jettojet

Hi Io, as I already mentioned to Vinsex regarding his review of Tribute by Randy Rhoads, I don't really like commenting on reviews because they inevitably express a subjective judgment, and it’s hard to be impartial. I’m very attached to Odissey because it was the album (I bought it on vinyl back in 1988) that introduced me to Yngwie and his music. I think it’s a very good work in terms of songs; you can really feel Turner’s presence, and it’s an album that, for me, represents a bit of the evolution of the Rainbow from Blackmore’s Turner era, but with harder atmospheres. As for the guitar, unfortunately, there are clear gaps; sadly, Malmsteen had a terrible car accident in 1987, from which he miraculously survived, but after which he never played at the levels of Trilogy, Rising Force, or Alcatrazz again. If you notice, the sound of Odissey is very harsh, whereas before it was sweet, almost like a violin. Certainly, here he begins to overdo it, losing a sense of measure, which he doesn’t do in Trilogy; Odissey is certainly not a masterpiece in terms of composition, but when compared to his latest works, it’s still a worthy album. Of course, the great Malmsteen, in my opinion, ends with 1986; today, in fact, aside from an impressive speed technique (which I believe is inferior to 20 years ago), he doesn’t say much to me anymore, and I agree with you on this. Your review is well done, I’d say; perhaps I appreciate the songs a bit more than you do, as I believe most of them are truly beautiful and sung extraordinarily well, but these are just nuances. Otherwise, you’re good— I liked it!

Good job generation x, keep firing nonsense at full blast because you're great, but your mind is very sick, you know? You show signs of delirium, you see ghosts that don't exist. I would be the one that Malmsteen imitates, but wasn't I just playing with the Gipsy Kings??? Oh no, sorry, I was with Steve Vai and Blackmore rehearsing for G3, but give me a break. Creeeeetino

I'm sorry Vinsex, but the obtuseness is only yours. If you go around comparing Zakk Wylde to Randy Rhoads, any person who understands guitar will tell you that there is no comparison; Randy is on another planet, not because he is dead, I'm sorry dear, but you are misinformed. Before he died, Randy Rhoads won a Grammy Award nomination for Best Guitarist of the moment in 1981, and there are television footage that proves it. What do you say, perhaps that means something, don’t you think? So don't talk about what you don't know and don't do reviews without being informed first. Moreover, a certain Eddie Van Halen judged Randy when he was still alive as his greatest heir. And perhaps Eddie Van Halen's opinion holds a bit more weight than yours, if you allow me. I'm sorry but you've made a huge mistake. Now, if you love Zakk Wylde madly, tastes are tastes, good for you. If you think Book of Shadows will be remembered in 20 years as a great guitar icon, I don't want to take that illusion away from you, but the only disaster here is your comparing one of the greatest guitarists in the history of electric music with one of the many on the scene, demonstrating a complete and abyssal musical incompetence. But perhaps it’s not even worth the effort, history is the one to prove you wrong, not me. You can't kill rock & roll!!

Dear Generation X, before calling someone an idiot, I suggest you learn the Italian language at least in its basics, because you wrote a sentence that doesn’t make logical sense or perhaps it does only in your pathologically sick mind... you almost make me feel sorry for you, take care of yourself, I recommend! Creeeetino

To be completely honest, I don't like to comment on reviews, but in this case I will, because we are talking about a guitarist who for many critics is the greatest of all time in the hard rock scene—I'm obviously talking about Mr. Randy Rhoads. Frankly, I don’t see how one can compare Zakk Wylde to Randy Rhoads; for me it’s inconceivable and really extremely sad. It's a bit like comparing Hendrix to just any African American guitarist. It’s not enough to copy a look and have a Gibson Les Paul to be Randy Rhoads. Zakk Wylde doesn’t leave a damn thing behind for posterity; his solos and compositions are modest, and certainly in 24 years no one will remember him, while Randy is and will continue to remain in the Olympus of the six strings. He left behind beautiful compositions, and unfortunately, when he died, he was just at the beginning of his career. Who knows how far he could have gone. One thing, however, is certain: those who take the responsibility of reviewing him should at least try not to profane his memory, out of respect for a great musician who is no longer with us, and then perhaps, have a good musical ear to make (if it really must be done) sensible comparisons, because the one with Zakk Wylde "makes no sense"!

