Voto:
So, Sylvian, if you want my humble opinion on the artists you mentioned, here it is: The Beatles deserve the rare credit of having an upward discography, that is, the credit of having improved with each album (excluding the last, Let It Be), reaching their peak with Abbey Road, and it's hard to find artists with a similar trajectory. All the greats have had their downturns (Pink Floyd, Genesis, Jethro Tull, Rolling Stones, Yes, Doors, Faust, Tangerine Dream, Grateful Dead, to name just a few); they, however, had an extra gear. There are many things I like about them beyond this: their ability to create memorable albums despite not being the greatest musicians (technically speaking), the poetry and artistic approach of Lennon, the joy present in some of their songs, the depth of the lyrics, even when they are simple ("Life is very short and there's no time for fussing and fighting my friend"), the approach to the meaning of a recording studio, something highly valued by Pink Floyd, which is unjustly criticized by supposed connoisseurs who merely say, "They could have done much more with the resources available." History has favored the Beatles (and us) in this regard. Overall, I see optimism in them that can only do me good. Jimi Hendrix was one of the few myths in history; he arrived and astonished everyone with his guitar-playing style, his wonderful adaptability to rock, blues, and soul (why not!), his rebellious yet sweet demeanor, but also with his stories, his candor, and then that certain acidity that captivates me. I repeat, a myth. Bob Dylan is first and foremost a boy, then a poet, and finally a musician/folk singer/songwriter as he is often defined. He changed the course of rock history with "Like a Rolling Stone," enchanting us with his lyrics and melodies in the '60s, then he had ups and downs, at times he was repetitive, but it's almost impossible not to be with all the albums he has made. In his discography, there are some flaws and some masterpieces that secure his place in history, not more than a few others, but certainly ahead of them. For the Rolling Stones, there's no specific album I particularly like; I enjoy various songs from the '60s most of all. They were incredibly important for innovating the "riff" and for the first iconic rock star embodiment (Jagger) in history. Unfortunately, more than others, they immediately declined into mediocrity, banality, and repetitiveness, and in the name of profit, they published truly garbage albums; they would have done well to retire 30 years ago, but perhaps they weren't rich enough. David Bowie is another key figure in rock; he concretely brought the concept of "theatricality" into it, with a distinctly "scenic" approach. For personal taste reasons, I don't like him (like glam in general), but he deserves admiration without a doubt. I like the psychedelic aspect of "Velvet Underground," Nico's voice, Cale's culture, but I don't revere them too much because to me, what is "dark" feels too deviant/distorted, and the influences they've had on subsequent music (especially punk) don't touch my sensibility at all. It remains a fact that their first two albums felt new, unique (or almost, because personally I see quite a few elements that link back to the 13th Floor Elevators). Anyway, they have made history too, more than anyone else, so they deserve my praises as well. In my opinion, Reed is too deviant, and I repeat that this is not meant to be an absolute judgment but a subjective one, and regardless of what you think, I have never liked him much. Frank Zappa, like Robert Wyatt, Syd Barrett, Robert Fripp, and Brian Eno, represents the pinnacle of music in the late twentieth century, but compared to the others, he has the merit of spanning all imaginable fields and/or of merging them with immense perfection and refinement. He had too many ideas and communicated them far too well. Peace to him. Bruce Springsteen has made lyrics his strong suit, but his music has never
