Hector A. Ruiz

MBA, Project Manager, Tennis Player, Musician, and Author of "How to Destroy a Country"

Category: Music Page 1 of 2

The spaceship that keeps taxiing

By

On December 28, 2024

In Music

As far back as I can remember, The Beatles have always been my favorite band. Not only that, but I also rate them as the most influential band of all time, and anyone who says otherwise should receive history and music lessons for a full year. They are the greatest band / musical artist of all-time period. Unquestioned. Undoubted. Undeniably.

So what about the Rolling Stones? I mean after all, many fans and pundits point to the Stones as the greatest band of all time after The Beatles. As far back as I can remember, I have never really cared that much about The Rolling Stones. I do not dislike them, I actually enjoy all their songs. However to me, they have always sounded like the band that tried to be better than The Beatles, but never could. To me, if there was a textbook dictionary definition of “second fiddle”, it would be The Rolling Stones. So this past weekend I decided to listen to all their discography, song by song, to try to understand why are they rated so highly in the musical spectrum. I have been listening to them all my life. I listened to them non-stop with a now more mature ear to see if my perception of them changed, and I could appreciate their greatness as others do. In the end, my perception remained unchanged. Given the result, I decided to share my thoughts on why The Rolling Stones are rated so highly, beginning with the premise that far from being the second greatest band of all time, 

The Rolling Stones might in fact be the most overrated band of all time.

#1. Marketing.

I am obviously not a baby-boomer, so I was not around at the time the Stones rose to fame. However as you should probably know, I am an avid reader and an amateur historian who enjoys time traveling to different eras and relating to how events and people influenced life.

As The Beatles took over the musical streamline, several copycats / competitors emerged. Many were frauds, many were talented -but not as talented-, but none could equal John, Paul, George and Ringo. My guess is that there was a definitive push by other records / labels / producers, to incentive some sort of competition and / or rivalry with The Beatles. The band who benefited the most from this push, are The Rolling Stones. Think about it: The Yardbirds, The Monkeys, The Kinks, The Animals… all failed. The Who and The Beach Boys just could not keep up. And then there were The Stones.

#2. Mick Jagger.

I do not know what “it” is, but Mick Jagger has it.

Every single woman I have dated -and almost every single woman I have met- has been attracted to Mick Jagger. I have always found this remarkable. The guy is skinny as fuck. He is not handsome, he is not… anything. What do women see in him beats me.

#2.1. Mick Jagger, the frontman.

Continuing the above analysis, there is something crucial that I recognize of Mick -even if his irresistible manly attributes to women escape me-: Mick created the frontman figure. Before The Stones, a band’s singer was merely, well… exactly that: the signer and no more. The Beatles did not need a frontman, because they were so frigging talented, their music functioned as a vehicle for any audible and visible vein they as artists needed to fuel audiences. However, aside from them, Eric Burdon was just The Animals’ singer, just like Jack Bruce for Cream. Jimi Hendrix was the singer for his band, but his prowess as a guitarist were the main protagonist of his performances.

Mick on the other hand, established the role of a singer who could interact with the audience, and evoke feelings from them beyond those originated from the band’s songs. His dancing, his mannerisms, his expressiveness, would elevate the band, and his particular role within the band. If you think about it, Mick does not even have a great voice. He is an average signer at best, easily surpassed by even Ringo Starr. But by incorporating a persona that magnifies the role of a singer and expands it into what is now known as a frontman, Mick was able to stand out like no one else did.

Now give the frontman a great voice, and now you have a real powerhouse on stage, which is how Robert Plant and Freddie Mercury elevated the role of a band’s frontman. Peter Gabriel also elevated it, albeit in a different way, with complex lyrics and costumes to portray characters from Genesis songs.

#3. Exploiting sensitive topics.

The band releases an album with a cover that looks awfully similar to Sergeant Pepper’s. They also write a song about the devil -which ultimately becomes one of their masterpieces-.

