PIXELID

But Mozart doesn't count, they were different times; if he were born today, he would be a billionaire.

I've been fighting against this strange ideology that has mainly formed in recent years, which is: commercial = trash. In many cases, it's true, but there are also plenty of examples of unknown artists who aren't much good but are always praised because they don't sell a record. To me, that doesn't make sense. The funny thing is that they say a band shouldn't be judged by the records it sells (I agree), but they don't realize that they're the first ones to judge based on sales, and Queen is a glaring example: too commercial, therefore banal, therefore trash. (But if sales shouldn't be a parameter for judgment, why do I still hear these arguments?) So, I think there isn't a standard to judge music, especially since no one, in my opinion, is capable of giving definitive and certain judgments, because music experts don't exist; it's too subjective. We can exchange opinions and disagree, and that's precisely the beauty of it. Or am I wrong?

errata corrige: di ceve = said

It's always the same story: there's a certain Freddie who says, "to do real rock, it takes 20 years," and I think it's the same for metal.

Guns have never convinced me, but Axl back in the day wasn't too bad. Anyway, I give it a 3. What does it mean to be an expert in music? Is there music for experts? Are there music experts? No, I don't think so.

Guys, this isn't a matter of revolutions or not, the Queen were something new and never heard before at the time. They didn’t invent anything new, but they took a large part of the musical inventions of the era and mixed them together, doing so very well, and despite this, they managed to create their own distinctive sound. That doesn’t seem like a small feat to me!
To give some examples: hard rock already existed, opera mixed with rock already existed, glam already existed, punk already existed, pop already existed, music videos had already been experimented with... but there was no one mixing it all into one, and the first were Queen. That’s what their "revolution" was. They knew how to draw inspiration from every genre to create a unique, not easily definable genre, but of the highest quality (up to the 80s). After the 80s, they completely changed genre (more pop than rock), and when asked why they had changed style, Freddie replied: "because to make real rock you need 20 years," and maybe he wasn’t entirely wrong.

The Who's concert "Live At Leeds" is fantastic, but not the best in my opinion.

But how can it be the best live or one of the best in history if it's various songs from different live performances? It's not a controversy, I swear, just a curiosity. Otherwise, it's easy to take the best live version from each artist for every song to create a great live album.

I don't like this attack on Walterstarman and I don't share it, just as I don't share his ideas that MJ is the greatest and we are the world is the best song, but that doesn't mean I mock him! In my opinion, it's impossible to say who is the greatest, whether it's a song, a singer, a tennis player, a footballer... in every field. Everyone has their own tastes and everyone can share them or not. For example, I consider Freddie the greatest singer of all time, in his genre, and for me, there is no single most beautiful song; I really wouldn't know, maybe The March of Black Queen. But tomorrow it could be something else.

I don't know why, but I just can't bring myself to like The Doors. I find them technically excellent, but with little creativity. Their lyrics are beautiful and thought-provoking, but also a bit clever. This is my opinion.