Larrok

p.s.: not to mention the fact that many of the great artists in question wouldn't have cared at all about fame; in fact, it probably would have ruined them, preventing them from creating many of the masterpieces they later developed in total poverty and neglect.

With all due respect, but what the hell are you talking about? The Velvet Underground, in terms of notoriety, are in the "A league" for sure; in fact, they're competing for the Champions League. If we want to tell ourselves stories... As for Suicide or Slint, which you mentioned, I completely agree, they're not famous at all, but the VU are! Do you know how many fanatics of Lou Reed and the VU there are in the world? You can't convince yourself that they are a niche phenomenon, not by any means. Moreover, I want to point out that, even though the Beatles or the Stones are well-known by name, the number of people who have actually listened to their records thoroughly and have a proper understanding of their work isn't that high. But then again, I don't understand why you find it so unfair to have a difference in how people generally regard them... what would be better than if everyone knew about Slint, Tortoise, and Popol Vuh instead of the Beatles and U2? Great artists would remain great, and mediocre ones would stay mediocre. And come on, let’s be honest, you wouldn't have any fun mocking the ignorant people like you always do, right? ;-D

Yes, the Beatles' albums before Rubber Soul may be trivial and superficial, but damn, we need to frame them in a particular context. What was good from 1962 to 1964? Rock practically didn't exist...aside from Jazz, R&B, and Soul, beyond a few singer-songwriter records by Dylan and Baez, there was absolute emptiness...in the realm of "rock," but in a very broad sense, there was only the wave of the British Invasion, with the various Animals, Kinks, and Stones. It's only from '66 that everything changed...for everyone.

I'm sorry Lux, but Easy mentioned Scaruffi and a few other brainiacs, not just simple music enthusiasts... he referred to a narrow circle of people (really far from reality). So what does it mean that those almost 5000 users are all "brainiacs"? And anyway, that's just a small example; on any website or magazine, that album is considered great, there's not a single review that speaks ill of it (rightly so). Then realize that there are millions of people in the world who not only have never heard of the VU, but also of the Beatles or the Rolling Stones, and many others who don't even know what rock is... I hope I'm making myself clear? Don't come talking to me about plumbers and garbage collectors, as most will barely know Adriano Celentano... it's obvious we're talking about people who listen to rock.

What!? Do you really think that the VU are considered among the greatest only by a select few brainiacs (including you and Scaruffi)? I don't know, maybe it was a joke, and I didn’t get it... try taking a look at rateyourmusic.com, for example, and you’ll see that the first VU album is one of the highest rated overall with 4627 votes, it has an extremely high average ---> 4.45 out of 5 and it’s considered not just by music expert brainiacs but by thousands of everyday users who have indiscriminately logged onto the site as the seventh album in history not only of rock but also jazz and classical... seventh out of at least 50,000-60,000 albums. And that was just one of the thousands of sites where this album is worshipped far and wide. So where’s the common sense?

The best Aerosmith are in "Toys in the Attic" and "Rocks," the rest is quite inferior. This album can at most aspire to a 3, nothing more. One last thing: I don't think it's fair to compare Get a Grip to Steel Wheels (Stones almost fifty); let's rather compare the albums released both 20 years after each band's debut, so Get a Grip ('93) vs. Tattoo You ('81) or between the albums released 10 years after the debut: Rock in a Hard Place ('82) vs. Exile on Main Street ('72)...

I can't understand why stating, for example, that "Exile on Main Street" or "Beggars Banquet" are great albums should somehow diminish "Rock Bottom," "Third," "Velvet Underground & Nico," "Atom Earth Mother," or "Spiderland," all immense records, but in completely different realms... works that are equally, if not more important, but for other reasons, perhaps more noble reasons in terms of the development of rock, I have no doubt, but not such that their mere presence in history should downplay the significance of other works like some of the Stones'.

Of course, we agree that in terms of originality, the Stones have had little importance, mostly rehashing familiar blends of blues, country, and rock 'n' roll. However, their strength has never been innovation, but rather their attitude and, consequently, the expressiveness on their instruments that stems from their carefree way of being (see "Exile," mostly recorded in one go to let the atmosphere of semi-casualness shine through...). That the media have inflated and mythologized them more than necessary is something we agree on, but I believe the RS have been the band that most influenced the way subsequent generations performed on stage (Jagger and Richards especially), without forgetting the importance of Watts' drumming or the legendary albums from 1968 to 1972 (shall we mention "no expectations," "sister morphine," "soul survivor," etc...); in short, I can agree on downscaling them, but to define them as a group that is solely inflated for the sake of mass appeal seems exaggerated or, at any rate, too skewed toward justifying your personal tastes. For me, asserting that they were one of the greatest rock realities doesn't seem like blasphemy, without taking anything away from the extraordinary artists of their time and beyond.

Absolutely agree on everything, "Spiderland" is fantastic, but can I ask you about that sentence about the Stones? Decoys to throw in the trash?

The drummer in my band is a fan of Pearl Jam... should I consider myself lucky? :-D