Zarathustra

Maybe it's because I don't like the genre, but I found this album incredibly pompous and redundant. A pure mess, but maybe that's because I'm not very fond of the genre.

Certainly, being a "one-off" in history doesn't imply that there is artistic value in what one does; I could also be extremely original if I made an album of farts and various flautulence, but it doesn't seem to me that this is the case with the Doors.

Regarding the review, it’s excellent; Poletti shows that he understands music and knows how to write when he wants to. I hate Gaber musically speaking; he has an unbearable voice and attitude.

Saputello makes a point that I find very sensible, namely that the reviews placed on the right (which are often better than the selected ones, but that's a personal opinion) don't get the right visibility. And so, just as Saputello says, it happens that a nice review remains visible for only a few hours. Selecting reviews could be a way to address a problem that, given the sheer volume of reviews coming in, is bound to reemerge anyway. However, this goes against the philosophy of the site. So we are in a conundrum; unfortunately, saputè, you have to come to terms with it—it's the fate of all things that become popular: they tend to fade. With this, I absolutely do not want to disparage this site, which I personally find wonderful and full of people who understand music. However, undoubtedly with the advent of people like Korn and birbabirba, but not just them, the average level has decreased. In fact, I believe a fracture is increasingly forming: the super-intellectual reviews (or those presumed to be such) and the stupid or nonsensical ones; simple reviews are becoming rarer. The moral: there's little to be done; we can only make some changes, as Saputello suggests. The rest depends on the decency of people like birbabirba and Korn (who are certainly not the only fools wandering around this site).

The Doors were a unique band in history just like Pink Floyd: no one has presented music like theirs.

Basically, the review is six lines long. If there's not much to say (I couldn't tell if that's a good thing or a bad thing), why did you even write the review? Who knows.

I might be confused, but I really understood very little from the review... What a bizarre name, though!!

This album is considered by many to be the zenith of their production: in my opinion, however, it loses something compared to their debut and honestly I like it less than L.A. Woman and Roadhouse Blues. But it remains undoubtedly a great album, a 5. The Doors, in their brief adventure, made only one false step: The Soft Parade. As for the review, I wouldn't know, it's not bad but it didn't excite me.

I believe that pixelid are underestimated, and instead, there's a tendency to give excessive prominence to the personality and role of Jim Morrison, as much as Jim Morrison IS rock... Many underestimate the skill of the other musicians, certainly virtuoso on their respective instruments; take Densmore, who is never mentioned in the rankings of the most famous drummers, and yet he is incredibly original and innovative in his drumming. Not to mention Manzarek: let's re-evaluate the Doors as musicians, putting aside the endless speculations about the figure and memory of Jim Morrison.

But why don’t you behave like serious people? The album is a masterpiece, there’s little else to say. In fact, there’s much to say: about Come Together, for example, which is absolutely not a "classic" rock 'n roll piece but rather one of the most genius songs in the history of rock, with that bass line, that drum riff, that guitar solo that are simply legendary. The same goes for Something and Here Comes the Sun; if you’re not able to talk about an album like this, please do not tarnish it with your nonsense. But it’s clear as day that it’s nothing but a pathetic provocation.