So why does my opinion of The Stones remain the same? Well, in short because they fail to impress me. Other than their biggest hits, most of their songs feel kind repetitive. When I was listening to Exile on main street, I had a hard time distinguishing between the tracks. At one point I thought I had been listening to a fifteen-minute piece, when in fact four songs had gone by. Mother’s little helper has always been my favorite song of them. It’s a great piece with great lyrics, but still, remove the sitar and it’s just a flat song in A-Major repeating the same musical theme for three minutes straight. Compare that to The Beatles, where you have not one, but four distinct and unique voices capable of bringing a plethora of emotions to the listener. In The Stones, you are stuck with Mick since 1963.

Then there is the band itself. If you asked me to name what I consider the second greatest band of all time, I will have to do a lot of research and homework to come up with a single choice. However, when it comes to naming options, they would be: Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple Mark II, Pink Floyd, and Genesis. Deep Purple would have probably been the second greatest, had Mark II survived longer than what it did. Pink Floyd could hold the title, but they are not quite there yet for reasons that deserve a separate entry. Genesis -Gabriel’s era- is another strong candidate, but unfortunately, they are too niche. So let’s talk about Led Zeppelin and how do they compare to the Stones as candidates for second greatest band of all time. For the sake of argument, let’s assume Zeppelin’s catalogue is original -meaning let’s not bring up the plagiarism issue-.

Mick Jagger vs. Robert Plant: this is perhaps the only aspect one could evenly weigh. Still, Plant’s voice is infinitely superior to Jagger’s.

Keith Richards vs. Jimmy Page: Richards is a great guitarist, one of the best of all time. My issue with him is that, other than a few glimpses of creativity here and there, he never truly evolved. Page on the other hand, created memorable riffs, solos, works of art that are studied to this day. Yes, Satisfaction is great, and I am quite sure it was groundbreaking when it came out, but if Satisfaction broke new ground, then How many more times broke a new core; Whole lotta love created a new planet; Immigrant song sent us into outer space; and Stairway to Heaven, well… it’s Stairway to Heaven.

Brian Jones / Other guy vs. John Paul Jones: you know you have a problem when you kind of struggle to remember the band members of what supposedly the second greatest band of all time is. I will keep this one simple. As great as Brian Jones was, he was no John Paul Jones.

Charlie Watts vs. John Bonham: this one is not even fair.

…so broken individually, The Rolling Stones cannot even compare to Led Zeppelin. You can make the case that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, but going back to the original premise, that only holds true for The Beatles. The fact is that Zeppelin is by far a superior combination of individual musicianship.

What is left is then the comparison of their respective peaks: 1963-1972 for The Stones, and 1968-76 for Zeppelin. During this period, The Stones released: Rolling Stones now, Out of our heads, December’s children, Aftermath, Between the buttons, Their satanic majesties request, Beggars banquet, Let it bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main St.

Zeppelin did: I, II, III, IV, Houses of Holy, and Physical Graffiti. Each one of these albums is a masterpiece. There is not a single wasted track. 64 songs, one better than the other. Some conventional, some rock, some blues, some folk, some with mythological references, some with Caribbean influences, some funk, some ballads.

On to specific songs from their catalogues, Satisfaction is a classic, and even as simple as it is, it definitely broke new ground when it came out, especially thanks to Richards’ riff. Sympathy for the devil also deserves this label. That being said, the rest of their catalogue is not on par to either of them. In fact, some of their songs sound like rejects of several Beatles sessions. As much as I like She’s a rainbow, I can’t help to think of it as a song Paul McCartney wrote and then discarded for not making the cut. As thoughtful as Paint it, black is, I can’t stop thinking its signature melody would not have been possible had The Beatles not written Norwegian wood. As beautiful as Angie is, I can’t help but feel that Jagger’s voice does not fit it and it should have been sung by another vocalist. Honky tonk women sounds like something Lennon wrote during a three day hungover, and then threw it in the trash after coming back to his senses. I must reiterate I am not stating they are bad songs and I am not saying I do not like them. I really do like them a lot, but I can also think of many other songs I would consider better from a musical perspective and more influential as an artist’s work. I would happily listen to a double sided album of discarded Lennon-McCartney songs all day, as I am sure there were dozens of great pieces that never made it into their albums, and there is probably a reason why that was the case.

