zaireeka

Don’t take it personally, it’s just that sometimes I feel a bit isolated in certain (not all) of my musical tastes (but on debaser I've found quite a bit of company..). Hi PS. Sooner or later try to listen to the Flaming Lips, but be prepared for the worst, starting with the voice and their nonsense. To begin with, if I can give you a piece of advice, listen to Pompeii from the latest. A Pink Floyd enthusiast might recognize something. But don’t say they plagiarize, or else we’re off to a bad start. They’re just quoting ;)

Here, you see Dave, if you write something like "you don't know how disrespectful it can be for a passionate connoisseur of good music like me to see so many praises for insignificant bands while ignoring cornerstone groups like Soft Machine or Kansas (which someone even dared to criticize!)" you confirm all my thoughts. You read too many encyclopedias of "good music." Simply put, who decided that certain things are insignificant? You or some encyclopedia like Treccani? And then, why can't they be criticized? I have the impression that you flee like the plague from music that is "out of tune" and outside of official circuits (don’t worry, I know plenty, even friends) and on this we just don’t agree. For me, the fundamental thing is imagination, regardless of where it comes from, whether it’s well-known or not, included in encyclopedias or not.

Dave, you misunderstood me. What I mean to say is that, IN MY OPINION, you are too "didactic" (and you write little about what the album says to YOU, perhaps not so much in this one but in others, like the one about Kansas on the right) just as I, in my stuff (especially the latest ones), am too "impressionistic" and say little about the context of the album within the music scene. Maybe if we wrote something together it would turn out to be (almost) perfect.

No, I'm a computer scientist. Anyway, thanks for pointing that out, I wasn't aware. From now on, I'll only use sexual metaphors...

Anyway, I know Pavlov's Dogs; I have both of them. The most particular thing is the singer's voice. The first one is very beautiful (with progressive arrangements based on violin, mellotron, and flute over songs that are quite pop, all in all), and the second one is good too, but it feels a bit too much like a "musical." I think their most beautiful and evocative piece (even though it's a pretty normal song) is Julia, from the first album. Certainly, the spleen of their music, in my opinion, anticipated certain things in the last years of British pop, like Starsailor, etc.

Dave, too much encyclopedia!!! How many people do you think are interested (apart from you, obviously) that "the release of the self-titled album in 1974 is characterized by the production of Don Kirshner, who had previously discovered the Monkees." Listen to me, keep it concise and you'll probably often find yourself on the left (I don't mean politically, that's not my concern…).

OK, thanks for the clarification on PD. Bye

A very beautiful review, the music described attracts and repels me at the same time.

Vote

Dave is very good, but I get the impression (I’m sure I’m wrong) that if someone asks him a question that's not in the rock encyclopedia, he doesn’t know how to answer. There are things I’ve read elsewhere that have convinced me of this.