Zarathustra

The review is a masterpiece. The album is too. Both are centered around death. But courage, remember that if there’s one thing stronger than death, it’s life, that force that pushes you to get up in the morning despite everything. Maybe lighten up your listening a bit: if there’s a flaw in this album, it’s that it’s darker than almost any other I’ve ever heard.

One of the biggest live performances ever, if not the biggest. I'm referring to the remastered version, with all of Tommy.

Nice review, but I disagree. I mean, it’s true that they can be overrated at times, but it should be acknowledged that they have always been light years ahead of everyone as long as they were around...

It is definitely an album played with great skill, with much more attention to form than to the substance of the pieces.... And at certain points, it's a bit too pompous (in perfect '80s style), but what I was saying is that the album isn't really that bad. On the contrary, it presents some quality insights that, although not comparable to those of great albums, are nonetheless, in my opinion, worthy of respect.

I agree that Pink Floyd is the band that has aged the best, or rather, that they haven't aged at all... The Dark Side Of The Moon is a work of unprecedented perfection.

Moreover, as noted by someone, there are impactful songs like Learning To Fly and Sorrow that cannot be forgotten. For the rest, I also agree with those who appreciate the overall sound quality, in terms of richness and depth of sound and production itself. Pretentious but beautiful, at least for what the music of the 80s was.

Exquisite and balanced review. I completely agree with the reviewer, but I wouldn't feel comfortable giving a low rating to a work by Pink Floyd: not as a matter of principle, but because even in this album, the less successful episode of their glorious discography, there are those guitar riffs and atmospheres that, while certainly very tied to their glorious past, always leave a mark, at least on me. I wouldn’t recommend it for an introduction to the group, but it’s worth it for completing the knowledge of their work.

It may not be the best album to get close to the Who, that’s for sure... But I believe it's undeniable that there are some noteworthy moments in this record, which is unanimously considered one of the least successful in their discography.

Labrie's warm voice? I missed that. The album is a masterpiece, a milestone of the genre and rock as a whole.

Well, I believe that the Who's discography has the highest average quality per album among all the bands I know. Personally, I find this album to be superior to the previous one and it contains some very interesting insights: aside from the tracks mentioned by the reviewer (worthy of being among the masterpieces of the band) and "It's Hard," there are good things scattered everywhere. "One Lifes Enough," for example, is quite interesting, albeit very different from the band's usual style. In short, I think that compared to the historic albums, it's a rather unfortunate episode, and it's the comparison with the other albums that overly penalizes it in my opinion; however, taken out of the context in which it is placed (the discography of the greatest band in history), it's not bad. So essentially, it's a matter of points of comparison: as they say, in the discography of many bands, this album would hold up well (even aside from classics like Athena and Eminence Front). It remains an album for Who enthusiasts: those who want to get to know them, I agree, would do better to listen to the albums with Moon, up to and including Who Are You.