Luca-LJ

And I'm almost sure I know you, maybe just by sight, but I think I know you. And even if we don't know each other, you must have seen me around, maybe at Mente Locale! Anyway, you can buy Fiale's CDs online, but when there's a music event in Palestrina, you can find Fiale selling them in person (I bought the last one at "Nel nome de rock"). In any case, he makes all his instruments with the keyboard, so the sounds are a bit special. I probably know your guitarist as well; you должны знать, что я учился в лицее в Палестрине и играл с многими людьми оттуда, и даже с теми, с кем я не играл, я все же видел их вживую (Nazgul Rising, Nose Bleed Connection, etc.). Yes, feel free to give me your contact; I'm curious to see if I know you (we definitely have mutual acquaintances, for sure!).

Well, Senior86, I'm from Zagarolo! We're close! Who knows, maybe I know you too! If you’re here, it means you’re a music enthusiast, and the number 86 in your nickname suggests that you are only a year younger than me, so it’s not at all unlikely!

Mohammed, I was beaten up by 15 skinheads and I am Italian!

Okay, the Beatles borrowed from all those groups that crowded the English and American underground of those years, so what? They may have been less innovative but their music had higher quality. It was better recorded, better arranged, and had melodic ideas that everyone else lacked. The fact that Scaruffi is bothered that the average person doesn’t know the 13th Floor Elevators is his problem. I could also empathize with that irritation; indeed, listening to Beatles fans claim that their favorite band invented rock music can be tiresome. But we shouldn’t let this influence us; the Beatles made excellent music, and it’s incredible that someone like Scaruffi doesn’t realize it. I don’t know well the rest of the critics because I’ve never read them. I only stumbled upon Scaruffi by chance and then became a regular visitor to his site because it offers a wealth of information on various bands. After all, it’s impossible for a serious music enthusiast not to become aware of the ubiquitous Scaruffi. If the rest of the critics share Scaruffi's views, then I extend what I said about Scaruffi to the other critics: I can’t understand how they listen to and assess music, but at the moment, I don’t feel inclined to agree with their judgments.

"Outdated" works as "surpassed," except it sounds less offensive (and you're right to call me out because I really didn't mean to offend those musicians). Listeners around the world who idolized the Velvet Underground are now, I don't know, how many years old, but for a modern listener, they aren't easily digestible. Of course, there are exceptions, many exceptions! You might say, "Well, if there are many, how can they be exceptions? Aren't they perhaps the rule?"
The fact is that this number of exceptions can be divided into various groups of people who appreciate them for different reasons: perhaps for cultural snobbery (Scaruffi), or because your father listened to them when you were small and you've grown attached, or because you don't know much about the music that came after (a very rare but possible case), or simply because your ear finds physiological pleasure in listening to those particular timbral blends. Fortunately, the world is diverse! So, while there are a great number of people who still listen to them today, it can be said that the prevailing taste today suggests that a group like the Velvet Underground is not easily accessible, not due to a problem with the audience, but because what the Velvet Underground does is indeed prehistoric. I believe Scaruffi is heavily influenced by the importance of a group (importance linked not to commercial success but to the complex of innovations introduced into music). For heaven's sake! It’s a legitimate way of listening to music just like any other! But afterwards, he cannot express judgments on the quality of the work.

In my opinion, critics confuse innovation with quality. The Beatles didn’t invent anything, but they can still be enjoyed today, at least for me. The Velvet Underground were much more revolutionary, but, apart from three or four songs, I just can't bring myself to listen to them. I realize the impact of their music, but they seem outdated to me, they seem stramegasuperati.

Here, it seemed strange to me. I don't even agree with this second meaning of "technically poor," but this is something we can discuss calmly. But when someone says that ELP were worth nothing technically, you understand that it certainly doesn't inspire confidence in their expertise, quite the opposite!
Anyway, Scaruffi still doesn't appeal to me: I’ve gotten a ton of records he recommended, and I found practically all of them disgusting. Maybe it's just me who doesn’t get it, what can I say? It could be...

I have a very low opinion of Scaruffi and everything he says. I won't go into detail because every time I've brought up the topic of Scaruffi, long and inconclusive discussions have arisen that I would prefer to avoid. Nevertheless, his knowledge, understood as a "complex of knowledge," is not in question. But culture does not necessarily imply critical spirit and aesthetic sense. In summary: he knows all the rock musicians on the planet but listens to them "badly." Still, it is indeed difficult to talk about these things and express judgments; however, the technical level of a musician is an objective, scientific matter! So Scaruffi can hide behind the mask of an intellectual to tell us that we like the Beatles because we don't know the Red Crayola, but when he says that ELP are technically weak, he's talking a load of crap as big as a house. At the time, they were definitely ultra-technical! Yes, now Palmer and Lake are outdated, but Emerson is still an authority, a solid point of reference! I would be curious to know which bands, contemporary to ELP, can be considered technical by the know-it-all Scaruffi.

In short, this album has something for everyone!

No, no, but I actually think that Malmsteen is much more important because he coined the style; the others are imitators.