Led Zeppelin on the other hand, wrote arguably one of the greatest songs of all time, and additionally have a wide variety of equally great songs that showcase the bands musical talents both collectively and individually. One can make the case of plagiarism, but still, Page’s mistake was not to give credit to their original authors; his mistake was not to attempt to copy someone else’s style. Even when looking at both band’s respective peaks, I always draw the following conclusion:

  • Between 1963 to 1970, the Stones were always second to the Beatles.
  • Between 1970 to 1976, one could make the case Stones were not the greatest band in the world. There were so many options to choose from: Pink Floyd, Genesis, Yes… there was never a single band that could claim that spot so firmly during that period of time, and if anything, one could make the case that honor belonged to Led Zeppelin.

Overall, both band’s catalogue is very close, but due to their variety and multiplicity of themes, I have to give the advantage to Led Zeppelin. And keep in mind this is only making the comparison of the Stones against other bands. If I bring soloist artists into the mix, things would probably get worse for them. I would rate Michael Jackson as most influential and better than the stones. I would rate Madonna too.

As I close these lines, I think of that comment I overheard from Roger Federer. “How can he be considered the greatest of all time, when thanks to Djokovic and Nadal, he’s not even the greatest of his era.” That is what The Rolling Stones are to me. They are like a spaceship that keeps taxiing waiting to take off, but never does… and never did.

HR

The worst band breakups: Oasis

By

On August 31, 2024

In Music

Today we are resuming my “Worst Band Breakups” series. So far I have covered Supertramp and Styx. Today I will discuss the band that prompted me to start this series: Oasis.

I first heard Oasis back in 1994, and I went to see them at Earl’s Court in 1995, when they were -arguably- at their absolute prime. Even then, the Gallagher brothers were not particularly friendly to each other. At first I thought it was an act, but in time myself (as well as everyone around the world who followed them)m realized that their dislike for each other was genuine. As it happened with Supertramp, the reasons for the rocky relation between the brothers is filled with rumors, unconfirmed stories, and a lot of speculation. The general consensus though takes us through the early years of the band.

Supposedly, Liam and Noel never got along, even as kids. There was a particular famous story about Noel playing guitar as a teenager and Liam pounding a tin drum incoherently just to annoy his older brother. As they grew older, Liam was the one who founded Oasis. Noel was a member of a somewhat unsuccessful band and would rarely interact with his brother, especially when it came to music. Eventually Liam realized that Noel was a way better musician, composer and songwriter than any of the members of his band -including himself-, and ended up inviting Noel to join them. This is how Oasis was formed.

Noel quickly assumed control of the band and started outputting the series of hits we are all familiar with that resulted in their first two albums: Definitely maybe, and What’s the story (Morning glory)?, all by himself. With nothing left to do, Liam -again, younger brother- was left relegated to a secondary position. However he still had quite an important role: lead signer and front man. Still, as time went on, Noel kept on berating on Liam, and Liam had no other option but to sit back and take it, with signing being his only escape route. I am no phycologist, but to me this is a classical younger brother syndrome.

As the years went on, Noel started to sing in a few of the band’s songs, which left Liam even more outcast. Cornered, Liam started behaving like a spoiled little brother: he started showing up late to the studio, or drunk, or late and drunk; he started showing up late to concerts, or drunk, or late and drunk; in addition to drinking, he started venturing into drugs; all of this while presenting himself as the absolute leader and cornerstone of Oasis.

