Larrok

And what a drag! Did I say they're crap? NOOO!! I said they're a great band up until the late '70s. Do I have to say they're the NON PLUS ULTRA? If you prefer, I can say it, but what do you gain from it?

As usual, there’s always someone who misinterprets the words... Did I perhaps compare Queen to Pausini? Answer: NO!!! It would be foolish and stupid to do so. I simply responded to the previous statement, showing that saying they evoke emotions to define them as great means nothing.

I don't understand why, if someone likes a band, they feel the need to convince themselves that it is also important in the evolution of rock... I "Sheer Heart Attack," for example, adore it, and to adore it, I don't need to spout nonsense like it's a milestone in the history of rock. When it comes to music I like, I don't care about artistic importance. Conversely, I don't let my tastes influence me when it comes to making a historical assessment of a work's value. Yes, from your nickname, it’s clear you're passionate about progressive. But which progressive? The one from Soft Machine, Canterbury scene, Krautrock, King Crimson, or the artificial progressive of Emerson Lake & Palmer and similar bands with unnecessary virtuosic displays?

"The Queen only aimed to move their audience"... well, so do Pausini and Ramazzotti, for that matter... emotion is the main reason why anyone listens to music. This has nothing to do with artistic quality. Emotions are conveyed through culture. In the sense that if someone lacks culture, they will be moved by something different compared to another person who knows more masterpieces.

Yes, but it's not like my opinion doesn't matter and you can just piss on it. I try to justify my positions; you justify yours. And when I say that IN MY OPINION the Queen are not among the most important bands in history, but just a great band until '77 (come on, let’s make it '79...), I say it with full awareness because I know them and I know their contemporaries and predecessors. And by making a comparison NOT based on my tastes, but on elements that I consider objective, like influence, originality, innovation, compositional talent, the ability to express oneself with a unique style, and many others, I arrive at a valuation that from my point of view is objective, but it remains just my opinion.

Prog87, I express MY OPINIONS. Who the hell ever said that I expect them to be absolute truths? It's my view of reality, end of story. Am I not allowed to express it just because you disagree??? I’ve also provided arguments. And anyway, I didn’t say they aren’t the greatest band of all time; in my opinion, they’re not even in the category of the greatest bands ever. And despite that, I like them up until '76-'77, funny enough... Do I need to say again that this is my opinion or would you rather I put a header on every message saying “what I’m about to say does not claim objectivity”??!!

@workhorse: in my opinion, his music isn't bothersome, but the fact that all the media only talk about him in the jazz scene just because they want to inflate his image as a genius kid, a shy and spaced-out little Mozart, while there are tremendous artists in the same field who aren't even mentioned in passing.

@prog87: I think you're confusing the aspects of an artist's artistic-historical value with the personal musical tastes that each of us has. For example, I really like Queen up until '76-'77 and I still enjoy listening to them, but I would never dream of saying that their albums, even the best ones, are among the peaks of rock artistically; and especially, I would never compare any of their albums to "The Velvet Underground & Nico"... not because it's an album I like more (even though that's true), but because its greatness lies in the immense influence it has had on subsequent bands. It's an album that changed history because it introduced a new way of conceiving psychedelia and the approach to psychedelic rock in general. Queen, on the other hand, are a phenomenon more tied to the charisma of their leader and the catchiness of their songs. They had enormous success and made 3 great albums (not excellent), but let's not mix them with holy water...

This is "stoner rock" to the max! Perfect for summer evenings, classic in sound but also corrosive and disorienting. One of the best bands in the genre alongside Kyuss, Melvins, Boris, and Fu Manchu. Best enjoyed in the desert at sunset next to a cactus. :D

But does Slash have to play a solo on every album in this world?