Larrok

Do you see that you limit yourself to the '70s? It's not possible to fossilize yourself on just one decade, no matter how rich it is in great performers.

What’s the point of determining who is the best? Is there a trophy at stake? There are many greats, each with their own unique qualities...including Chamberlin in the '90s era.

Yes, but it's not like every drummer who isn't Bruford is crap... let's broaden our horizons a bit, shall we? I can bring up Maureen Tucker, who couldn't even hold a pair of drumsticks but was superior to thousands of her contemporaries when it came to expressiveness.

Lord, first listen to Siamese Dream and then judge the SP, also because it is superior to the rest of their discography... don't rely on the chart-topping singles from the following years...

Duane, rinse your mouth out before calling Corgan a loser.

There are no words, just a discounted vote.

vote

Great album, the only one by the SP deserving of 5 stars because it's the most complete and fresh. Compositions of excellent quality, one of the cornerstone albums of the '90s (obviously, in its own context) whether you like it or not... if it was also a commercial phenomenon, that's another story; here we have good music, Corgan inspired like he hasn't been in a long time. Jimmy Chamberlin is a hell of a drummer, despite what the foolish detractors say.

Sure, the world is full of idiots...

Well, if we're having a discussion about the history of music from the late 20th century, then it's inevitable that the most famous artists had a greater impact on civil society due to their visibility (Bob Dylan, Beatles, etc.) and are therefore remembered in history books; however, it's another thing to say that the Beatles and the Rolling Stones have been the MOST important and influential rock entities without rivals, certain nonsense can only be heard in trash shows like those of Mollica or crap from MTV, which, anyway, have never (or at least I hope) claimed to be the gospel, except for an audience of clueless kids. But then, even if it were true that common sense considers the aforementioned musically superior to the rest, who ultimately decides what counts as an authoritative book on the history of rock and what instead is merely a middle school book that includes "Yesterday" and "Blowing in the Wind" among the cornerstones of the 20th century? The enthusiasts or, at least, the rock listeners! And so we return to the previous discussion: what's the point of fretting if you know that it's only the ignorant, the masses (musically speaking) who consider the Beatles and a few other hyper-celebrated artists as the only unapproachable sacred monsters of history? I don't care; all I need to know is that there are authoritative figures in the world like the good Scaruffi and many others like you and me who understand how things really are.