DaveJonGilmour

From your review of Nirvana, it seems you still consider them great artists, even though you make fun of Cobain's fans. Moreover, the ones we're talking about were not the Pink Floyd of Dark Side. And Popol Vuh is daily bread for me as well; you're not the only one.

This is what I can't wrap my head around: the fact that these situations are chronologically connected is not indicative of mutual influences. An artist knows how to follow their own path without being swayed by the musical or cultural landscape of their time, indeed seeking to surpass it and to be influenced less and less by it. I repeat, it was only the end of the '60s that somehow influenced the music and expression of Pink Floyd; the rest doesn’t seem to be linked in any way to punk or new-wave elements. On the contrary, I find Animals somewhat close to certain atmospheres of Hawkwind, albeit very distantly, and I see The Wall as a not perfectly polished but still original product, the result of a Waters who could have thought of everything, except for the still weak stirrings of punk and new-wave. It’s a generalization that I do not agree with.

At dawn, come and get this other human case of sanjuro!

And then if you want, go read one of the latest topics in the forum: it’s a comprehensive profile about Barrett and all the innovations he brought, all the movements he preceded, all of his Art understood only in part.

Zarathustra, I partially agree. First of all, he has not been incredibly overrated: incredibly overrated are the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, U2, certainly not Barrett, as nowadays more people ignore him than know him. His masterpieces are The Piper and his solo albums, nothing more, obviously, but they were enough to leave an indelible mark; his contribution to the history of rock is still ongoing. On the rest, I completely agree.

Theirs was a straightforward pop, not like 99% of today's pop stars who believe they are great artists.

Well, not everyone likes classical music, but it would be foolish not to consider Mozart or Beethoven geniuses. The same goes for Brian Eno... I like little of his work, but almost all of his discography is made up of masterpieces. I don’t like Opeth simply because of the singer's voice (when he does that deep voice, which I don’t know the technical term for), but I realize they are among the few truly valid artists today, indeed very valid! I like "Viva" by Pooh from '79, and why is that? It's known they weren't anything exceptional, but they are one of the few bands I like not for their technical or experimental aspect, but simply for their simplicity.

Review the spelling.

Just because this album includes blues tracks doesn't mean it can be labeled as such. The Doors had a unique and original sound for their time. Pieces like "Riders on the Storm," besides being unclassifiable, would alone be enough to make the album a masterpiece. The Doors were the dark side of a freakish Los Angeles, exemplifying musical freshness.

Your tastes are a bit strange; I really love the Doors' albums, and they all have a certain masterpiece quality, even though there are some flaws. Of course, some deserve more credit than others, but you can't go below a 4 on the debaser scale. I've certainly heard some terrible albums from beginning to end: Nirvana, U2, and the latest Stones albums, but definitely not the Doors!