Zarathustra

Sansjuro, what does Nietzsche have to do with this discussion: you clearly mentioned him out of context. Concerning the discourse on technique, the fact that he built his own guitars (which I don't know to be true, but I'll take it at face value) doesn't mean he had technique at all, because technique is something else. Moreover, I didn't want to absolutize the technical discourse, because that would diminish all the greatest guitarists in history, from Jimi Hendrix to Jimmy Page, from David Gilmour to Keith Richards, and so on: none of them possessed impeccable technique, as most were self-taught, yet they are by no means mediocre; in fact, it seems obvious to me that each of them, in their own way, contributed to the evolution of rock from the primordial forms of Elvis to Symphony X (a great band, end of parenthesis). My discourse was about Barrett's compositional aspect which, I reiterate, outside of the psychedelic current (which, by the way, is not among the more elaborate music-cultural movements..), is ZERO. And as a guitarist, he cannot even be compared to a real guitarist, because he basically strummed the guitar with a very rudimentary technique. In short, he is not even a real musician. That's why I believe he is overrated. Then, of course, within the realm of psychedelic music, he remains a master, but that’s where he is confined. Regarding The Piper, I would like to remind you that it's a Pink Floyd album, even though it was primarily composed by Barrett, and that’s no small matter; just listen to those awful solo albums he made without the support of the Floyd (because the first solo album was made and produced with the help of the other Pink Floyd members, that's why it’s not completely horrible...). I'm sorry, but that's how I feel. As for the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, I think they are often underrated. Richards invented the riff (forgive me if that's a little thing), the Beatles... practically in their music lie the precursors of all the music that would come after.. think about it.

Syd Barrett is incredibly overrated. His creativity completely ran out on the first Floyd album, because outside of the psychedelic context he was nobody, and you can't write songs about cats, gnomes, scarecrows, bicycles, and fluttering bras for your entire life, because at some point you have to grow up, both personally and artistically (and that was a trend, and like all trends it was destined to perish, as it duly happened within a couple of years). Barrett did not have the ability to renew himself, because he was almost a guitarist by chance, without the slightest technique or knowledge of the instrument and its expressive variations. No one denies the extraordinary impact of "The Piper," which is practically his creation (not to forget the musical contribution of the other members, particularly Wright), but that’s where his contribution to the history of rock ends, in my opinion. The arrival of Gilmour, certainly one of the most important and influential (and imitated) guitarists in the history of rock, certainly breathed new life into the band, allowing it to explore territories that with Barrett they would never have been able to probe, due to his guitar, vocal (Gilmour is a whole other story) and compositional inadequacy in areas beyond simple psychedelic music. Naturally, it would be unfair to compare Gilmour and Barrett as guitarists, so I won't do that. In my opinion, Syd Barrett's fame and the excessive importance given to him as an "artist" are mainly tied to his persona and the affection we feel for that poor schizophrenic kid who was a victim of life (before showbiz). So, Barrett = genius of psychedelic music is fine, but let's not go further.

In my opinion, you could (and should) have written a ton about this DVD: for example, the brilliant idea of dividing Echoes into 2 parts and placing them at the beginning and the end of the concert... and then you didn’t place enough emphasis on the idea behind the concert, which is to mix the music of the Floyd, so dreamlike and evocative (especially in those years), with images taken from the Pompeian context, nor did you mention anything about the performance of the pieces, which shows some quite noticeable differences from the studio recordings. In short, a somewhat disappointing review...

Exceptional album, the pinnacle of their discography along with Let It Bleed. Nice review. You forgot to mention the splendid Prodigal Son... Well done, too bad it’s not among the recommendations.

This is an album born out of a serious crisis for the band: Frusciante was a drugged madman, Kiedis was bouncing between clinics, the only one pulling the cart was Flea, in fact many tracks are exclusively his (and there are some truly incredible bass lines). In my opinion, Navarro just didn't fit the band; his style was too "dark" for the fun and upbeat music the Peppers had accustomed us to. In this sense, Frusciante was and is the perfect guitarist. The album, in conclusion, contains some truly remarkable compositional peaks considering the delicate moment the band was in (wonderful Aeroplane, My Friends, and Walkabout), but overall I don't find it very convincing, because the band's characteristic sound seems altered. A review that lacks depth and impact.

I think the reference to Jimmy Page is spot on; it highlights how the two musicians have aged very differently, even though Gilmour himself hadn't really done anything remarkable solo before this album. After all, the musical genres and styles are quite different, and they tend to render Page obsolete. In my opinion, the guitarist from the '70s who has aged the best is Blackmore, and it's no coincidence that he is one of the ones with the most technical preparation (certainly superior to Page and Gilmour, who, along with Keith Richards, remain my reference guitarists). I really love his new project with Blackmore's Night.

I don't really believe that David Gilmour maliciously mixed the ingredients highlighted by Jim Morrison. First of all, I don't think he needs money (otherwise he would have reunited the Floyd, since apparently he is the one who is skeptical about it, rightly so) nor does he need to proselytize: he simply played his music. In fact, the album isn't that different from The Division Bell, even though there are some top-notch similar ambient, blues, and orchestral episodes (A Pocketful of Stones) that make it, in my opinion, a little gem. Whether it’s rehashed material is up for debate; I don’t see direct connections to Floyd's production. Of course, asserting this based on the recurrence of some distinctly Floydian stylistic solutions can be correct, but I want to remind you, as Gilmour himself did during the album's presentation, that David Gilmour was THE guitar and the main voice of Pink Floyd, and he shaped the group’s sound with the clarity and extraordinary class of his Fender, so it’s inevitable that the album sounds distinctly Floydian. Moreover, any consideration regarding the album's substantial lack of originality, in my opinion, falls flat since, from my point of view, you can’t expect a chubby and elderly musician who has had it all in life to reinvent himself at 60.

It's disgusting. I wouldn't even do it with thirty condoms, who knows how much junk has been inside there...

Oh my goodness, what garbage...

Well, maybe we’re starting to exaggerate… This record is great for a band on the verge of retirement, but it doesn’t get more than three from me. The review is pointless (obviously) and really doesn’t add much. Guys, it seems like you’re doing this on purpose, clogging the site with duplicates and giving no visibility to other reviews, since the left side is only for ultra-sophisticated reviews apparently (if you don’t talk about classical music, you’re more or less out of it, and I say this as someone who is lucky enough to get in almost always) considering there are really beautiful reviews over here, but they don’t get seen for more than half a day. It's a shame, really.