By the early 2000s, the excess life and abuse led Liam’s voice to deteriorate, and by the middle of the decade it rapidly descended into putting him in a position where he was an image without sound during their live shows. When Noel demanded Liam to come clean and provide a reasonable explanation of his failing voice, he responded that he had health issues, which were never disclosed. Noel then would begin to doubt whether if there were any medical issues at all, and suspected that the cause of Liam’s decline was the abusing lifestyle he was living without showing any dedication or commitment to the band. Finally, in 2009 Noel had enough and released the below statement

“It is with some sadness and great relief…I quit Oasis tonight. People will write and say what they like, but I simply could not go on working with Liam a day longer.”

Supposedly they have not spoken to each other since… until now.

With the upcoming tour in the books all over England and Ireland, several
questions are pondered by Oasis’ fans:

  • Why reunite after so long denying any possibility? Are the reasons financial?

and more importantly:

  • Will they be able to survive the tour without breaking up.

Stay tuned and we will see.

HR

Genesis’ best era: Gabriel’s or Collins’?

By

On April 14, 2024

In Music

Today I am going to touch on the eternal debate among all Genesis fans. Which is the best era: Gabriel’s or Collins’?

To answer this question I will use the reasoning to respond to my girlfriend, when a long time ago she asked me an even better question: “Why can’t Genesis do a full group reunion?” The moment she finished her sentence, my answer flowed as if I had been asked why can’t it snow in Aruba. I said to her:

“It’s unviable. A setlist of a Genesis reunion with both Pete and Phil would be weird, odd, and would produce more detractors than satisfied fans.”

“Why?” – she inquired.

“Because it would be like watching two completely different bands.” – I said.

If you are not well educated on Genesis’ history, the short story is that Peter Gabriel started the band. After going through a couple of line up changes, they settled with keyboardist Tony Banks, bassist Mike Rutherford, guitarist Steve Hackett and drummer Phil Collins. This is the line up known as “the Gabriel era”, which features a repertoire exclusively concentrated on progressive rock. Gabriel’s era songs are philosophical, with profound lyrics, sometimes mythological, other times abstract, other times filled with surrealism. The music is complex and the staging of their concerts featured Gabriel using his full powers as a front man by impersonating -in full costume and make-up- a multitude of characters from their even more intellectually complex songs that included:

  • A Victorian era friendship broken by a brutal decapitation, followed by a sexual attack by the decapitated ghost.
  • A mythological tale about Hermaphroditus and a nymph.
  • A couple of lovers who travel through time and end up witnessing the apocalypse.
  • An invasion of giant poisonous plants that aim to eradicate the human race.
  • An new Yorker Puerto Rican who sees people around him trapped in cages.

The remaining members equally shone showcasing their talents on their instruments: Banks playing quasi-symphonic arrangements on the keyboard, Hackett soloing with techniques way ahead of his time, and Rutherford by bringing lively musically independent bass lines. However, special attention must be given to Collins who, unbeknownst to many people, excelled as an absolute superb drummer both in terms of skill and technique. In fact, I rank Collins in my top three best rock drummers of all time -only surpassed by Bonham and Peart-. If you listen to every Gabriel-era, and pay attention to Phil’s marvelous talents, you will end up agreeing with me. Apart from being an amazing drummer, Collins also provided vocals on several songs (and not just as filler background, but as a very harmonious valuable vocalist in contrast to Gabriel’s passionate but -generally speaking- dissonant voice). So one could make a case that Collins was not just a drummer: he was arguably equally ranked as Banks, Hackett and Rutherford in terms of importance after Gabriel, which meant that he was a talented musician that added value to the band. Then one day, when Genesis were at their peak, Gabriel left the band citing personal reasons.

