradiction of its being universal music is the fact that it was born with and for mass media. This has led to a standardized, channelized, and distorted consumption of it. Therefore, what has gone down in history as a "mass phenomenon" has rarely, if ever, coincided with what has been significant. Think about this: the professor who teaches music history at DAMS and reaches Bob Dylan and the Beatles in the syllabus, do you think he has the slightest idea of the existence of an album called "Spiderland"? Has he ever heard of Suicide or Pere Ubu? And if he had an idea, how would he consider rock? Wouldn't it completely change his point of view? A perspective that would throw into the trash tricks for the unwary like the Rolling Stones? Metal, to return to the point, is the systematic extremization of considering rock as a form, rather than as a new approach to expressing a form of art. From this point of view, it is much more "commercial" in the literal sense of the term than it seems. Because it is the offspring of what has passed to the masses as the soul of rock (which in reality has very little of the soul of rock).

Before Fear Factory? Probably Cop Shoot Cop and Today Is The Day… Where metal dared to innovate, it was labeled as "falsehood"... take the early Korn (especially Life Is Peachy, which remains a masterpiece for me) or Roots by Sepultura… In my opinion, the problem is not so much the tendency towards cacophony and relying solely on the impact of the riff, but rather the intrinsically conservative and entirely uncritical approach (by the way, Stoney hinted at this between the lines), which reduces "beauty" to a mere matter of execution. I believe that metal is more a child of progressive than of hard rock (a critic once said that hard rock and metal were far from being consequences of each other, and he wasn't entirely wrong); arrogantly lost in believing it to be the "non plus ultra" for reasons of technical skill and execution. Forgetting, as much progressive did, that the greatest figures in classical music were first and foremost enormous composers, people who profoundly shook or at least experimented with absolutely daring forms of storytelling of their time… When viewed from this angle, it is evident that the absolute in rock has been captured by forms of expression that lie at the opposite ends of both prog and metal, in terms of philosophy and approach (of course, making convenient generalizations, as there are still remarkable metal albums, like the ones mentioned above).