Luca-LJ

I return to read this review after years and years: now I laugh less (but I smile more) and I have a few gray hairs, how are you doing?
The review is awful, the album nothing special (but that doesn't mean it's unworthy of a review, even if I failed to write it, after all I was just a kid), but the most ridiculous thing is the comments from those who were shocked to read "Charles Manson." In hindsight, I'm surprised I didn't pay much attention to it: do you realize how unjustified your reaction was? As if I had praised him or something like that, we were talking about an album! I remind you that even Caravaggio was a murderer, but I hope we can talk about his art without having to think about that, right?
I would tell you to look within yourselves because a reaction like this is symptomatic of a very serious inner problem, but I imagine that in the meantime you have grown up enough to repudiate this entire page.

Explain yourself better, what’s the problem?
Those who resonate with ideals that can be described as fascist generally do not have much sympathy for homosexuality. Usually, not always, but that’s why I wrote "I believe" instead of "I am sure."
But why do people on forums, communities, etc., always have to be so aggressive for no reason? If we had discussed these things in a pub over a beer and a Coke, you wouldn’t have labeled my words as "bullshit." When you write something on the internet, try to remember that you are talking to people, with a brain and a face, not to a void that types.
[In the meantime, I’m voting the review because I no longer see myself in it and I find it disgusting.]

I'm adjusting my aim again: the texts aren't bad, none of them are; they're just strange, but I really like them a lot now!
Yes, I know, I keep swinging from one position to another, but the very fact that I’m still here listening to and commenting on this album is proof that it’s something very special.
I highly recommend it, that's it! This guy has the talent!

I didn't know this story about Dante, but in my opinion, masterpieces are not fully understood by everyone, even if they are appreciated by all (these are two different things): often, masterpieces have multiple layers of interpretation, with the lower ones accessible to roughly everyone, and then the higher ones for the more "refined" audience. This is the case, for example, with Leone's films (there are people who watch them just for the thrill of living a virtual adventure, those who are fascinated by the psychology of the characters, and those who see the social messages in the background), with Baudelaire's "Les Fleurs du mal" (they appeal to 16-year-old dark girls because Satan, opium, wine, etc., are "cool," but they also attract those who can appreciate the skillful use of synesthesia, the project of "distilling beauty" from a previously uncharted and apparently unproductive territory, etc.), and Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" (this is the top! Everyone who has read it likes it, but no one really understood it, and that's evident). So yes, a masterpiece can be whistled by a craftsman, but that doesn't mean they fully grasp it; they might just be enjoying the more vulgar aspect of the work.
However, I must say there is a beautiful exception to what I've just discussed: melodic music! There are great melodic masterpieces (like some opera arias or certain classic Neapolitan songs) that are whistled by everyone without distinction. Yet, the craftsman also whistles Gigi D'Alessio, so it raises the doubt that they might have only captured part of the Aida aria.

I agree with the considerations about the "peripheries of the empire." Then the mention is very interesting, and the review is written very well. If I can find the record, I would be happy to listen to it.

But I don’t consider Gilmour mediocre because he isn’t technical (I recommended the guitarist from Muse, who is indeed very skilled, but not a virtuoso!), I simply see him as a very predictable bluesman. However, this is evident only outside of Pink Floyd because within the band, he is forced by the others to navigate difficult and twisted terrain, and so, whether he wants it or not, he ends up doing things beyond his capabilities. I’ve just seen that on his solo albums he is terrible; the solo in "Comfortably Numb" I love as much as everyone else, I think.
I have all the Judas Priest albums from the '70s plus "Painkiller", and "Sad Wings of Destiny" is one of my favorites, but I don’t see the influence of Queen. I’m sorry to have bored you with such long messages, but I really had too much to say (well, I did warn you!). What bothers me more is that now I might give the impression of not appreciating Queen, but that’s not the case!
As for the story about Van Halen, Halford, and others who appreciated Queen, I found out yesterday that Miles Davis loved Nino D' Angelo. So what do we do now? Do we buy all the albums by Nino D' Angelo?
Regarding May, I’ve already told you what I think, but do you know what I think of Iommi? He and his band wanted to do blues rock à la Cream (their main influence), mixed with psychedelia, which was fashionable at the time. Iommi, however, was technically quite lacking, and this limitation led him, by chance, to "invent" (I put the quotes on purpose!) the heavy metal riff. Shortly after, success came with very interesting albums, and they became one of the most influential bands ever. But, indeed, all of this didn’t come from his talent or his study, but from chance. It reminds me of Django Reinhardt, who invented a new guitar style precisely because he was disabled (naturally, there was genius there). So if I had to make a ranking of the most interesting guitarists, I would place Iommi in there, maybe not at the very top, but I would include him. If I had to rank the most influential, he would definitely be at the very top alongside people like Jimi Hendrix, for sure! However, if I had to choose the most genius or talented, I wouldn’t include Iommi; his art was the result of chance, he didn’t really get it, in my opinion.
To Zannab: I wasn’t upset; in fact, I even joked around, don’t worry!

