francis

I don’t talk about KNOWLEDGE… knowledge, thanks to the fact my dad listened to the Small Faces. Who among us doesn’t know Sonic Youth? No one, I guess. Everyone knows who Sonic Youth are. And now answer me: how many records do Sonic Youth sell in Italy? And how many people go to see their concerts? When they came to play near my place, there were at most 1,500 people… a bit few for the SY, right? So don’t talk nonsense. The first Pink Floyd album to be noticed by the Italian public was "The Dark Side Of The Moon", before that it was a niche. I’m telling you that many of my parents' friends, former hippies, don’t even know the story of Syd Barrett. They can barely strum "Wish You Were Here" on guitar.

For me, this is a masterpiece. Everyone should listen to it, read the lyrics, and learn to play the songs on the guitar.

It's not a matter of all you need is love... the songs of the Beatles are immortal. But so are most of those by Queen. We're still talking about pop music here. I'm discussing "icons," not music.

Brian Adams has also sold millions of copies. But he sucks.

You're wrong. Damn it, you're wrong, I'm right. What the hell are you saying?! Just so you know, Hendrix and Pink Floyd were UNKNOWN in Italy in the '60s!!! We are the country of Neapolitan songs and Sanremo, don’t forget it. 47 blowjobs in a row? I’d rather give blowjobs to more interesting people...fuck off, okay?

I really like Cannibal Corpse. I'm not kidding...

Kosmo, I don't agree. First of all, it's not true that Queen "invented" glam rock. They were very glam in attitude and "image," but glam is Marc Bolan, and no one else. Not even Bowie, who turned it into a fashion phenomenon and brought it visibility, nor Roxy Music, who were too chameleonic and "dark." The early Queen albums were halfway between the dirty and sharp riffs of Led Zeppelin and The Who, and the primitive heavy sound of Black Sabbath. Of course, there was also the glam component, especially because of Mercury's image, but if we're talking about glam rock, meaning "properly" glam sounds, the top spot absolutely goes to T. Rex... it's strange that you say this because I know that in Switzerland, Queen were much more popular than in Italy. Anyway, I don’t want to argue about what’s more popular or not, but I must clarify that just because I discovered the Beatles first and then Queen, it doesn’t mean the whole world did the same. The Beatles are, as stated, an institution, but being often more refined and "cerebral" than Queen, they did not have the same impact on popular culture, except for a brief period: that is, the one with the bowl-cut hair, screaming girls, and pop songs. For Queen, however, the situation was the opposite: starting with very ambitious goals (not by chance it was called "art rock"), they then became an unstoppable hit-making machine, coinventing a unique and recognizable style, and in some cases, they even surprised their detractors (to put it one way, a single like "Innuendo" is extraordinary, even though it owes something to Led Zeppelin's "Kashmir"). This is to say: Queen didn't invent anything, they are nothing special (aside from Mercury), but iconographically, they lasted 20 years.

She has a beautiful voice, but it doesn't enchant me; you write wonderfully.

Ah ah ah..keep it up because I’m laughing..but can’t you be a little flexible? Do I always have to spell things out for you? It's CLEAR that the Queen were already famous, but with Mercury's death (the first rockstar to die of AIDS) they officially entered the collective imagination, into legend. If you want a compromise, I’m even willing to admit that in some ways the Beatles and Queen square off equally in terms of popularity and the many evergreen hits they’ve created.

It seems to me that "invisible man" and "man who" complement each other... I can't define which one is better between the two albums.