easycure

they look really cool..

hahahahaha :-D ..dear Tom Traubert, I do not deny at all that dozens of critics are more important than me, but I much prefer my personal view (lame or not, I don't know) rather than being a sheep and following these dozens of critics, or even more so the various millions of people, of whom before assessing their importance I would rather know their culture.. my "I don't understand" was obviously purely rhetorical, as it followed my description of what those pieces mean to me.. come on, read it again.. finally, you too are completely inattentive: that this album is a psychedelic one was said by the good nonsoloprog above, for me it’s not psychedelia at all.. putting myself in his shoes, I was trying to make him understand that psychedelia is something entirely different.. just listen ;-)

Dearest nonsoloprog, regarding clichés, you are entangled with what is one of the most predictable clichés in the entire rock narrative, namely that Dark Side of the Moon is one of its greatest masterpieces. So before rambling about various clichés to others, I would take a little self-examination if I were you ;-) .. psychedelia is many things, certainly: but while it seems from your descriptions that for you it reduces to trinkets and various sonic embellishments, from my experience (not vast but probably not negligible either) I have always considered psychedelia an attitude, and/or perhaps the more or less unconscious expression of an enormous ongoing conflict experienced by a generation. None of this is obviously contemplated in this record of soft, dulcet, pale, refined mental wankery.. I do not understand the meaning of Great Gig in the Sky, for example, a pseudo-lyrical, aestheticized and unnecessary digression.. I do not understand the greatness of Us and Them, where a nice atmosphere is ruined by the bad taste of a saxophone that is as pretentious as it is trivial.. I do not understand unnecessary interludes like Any Colours You Like or On the Run, which have only the presumptive provocation of their sterile form as psychedelic, I do not understand the need for the grandiose arrangements that surround the last two tracks, which too easily and too incompletely resolve their paranoid intent, distorting it with unnecessary female choirs and pompous piano digressions.. please, considering this a masterpiece does not do justice to REAL monsters of psychedelia, who have always given a true SENSE to their experiments, a sense that is not the sordid promotion of self-celebration.. I am referring to Barrett, Blossom Toes, Nirvana, Creation, and of course, primarily, the Floyd themselves, who were (I note that I have only included English artists, without looking further).. P.S. you have obviously misunderstood my discourse on sales. I do not make it a measure of quality at all (if anything, you continue to bring it up), rather I am making the opposite argument: namely, that if this record has remained in history as a masterpiece, it is simply because the common sense of millions of people has elected it as such.. there have always been tragic distortions of this kind in rock music :-)

"lfoy suond" I meant Floyd sound :-D

Of course, I strongly quote Jim Morrison. This album 1) is not psychedelia, or at most it's psychedelia for 12-year-olds, as Caz rightly said once 2) is far from being a masterpiece, and sales have nothing to do with it. It’s simply a superficial album, at times mediocre, as meticulously crafted in form as it is inversely dedicated to sugarcoating the pill of the LFOY sound from a compositional point of view. The sales of this record had only one purpose: to create the myth of the masterpiece where it is just the beginning of the Floyd's downward trajectory. I particularly disliked one passage in the review: this is the album that represents the essence of the Floyd... but where, but when.

Beautiful north, but they have always seemed a bit too "frivolous" to me (in a strictly expressive sense) ..Kosmina, the magazine ;-D

Great review. I haven't heard this one and it appeals to me much more than the other two.

Instrument drives me crazy; I wouldn’t judge it as underwhelming at all... after all, let's not forget that it’s a soundtrack. What has always fascinated me a bit less is "in on the killtaker," but this assuming, as I mentioned before, that the average quality of Fugazi is among the highest in the history of rock ;-)

great donju! But I still have my doubts: in the end, are they the usual slow Swedish ball-spinners or do they have some overdrive up their sleeves?

hahaha "it would have been good if they had learned to hold their instruments" :-D what the hell are you saying? What have you been listening to? holy shit what a sadness.. the classic pathetic notion that just because the word Hardcore is mentioned, a band must not know how to play.. it’s obvious you haven’t listened to a damn thing: the bullshit about their terrible sound is irrelevant, the claim that Husker Du didn’t know how to play is just gas coming out of someone's mouth.. and by the way, at least they created a style for themselves, Pantera might be so-called 'virtuosos' (parenthesis: I like Pantera), but they recycle the same hypertrophied blues riffs for 150 songs.. come on, what a load of ridiculous nonsense we have to read.