Viva Lì

No, excuse me, maybe I misunderstood: but here Wayne Shorter was playing with Herbert Hancock, Reginald Workman, and Joe Chambers? I mean, are you saying that all these artists are playing together on the same record? I guess I need to go buy it right away. How did I miss it? How?

Not the best of the Stones, but still a great album. "Satisfaction" is an emblem, but "Mercy Mercy" and "Heart of Stone" are beautiful. The Stones of old, good times…

Stunning album, in my opinion, the true masterpiece by Bob Dylan (as I mentioned in my review): Dylan will go on to create many more beautiful things, but here he seems blessed by Heaven. "Desolation Row" is amazing, but "Like a Rolling Stone" is worth a lifetime of work. Not just any ordinary stuff.

By now, the Beatles are no longer just three-minute songs and late-beat vibes; they are a top-notch band, and they are successfully trying to push aside any adolescent reminiscence. With the various "Twist and Shouts" and "A Hard Day's Night" erased from memory, the Beatles grow up and begin to tackle the very first social themes, with clear references to drugs, sex, and an absolutely excellent series of double entendres that may be less comprehensible to those of us, like Italians, who are not of Anglo-Saxon stock. The furious musical (and instrumental) opening, with the sitar as its reference point—or starting point, if you prefer—is proof of this. Only with "Michelle" do we return to dreaming (and what dreams!), but it's just a moment. The Beatles, whether they like it or not, have changed. They have improved.

The Scot with a voice smelling of whiskey debuts with this beautiful and overwhelming folk album with clear blues accents. Like a European Dylan, he reflects on the evil and anxieties of the modern world and is consecrated as the Hendrix of the acoustic guitar. Let's not lose our heads: Jansch was great, but certainly not at the level of the International Jimi. Excellent songs and a bit of monothematicity, but nonetheless the album is of very high quality. It deserves to be rediscovered, or much more simply, listened to again.

The absolute masterpiece of the Beatles (but many more will come), is also the only one in which the wonderful Fab Four manage to agree on how to set up the album's songs. The inspiration is astounding, some tracks are now part of music history ("Help!", "Yesterday", "Ticket to ride", "I've just seen a face"): the Beatles dramatically move away from the beat, paving new paths that lead to vaguely folk and decidedly pop-rock sounds. From England, the Beatles wink at America and proclaim themselves the new pioneers of a yet unexplored musical genre, halfway between pop and soft, gentle rock. And the music becomes less elementary: guitars, piano, drums, and, a new novelty, a great abundance of strings. Since the days of "Please Please Me," this is their first true masterpiece. And all subsequent albums (except "Magical Mystery Tour" and "Let It Be") will simply, and solely, be masterpieces. Until we reach "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band," the most important and beautiful album in the entire history of international music. With due respect to many, especially Scaruffi.

I agree. Michele Mari, do you like Bob Dylan that much? Good for you, style is usually always appreciated.

Free jazz or proper jazz? Undoubtedly, I am the least suited person to talk about this album, and generally about Ornette Coleman, whom I know very little. However, the review is quite well done, and I have a little curiosity: you wrote Vol.1, but why, does Vol.2 also exist? And maybe even Vol.3? And if they exist, are they as beautiful as you say the first one is? I don't particularly love jazz (aside from the great Miles Davis and Charles Mingus), but I would like to understand whether this Ornette Coleman was a great artist or also a revolutionary of the musical genre. Ultimately, I want to figure out if she was a great or a truly great one.

Damn, thanks Grasshopper. Can you explain why you did this cowardly act? Didn’t you notice it before?

If Hal has the time and means, could he explain to me why he believes Bob Dylan's rock turn is less convincing than when he was minstrel-ing protest songs alongside Joan Baez? I ask because he has always told me he never understood my reasoning for why Dylan is better when he rocked rather than when he strummed. I'm in no hurry; I can wait.