Larrok

"Weren't there any high-level rock bands during that period?" Did I understand correctly? Let's make one thing clear: don't think you're an expert just because you've discovered Prog and Krautrock... do you realize that with phrases like "The rock I listen to is of a completely different kind" you demonstrate an unbearable arrogance?

Yes, Pearl Jam play classic-style rock, influenced by Neil Young, a lot of American singer-songwriter music, and The Who, as well as a touch of hard attitude stemming from their experience with Mother Love Bone. So I ask you to give me some examples of "very different rock," obviously contemporary to them, always keeping in mind that I don't consider them the be-all and end-all, quite the opposite...

The Pearl Jam have nothing to do with the Nirvana, just as they have nothing to do with the grunge movement; you just need to have ears to realize it.

Note that a 2 is a full insufficiency...2 stars is like giving 3 or 4 out of ten; 1 star goes from 1 to 2 out of ten...you say there’s a difference between Apicella and the PJ, and since the ratings go from 1 to 5, you can't give less than 1 to Apicella...Therefore, you should give at least 2 to the PJ, otherwise they would be on the same level, and that would contradict what you said...

Winter, but my pluralism of information is not about continuously repeating the same things; on the contrary, it is about providing different interpretative keys... and generally, duplicates rarely offer them, but simply limit themselves to repeating things that have already been said...

You wrote in a review about Radiohead that we can do without everything that comes after 1977... then now you say there are also some things that cannot be overlooked... and by "not negligible" what do you mean? Anyway, I believe that the rating for an album should be given partially based on personal taste and partially based on its objective importance. A 1 is excessively low when, I repeat, compared to albums like those from the Backstreet Boys, Gigi D'Alessio, or Apicella, which rightly deserve (those yes) the absolute minimum (i.e., 1), it makes the superiority of Ten evident within a rating range that can go from the 2 of those like you who legitimately loathe it, to the 3, 4, or 5 of people who appreciate it more or even, in some cases, overrate it... otherwise, justify why they would deserve a rating equal to the various mediocrities I mentioned.

Yes, I got it, but above all he’s fixated on progressive music and has an aversion to everything that came after 1977... I understand his love for prog because it's a great passion of mine, but rejecting the last 30 years of music is at least superficial, given the extreme beauty of the works that have emerged and the infinite talent of artists... I think of Kyuss, Kayo Dot, Alice in Chains, Tool, King's X, Primus, Brian Eno, Porcupine Tree, Spock's Beard, Smashing Pumpkins, Ayreon, Jeff Buckley, Faith No More, Opeth, Mars Volta, Ozric Tentacles, Pain of Salvation...

Mariaelena, I don't want to convince anyone to change their tastes; it just seems to me that that 1 is a bit unfounded and the result of not very careful listening. Then, everyone can think as they wish...

Since they gifted it to me, it has grown little by little with each listen, and for me, it’s currently a 4; the review is good, but it’s the eighth... many albums I would have liked to review have already been covered on this site, so I held back to avoid flooding the homepage with duplicates, but I see there are those who don’t seem to worry about that at all...

Hey Dave, have you heard anything about Timmons?