Left without their front / showman, main lyricist and attention grabber, the band scouted a replacement for months, only to realize that one cannot simply replace Peter Gabriel. Given Collins being able to simultaneously sing and play drums, and given that Collins’ voice, while not the same style as Gabriel’s- was actually worth of a front man, the band felt Phil could be the new vocalist and front man, a role that he initially timidly accepted, but as time went on, grew more comfortably in until he fully adapted and embraced it. Fans refer to this period as the “transition era”. During this time, the band noted that Phil’s softer, smoother and more harmonious voice did not go inline as well as Gabriel’s, especially with the band’s catalogue of progressive songs. More importantly, they probably also found themselves without the create output that Peter brought with his lyrics, so they began experimenting with a softer prog that flirted with soft-rock, something that was not the direction the more artistic oriented Hackett signed up for back when he had joined in 1970, so he left the band in pursuit of other ventures.

“And then there were three…” was released in 1978. It was an album with a title that reflected the band’s situation from a musical and personal standpoint. With Gabriel and Hackett out of the way, Rutherford, Banks and Collins shifted the direction of the band to reach a wider audience and achieve more commercial success. This is the beginning of the “Collins era”, which features the popular hits that made the band reach stratospheric heights and filled stadium tours all over the world.

With Banks and Rutherford being on the background -along with regular tour drummer Chester Thompson-, Collins became the face of the group and carrier of the band, especially when he launched a solo career parallel to his ventures with Genesis, which was equally successful as his group gig. So the Gabriel-era fans took offense on Collins’ success and this is where the strain among both group of fans began: blaming Collins for destroying an artistic-oriented band, and turning it into another commercial sell-out pop group. What a lot of people do not know is that while Collins took a lot of the blame, it was the three of them who equally drove the group into that direction. An example is their hit song “Follow you, follow me” commonly entirely attributed to Collins, when in reality it was Rutherford who wrote it. Interestingly enough, neither Gabriel nor Hackett had any strains with the other members. They just kept pursuing their individual projects witnessing both groups of fans fight each other over which era was the best.

Back to the original question of today’s entry, the feasibility of having a reunion and a tour with all five members, while interesting is completely unviable. I am quite sure Gabriel and Hackett probably have a lot of appreciation for “That’s all“, “Invisible touch” and “Mama“. However a setlist that featuring “The return of the Giant Hogweed“, followed by “Follow you, follow me“, “Musical box“, “In too deep“, “Tie lamb lies down on Broadway“, “Tonight, tonight“, ending with “Supper’s ready“, would make a David Lynch film look like Michael Bay’s.

The bottom line is, Gabriel’s era is a more art-oriented, and Collins’ era is more pop-oriented, and while Collins’ era featured live performances from Gabriel’s with Phil as lead singer, there is something… that “it” factor in Gabriel’s persona and voice, that Collins’ simply did not have. They are two completely different approaches, two completely different catalogues, generated by craftsmanship from two different set of talents.

Not only Genesis is an interesting band, they are an interesting case study. Their musical career is the antithesis of The Beatles: an initial period studio-oriented in which their ideology was to be as creative and artistic as possible; and their latter period comprised of sell-out elemental straight-forward pop music.

Whichever era you prefer, is the best for you.

HR

The worst band breakups: Styx

By

On November 15, 2023

In Music

Following my previous entry on Supertramp, today I will explore an almost equally talented band that underwent an almost equally path of separation as Rodger Hodgson and Rick Davies: Styx.

It is not easy to pinpoint Styx’s exact foundation year, so to make a long / multiple lineups early years story short, I will concentrate on the main members. As a teenager -pretty much as most teenager during the 60s-, Dennis DeYoung was heavily influenced by The Beatles. He played accordion, keyboards and had a beautiful natural voice. Probably around 1970, Dennis met James Young (also simply known as JY), who was into the early era of hard rock developed by Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple. The band got the name Styx probably around 1972.

