easycure

Given how that piece is constructed, the reference seems obvious to me. As for knowing for sure whether Barrett knew them or not, I can’t say for certain. However, it seems to me that this piece is much less typically Barrettian than others; that’s what I wanted to convey to the know-it-all. Bye!

Yes, but dear omeganex, what I still don't understand is what there is to listen to in this album. Explain it to me: didn't you yourself claim that it's a faithful re-proposition? Didn't you perhaps state that the only difference is that, I quote verbatim, "there's the technical solo"? So what should I be listening to? Why should I waste my time? What I don't understand is your obsession: for such a useless album, I would at least lighten the mood :-D

X know-it-all: Tortoise and Mogwai came at least five years after Slint. And as far as I'm concerned, as I already said, my personal opinion is that there's nothing in post-rock post-Slint that doesn't suffer from excesses of formalism. In the case of Mogwai and European post-rock, let's not forget the huge and cumbersome influence of Shoegaze. Anyway, I understood your point better when you talk about style of guitar rather than intent; I also find it a bit of a fragile influence, but these are just opinions. Certainly, there isn't a single root to a genre; I was emphasizing what I believe are the greatest influences from '60s psychedelia on a genre like post-rock. It's obvious that various influences from later periods accumulate and filter in. By the way, it just occurred to me that if they hadn't been so underrated, Red Crayola could easily surpass everyone else as an influence on post-rock. However, I don't know how much Slint or Tortoise they were aware of, and I don't generally know how much of Red Crayola's influence reached the '90s.

For philological precision, however, the Grateful Dead as such (but from the Warlocks it’s just a name change) were born in October '66 after LSD was declared illegal.

Arnold Layne, you certainly know that the Grateful Dead, before calling themselves that, were named Warlocks. And you surely know that everything the Warlocks released dates back to '65-'66. Moreover, it's fair to know that Warlocks and then Grateful Dead, between '65 and '66, invented the concept of "rave." It’s also reasonable to know that in raves, a theme was taken, they would start improvising on it, and they would continue like that for hours while totally high on LSD. This led to the typical long track as understood in psychedelia, meaning, to clarify and summarize: theme—crazy improvisation, call it what you want—then back to the theme. There’s nothing wrong with the Grateful Dead having come first; overall, and not alone, they were among the inventors of psychedelia. We should thank them instead of questioning them :-)

But !dreamtheater! I have indeed listened to this album! It's a record from way back in '72, I don't know if you remember, by a band called Pink Floyd... hehehehe ;-D what else is there to hear compared to that if this, as you say, is so faithful? Oh right! Maybe, like omeganex says, I missed the technical solo of the moment AHAHAHAH :-D it sounds increasingly ridiculous to me how you can't recognize the complete futility of this operation. If someone proposed to me to faithfully remake a Cure album, I would laugh in their face... but the Dream Theater, on the other hand, know that their legion of fanatics will listen to it too... In fact, they're right, at least they make a hundred bucks in your face and in the face of human stupidity ahahaheheh :-D

Ah, so it's true they wrote it in four. Well, even looking at the subsequent solo work of Barrett, it seems unequivocal that Barrett has always typically leaned towards short songs. Furthermore, Interstellar Overdrive has the typical structure of a long psychedelic track that groups like the Grateful Dead had already abundantly codified on the other side of the ocean. Hence my considerations. It’s also true that the guitar riff is very nice. As for the first question, aside from the fact that "many say so," I would like to know IN WHAT and HOW Barrett would have influenced post-rock... what does "some evolutions of post-rock guitar" mean? What is post-rock guitar? Anyway, personally, I identify post-rock with Slint (not just personally, many say so, just to quote you :-D). Again, I personally believe that aside from Slint, post-rock doesn’t really make much sense (this, however, is purely my view). If post-rock does not disregard Slint, then their guitar, abstract, minimal, and decidedly dissonant, surely has Sonic Youth as its godfathers, although it departs from them with an enormous and unique personality; Sonic Youth, in turn, played abstract, dissonant, and often minimal music. Even the stones know that Sonic Youth are all too tied to a tradition that, whether they like it or not, has as its unequivocal reference the Velvet Underground; that is to say, a group programmatically and clearly in opposition to most of the rest of psychedelia, including Barrett. From here, whether many say so or not, the idea that Barrett has influenced post-rock seems absurd to me.

Now to say that Barrett influenced post-rock seems like an exaggeration to me. And when one exaggerates, justice is not done anyway (not that a know-it-all said it in that sense, obviously). Furthermore, I find post-rock to be at odds with the Barrettian approach; it’s no coincidence that when it comes to Interstellar Overdrive, it seems to me one of the most debatable tracks on the album (although still beautiful). Certainly, it’s the track that comes closest to the "classic," and therefore more naïve, way of understanding psychedelia, and it contrasts quite a bit with the rest of the pieces written by Barrett on the album. But am I mistaken, or is it actually composed by all four?

Hello Happyhippo! I must say I hadn't noticed you were among the "underestimators".. :-) since you seem to be someone who definitely possesses "awareness," I retract what I said (at least in your case) and I will lay out my reasons: you say there are albums from the '60s that are enormously more innovative than this one, like Beefheart; I greatly respect Beefheart, but his work falters in a couple of fundamental areas where Barrett succeeds completely: 1) Beefheart is not communicative at all; he uses avant-garde in a completely unbridled manner, he is extremely expressive, of course, but the visceral quality of his interpretation doesn't overcome the substantial cerebral nature that permeates the whole album. Masterpiece, we agree, but one can make great music with much more simplicity and empathy. For this reason, I would never define "Trout.." as the greatest album of all time. There are works that touch the absolute while sounding much less intellectual. And here, for example, we arrive at Barrett: his greatness lies in having created a language that is both profoundly personal and expressive, even narrative in its very essence, in its absolute simplicity, instinctiveness, and total lack of technical skill. In many aspects, Barrett surpasses Beefheart: for instance, and here we arrive at point 2) everything that appears reasoned in Beefheart (the very "free" notion of accompaniment is ultimately a stylistic choice and therefore clearly "decided" and far from spontaneous) appears absolutely natural in Barrett: you say the Floyd try to play well. I really don't think so, at least in the pieces written by Barrett: Barrett’s intent is to disregard playing well; he conceives music with the same approach he uses to create his paintings: everything is possible because everything exists as pure expression, and he couldn't care less about everything else. For this reason, I find Barrett a much more genuine talent than Beefheart. Because Beefheart still relies on a priori notions, even if always in an expressive sense. But in Barrett, it is the approach, indeed even the method, that is expression itself. And through his tales, he has still been no less effective in eliciting both a feeling and an era. Obviously, I have taken up this comparison because you cited it first, but it is to better clarify where, in my opinion, the greatness of this album lies.

this overrated album?? But what the hell are some people saying... the breath of the mouth guys should be given with awareness ;-) ..the review seems definitely pretentious in its enormous waste of words.. and I didn’t like the first part much either so I didn’t read it.