Saputello

"And well, know-it-all, you didn't even understand that back then appearing was also being" --> sorry, what era are you talking about? The one full of hippies who dressed in rags, who got high, who didn't work, who didn't wash, who lived in communal houses? Maybe you're confusing the live dimension with the studio one. If you think that rock is just an image because Jimi Hendrix dressed flamboyantly with a bandana, or because Jim Morrison would strip, you're missing the point. Live rock is transgression and theatricality. In the studio, it's innovation and experimentation. I don't give a damn how Daltrey dressed when I listen to Tommy or Quadrophenia. Because did you see how the hell Keith Moon moved when he played?
@ Festwca: I'm sorry, I knew you wouldn't like it, but that's what I think.

This is to say that appearance is not fundamental in rock, at least not in the rock that matters.

"Hendrix wouldn't have been the same without the bandana and his stage costumes, don’t you think?" Hahahahahahaha!!! And you know what? Hihihihihihi!!!! Clearly, there are people here who still haven't learned how to truly listen to music. So I invite all the jokers in here who are spouting nonsense about '68 as if they had really lived it to step out of their role as sociologists and listen to "Are You Experienced," released in '66, which brings true innovation, unprecedented electric sounds that influenced a lot of people. It's true that the '80s bands that Festwca cites were fundamental for the subsequent paths, but they pale in comparison to people like Hendrix, like Jim Morrison, like the Jefferson Airplane, like Syd Barrett. People who could have left the bandana at home and gone to the concert in their pajamas, yet would still have made history. People with whom Queen have little to nothing in common. Because they didn't innovate a damn thing.

Listen Sanjuro, look, no one is forcing you to argue about things or groups you don't understand a damn thing about. Did your doctor prescribe it to you?

I recently listened to the latest Pearl Jam album and I must say it’s really a piece of junk, unfortunately for Zilvana. Junk in its most cachiform state. Luckily, I had things like Foxtrot by Genesis or Downward Spiral by Nine Inch Nails on hand to cleanse my ears. So much so that I'm feeling like a million bucks now!!!!

For me, a common flaw in the musical judgments of certain people is "I listened to them at 15, now I don't give a damn about them anymore, when they aren't a great band." Just for the record, I also haven't listened to Nirvana in 4 years, but I continue to recognize their great merits, not based on pleasant memories, but on an objective analysis of their music, music whose only flaw is perhaps not remaining long-lasting in the listener's ears. In fact, I know several people who adored them and now no longer listen to them.

I don't find them old at all. An album like making movies is unmatched, from the drums, to the guitar, to the voice, to the sound. Songs of high craftsmanship and undeniable quality. And I don't sense a single song out of place. A perfect album.

x Lethe: But have you ever seriously listened to Guns N' Roses, without stopping to consider the appearance of a "band of strung-out dockworkers pumped up by the media"?

"Nice review of a band that, like the Guns, I as a true bumpkin have never managed to understand the worldwide success" ------> everyone has their limits.

And if I had been banned, I certainly wouldn't have cried, considering the bullshit you talk while going around saying that "only caz and antmo can speak in music." At least put on a condom, otherwise you're dirtying all the reviews with your shitty seed.