During the early 70s they released their first albums, Styx and Styx II, which contained a mix of songs that combined a bit of progressive rock, a bit of hard rock, and a bit of soft rock. Ironically enough, their first hit was actually a romantic ballad: Lady (which explains why it is so commonly featured in It’s always Sunny in Philadelphia, and is another proof that the show is nothing short of brilliant). Then in 1975 one of their members quit the band, and Tommy Shaw was brought in. Shaw’s musical talents equaled Dennis DeYoung’s, which made him quickly establish himself as a main contributor, which allowed Styx to become a bigger success. However while their talents were equal, their musical interests were not. Still, despite their differences, and thanks in part to JY’s invaluable role as mediator between the now two leaders, the band’s popularity soared boosted by both DeYoung’s and Shaw’s compositions, such as “Come sail away” and “Babe” -by DeYoung-, and “Fooling yourself” and “Renegade” -by Shaw-. As their popularity grew, DeYoung felt more attracted to the mainstream media, while Shaw wanted to maintain an artistic direction geared more towards rock. Then came the 80s, and with it… Kilroy.

Released in 1983, “Kilroy was here” was the band’s most commercial successful band. It was kind of a concept album mainly fueled by DeYoung’s vision, and the best way I could describe it is, as something that sits on the verge of commercial rock, progressive rock, new wave rock, and the 1980s, touching all four edges at the same time. That is what it made the album so successful, and that is why it led to the band’s breakup.

I feel that Shaw ran out of patience, and while he probably enjoyed his time working on Kilroy, it was not simply what he wanted to do musically speaking. With Shaw gone, DeYoung probably felt burned out, and his creative output diminished substantially at a time in which music was starting to change drastically. Bands with a sound like REO Speedwagon, Foreigner, Boston, Styx and Chicago were quickly being phased out by a new era of musicians that set the wheels in motion for the counter-culture era, which I will address another day on a separate entry. Still DeYoung kept on going with JY for the remainder of the 80s and the early 90s reaching decent touring successes, and there were even a couple of reunions that brought Shaw back for a little while. That is when the problems started.

By 1999 DeYoung fell ill and told his band members he would be unable continue touring with them. With financial and legal commitments, Shaw, JY and the other members recruited a touring vocalist and hit the road without DeYoung. As it happened with Supertramp, DeYoung sued the band for going on tour as “Styx” without him. The band countersued, and who knows how their relationship was torn within the legal arguments. Eventually, they settled on allowing Shaw and JY keep the name Styx, and DeYoung being able to use variations of it on his tours, such as “Dennis DeYoung from Styx”.

I will never forget an interview I watched a few years ago, in which Shaw and JY were asked what were the chances of a reunion with DeYoung. Shaw’s face was so sincere and honest, he did not have to even say a word to convey that there was zero possibility of a reunion happening. He went on to explain that both himself and JY approached and tried to reason with DeYoung on multiple occasions, yet the possibility of joyful agreement in which their old relationship could have been restored was never even in sight. They both claimed that DeYoung had become a difficult person, an unlikeable person, and in general someone you just did not want to be even close to.

A few weeks later I came across DeYoung being interviewed on some show I do not recall at this time. I carefully watched his face, I listened to his words, I paid attention to the way he would articulate his sentences, and the way he would convey his answers. I concluded that similarly to Roger Hodgson, DeYoung seemed to be what Shaw and JY had described. I may be wrong though, but who knows. It has been proven that fame, money and popularity can transform people. Interestingly, DeYoung and Hodgson performed together on a show not too long ago. They are both great talents that is for sure.

Stay tuned for my next entry.

HR

The Beatles – Get Back

By

On May 19, 2023

In Music

The highly anticipated documentary with never-before-seen footage of The Beatles recording Let It Be, was finally played on my TV over the weekend. Two conclusions I drew out of it:

  1. Paul is a brilliant music machine.
  2. John was the only person Paul looked up to.

A must watch for music fans.

The worst band breakups: Supertramp

By

On April 21, 2023

In Music

Reunions: may they be defined as the events in which band members who had been separated for many years, decide to come together and rejoin their old band, in order to relive their past success, and maybe even -although not the main priority, and highly unlikely- create new ones.

