Larrok

oititoiti, in my opinion, the most important and beautiful Radiohead albums are definitely The Bends, Kid A, OK Computer, and Amnesiac in that order, while everyone knows that Pablo Honey is still an immature little disc... I don't think Kula Shaker are that fundamental; they seem like just another brit-pop band (and perhaps that's also why you prefer Pablo Honey). To conclude, I express my thoughts on The Who, starting with the premise that they were one of the most important groups of the '60s up until '71, but I’m sorry, they are far from being considered the best in the 15 years you mentioned; in fact, in the '60s, they're getting a beating from the Beatles, Frank Zappa, Hendrix, Pink Floyd, and the Rolling Stones (especially from 1967 to 1971). If we look into the early '70s, we don’t even need to talk: King Crimson, Soft Machine, Genesis, Led Zeppelin, Yes, NEIL YOUNG... just to name a few of the more famous ones. Anyway, "Tommy" is a masterpiece, perhaps the only true one in their career.

Well, aside from Snakepit and Velvet Revolver, which are Slash's bands and a poor imitation of Guns, adding Zakk Wylde with Black Label Society, which is basically the same thing, and eliminating pointless little bands like Sonata Arctica or Stratovarius, there’s not much left on your list that can compare to an album like "Siamese Dream" (just Tool and Slint, by the way, already mentioned by me...). As for Iron Maiden, just listening to the first 4-5 albums is more than enough. But I have a question: at 21 years old, do you only listen to hard rock and power? Man, you’re in pretty bad shape...

@Oititoiti: I completely disagree; in my opinion, among the famous ones, the quality groups are unfortunately rare exceptions, including Smashing, Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam, or Tool... while to find most of the best artists you always have to dig through the less famous or less known to the general public: to stay in the '90s, Slint, Tortoise, Neurosis, Kyuss, The God Machine, Labradford, Godspeed You! Black Emperor, Dinosaur jr., Helmet, Dirty Three, Clutch or, among the more recent ones, Isis, Pelican, Red Sparowes, Explosions in the Sky and the magnificent Kayo Dot.

The votes

Yeah! That's fuckin' Rock'n'Roll!! Great Clutch! This album is definitely making it into my top 5 of the year. Seventies hard rock with riffs a la Sabbath/Zeppelin/Hendrix... what can I say but... oxygen!

Of the same genre, "Pain of Salvation" and "Threshold" aren't bad, although I no longer listen to them with great frequency.

I'm sorry, but I'm kind and dear, but when assholes act superior, I get upset; I can't help it.

Ah, one more thing... the discussion remained under "the aegis of common sense" (to quote the next Nobel Prize winner in physics) until some bastards with no ideas of their own butted in, intervening solely with the intent to sow discord.

This thing about "you give me a civil answer and I'll leave you alone" feels very mafioso-Moggiano to me... If a person is civil (and Lux is), they are always civil, as long as the person they are facing is intellectually honest and, above all, doesn't make nursery school arguments like "you don't like my little disc, then caca-caca-poo!!"

Oh well, if you're studying physics then... the blatant nonsense you've said obviously becomes strokes of genius worthy of a Nobel Prize. But how is it possible that, if it's true you deal with art and literature, you've never come across a negative review or critique? Because that's what this is about: a legitimate critique of an album, well-argued by the way (and I haven't seen any counterarguments of any kind), and absolutely far from being considered an insult towards anyone. So, why can't this enlightened mind accept a simple and responsible critique of an album without having to tell the other person that they grew up in a stable?