Still with more nonsense about Malmsteen!!! First with Rising Force, then with Marching Out, and now with Odissey!! But I wonder one thing: if you like heavy metal, why don't you go comment on music that aligns with your tastes??? To understand Malmsteen, you need to know and appreciate classical music; do you know a certain Paganini, a certain Vivaldi, a certain Bach? Well, Yngwie has, in my opinion, the extraordinary merit of bringing classical music back to life with an electric instrument. If you listen to Rising Force, the guitar sounds like a violin. Now some people like it and others don't; I adore the early Malmsteen, while I find the latest work tedious, but why continue to deny his historical importance? Kirk Hammett is a guitarist, just like Petrucci or Michael Romeo; they are all good, some more than others, but still just guitarists. Malmsteen, on the other hand, is an artist, or at least he was at the beginning of his career and still is when he plays classical compositions (for example, no one talks about the grand orchestral project he did a few years ago), and like all artists, he has left a mark and set a standard. After all, Romeo is the last in an endless series of guitarists who have tried in vain to emulate him. Remember the "shredding" phenomenon? It started with Impellitteri, Gilbert, Vinnie Moore, Joey Tafolla, Macalpine around 20 years ago; all great, some even brilliant musicians, but they didn't invent anything new under the sun. Today I am no longer a big fan of Malmsteen; I think he expressed the best of himself in the beginning. I’m the first to criticize him for what he has done for many years now, in the current landscape, I admire Steve Vai a lot; I find him exceptional, and in the past, I have an endless admiration for Ritchie Blackmore and Randy Rhoads. They are the true masters of the six strings and not just banal imitators of unreachable originals.

I have already made my comment on "Rising Force," but I can add that "Marching Out" and "Trilogy" complete the huge cycle that began with Alkatrazz. I'm referring to the masterpiece "No Parole from Rock & Roll" from 1983, played alongside the equally charismatic Graham Bonnet, former vocalist of the glorious Rainbow of His Majesty Ritchie Blackmore. The great and immense Malmsteen ends there; after that, he might be liked or not, tastes are tastes and must be respected, but denying the revolution he brought with his Stratocaster in the early '80s is truly a colossal nonsense, and the reason is very simple: how many guitarists have been born trying unsuccessfully to emulate him since the mid-'80s? I'll tell you, an endless tide, and that means that Malmsteen was considered at the time an icon for generations of musicians, a model to follow. Don't come to me saying he simply sped up Blackmore; let's be clear, Ritchie is great and was the first to have the idea of merging rock sounds with classical ones, and I have infinite admiration for him. He is the greatest virtuoso of his generation, and I add that he will be remembered much more than Malmsteen in the history of music. But thinking that "Rising Force," "Marching Out," or "Trilogy" are merely Blackmore's ideas with faster execution is simply laughable. I’ll repeat: if you're used to listening to heavy metal, it might be better to focus on the latest works of the Swede. I recommend "Unleash the Fury" or "War to the End," which contain a lot of great heavy and solid tracks, just to mosh a bit happily together (I volunteer if you want!). But let's try to avoid mixing the sacred with the profane, art with trash, or, metaphorically speaking, the period from 1984-86 with the current one; they are two worlds infinitely and abyssally distant.

I can only say one thing: those who criticize Malmsteen for how he plays and composes in the last 10-15 years have my full agreement; it's sad to see him today parodying himself and especially trying to be a metal musician with his talent. But those who deny the artistic value of "Rising Force," either don't understand anything about classical music and music in general, or are simply biased and making idiotic comments: this is not an album for metalheads, I'll remind you, because there is nothing heavy in Black Star or in Icarus Dream Suite or in Evil Eye; there is simply the expression of a talent that is unreachable in terms of technique and composition. Yes, because, for those who still haven't understood, "Rising Force" is the greatest work of electric instrumental music of all time, present, past, and future. It's an absolute peak, unfortunately also for Yngwie himself, who, after the serious accident in 1987, has never played or composed at those levels again. This is the simple truth...