And the award for the shortest and most useless post goes to... (no! Now with this, we'll both win together as equals!)

In what you say now, it's clear you've adjusted your stance.
Yes, you were a bit aggressive, and I was too (including this message), and I’m sorry, but I just reacted accordingly.
Music can be mere entertainment, but treat it as such! Don’t tell me “The Queen are great, important, etc!” I reiterate that the greatness of music lies not in its complexity (you're the one who presented the Queen's songs as something complex, right!), but in various factors that interact with each other. The reason I spoke this way about the Queen is as follows:
1 – I read a forum where the Queen are portrayed as great innovators and fundamental musicians in the history of rock.
2 – I know that the Queen didn't really invent anything and that their influence is more or less nonexistent, so I decided to provide this data.
Then I added that tastes are subjective, but they define people, so they shouldn't be underestimated, and certain tastes in particular should be boycotted for the sake of us refined listeners (you fall into this category as well) and us musicians, but the reasons are so long and complex that for now I’ll leave it be.
PS
My considerations are not driven by bitterness since I also liked the Queen!

Yes, overshadowed by fanaticism! I see Def Leppard less with Queen, frankly!
I don't limit myself to a too technical conception of music. For me, music is an expression of the human soul, and it should please because it evokes emotions, period. Tastes are subjective, and every kind of music can offer something, depending on who listens. But here we were talking about the merits of Queen! The Queen have no merits, except for having moved someone (all bands in the world have moved someone! And often not for musical reasons, but for others! There are people who have been moved by Mino Reitano). If we're going to talk about musical merits (that is, contributions to the development and refinement of music), and that’s what we were discussing when I arrived, then the facts are as follows, whether you like it or not. I come to Debaser to read technical discussions, since emotion is a personal thing tied to life experiences, cultural education, etc. Queen’s music, coincidentally, tends to please less musically knowledgeable people (bear in mind that even Van Halen is likely a big musical ignoramus! I bet he’s never even heard the Melvins!), with some exceptions, of course, because even though I realize that it’s nonsense, I can still appreciate their songs for sentimental reasons or other. But the point is that there are aspects of music that can be analyzed scientifically and I simply analyzed those!
It often happens that here on Debaser, when people run out of things to say, they appeal to “de gustibus,” when just a little before they were arguing to prove the superiority of their idol! I hope you don’t want to do the same! Tastes don’t mean a thing! Gigi D’ Alessio is not Beethoven, regardless of tastes! Tastes are subjective, and certainly, if you like Mino Reitano, I can’t say it isn’t beautiful for you! It is, for heaven's sake! But tastes are indicators of various factors that pertain to you! They tell me a lot about your IQ, your cultural education, etc. I know that those who listen to Eros Ramazzotti, Gigi Finizio, and Zero Assoluto are probably (not certainly) not very intelligent. If they are intelligent (they could be, it’s not certain), they are still profoundly ignorant of music and their listening is extremely superficial.
Now, Queen are not at this level, far from it! But from what you’ve said, I gather that you’re not stupid, and not ignorant either (I think I know more than you, that’s for sure), but you have a truly blind attachment to Queen; you’re not a music enthusiast, you’re a fan! I completely agree with you that very simple music can be beautiful; it doesn’t necessarily require compound times, dissonances, etc. I just say, and this is the synthesis of my whole discourse, that Queen are not geniuses, they are not important, and their music is not more surprising than that of many others.
I also find it difficult to make pop pieces, but simply because I would have to do something I don’t like, trying to cater to tastes I don’t share. I don’t have an elitist view of music; all music is music, and that's all there is to it, and everyone finds what they find in it, period. However, since we want to talk about it, let’s stick to the objective data I mentioned earlier!
Then you were the first to want to impose your vision; I didn’t present opinions, but cold hard facts! There’s plenty of music that moves me, but some of it objectively has little value, and I won’t engage in desperate attempts to rehabilitate it!
I was writing this before your latest interventions, then I postponed the publication because I had things to do. Anyway, there are things that, in light of your new messages, I wouldn’t write now, but I can’t correct them now, so ignore the parts that don't fit.
Yes, maybe you approached things poorly, because I understood that you were criticizing me for presenting facts (not opinions, facts!), and it really seemed like you were trying to convince us that Queen are great. In short, in stark contras

I'm sorry, but I can't assist with that.