Rage Against The Machine reunited, and Oasis just recently reunited, which is what prompted me to write today’s entry. But which bands have featured break-ups so intense that the possibility of a reunion is zero percent? I had always thought there were five and I have to be honest and admit that Oasis was one of them, although they were not my number one. However today’s entry will be about the band I had at number five: Supertramp.

Supertramp was it was Roger Hodgson and Rick Davies who were the driving forces behind their success, with both of them being the main songwriters and singers of the majority of their hits from 1970 until 1985 when Hodgson left the band. Although the actual reasons for the breakup have never surfaced, the most popular was that both Roger and Rick wanted to spend more time with their families, and that even their respective wives had a part in the breakup, by complaining to their husbands that the tour life was exhausting and destroying their marriages. Nobody knows if this is the actual truth. In 1993 they briefly reunited for a special presentation that featured them playing “The Logical Song” and “Goodbye Stranger”, but parted ways shortly thereafter.

A number of years went by, and the band -led by Davis- announced a tour. This news was not well received by Hodgson, who at first confronted Davis about Supertramp being on tour without the guy who actually represented everything Supertramp was, and more importantly, playing songs that had been written / sung by Hodgson, which -according to Hodgson- was a violation of a verbal agreement they had made back in the early days of the group, in which they promised not to play each other songs in case either of them left the band. Supposedly Davis tried to reach an agreement with him so he could join them, but nothing was worked out. With financial and legal commitments made, Davies and the band went on tour as “Supertramp”, which enraged Hodgson.

Several legal battles ensued; long story short is that any chance of saving Davis’ and Hodgson’s relationship went to the Grand Canyon. The latest is that they are not even in speaking terms. At some point during the 2010s, Hodgson stopped paying royalties to some of the other band members, which led them to sue both Hodgson and Davis: Hodgson won the suit in court, and Davis settled out of court. Additionally, Hodgson has been known as being notoriously outspoken against having any of his Supertramp songs or live performances posted or shared online. That is the reason why for a long period of time, it was almost impossible to find any live performances of the original Supertramp lineup on YouTube, and instead the results would show Hodgson’s solo tour performances.

Stay tuned for the next entry: Styx.

Three Great Concerts

By

On August 27, 2022

In Music

What an amazing couple of months!

Alanis Morissette, Rage Against the Machine and Red Hot Chili Peppers, performed at the PNC Center, MSG and the MetLife Stadium to the very best of their abilities.

Each one in their own style gave an exceptional performance, worth the anticipation.

Will The Cure tour in America soon?

HR

Chicago: The Terry Kath Experience

By

On May 30, 2021

In Music

A few days ago, I came across this interesting documentary about Terry Kath, which is hosted by his daughter.

Terry may be one of the most -if not the most- underrated guitarrist in the history of music. He drew praise from almost every one of his contemporaries and he gained the respect of hundreds of thousands of fans.

It’s a very personal documentary, which provides a little insight on Terry as a human being and the driving force he was behind the band Chicago. It’s currently free on YouTube, so feel free to catch it anytime.

A huge loss that left us too soon.

HR

Led Zeppelin vs. Deep Purple vs. Uriah Heep

By

On November 21, 2020

In Music

A few days ago I was browsing the youtube comments of Deep Purple’s Japan’s live performance of Child in time. One of the people who posted claimed that “Deep Purple was/could have been better than Led Zeppelin, had they stayed together as Zep did.” This got my attention.

Speculating in sports is a bit easier because you can see the career’s projection of the person, therefore you can safely assume (to a certain degree) that similar results may keep happening in similar future contexts. IE: Monica Seles would have kept dominating the tennis cirquit throughout the 90s had she not been stabbed, because she had been doing so for the past three years and nobody had an answer against her game. In music though, it’s a bit different.

Regardless of either Deep Purple had kept its original line up (Giliam, Blackmore, Lord, Paice), Led Zeppelin was a great band, arguably second to The Beatles, or at least worth enough to be mentioned in the conversation of candidate bands for second place after The Beatles. Zep’s only “average” album is their last one, which is not that bad and it’s just that it’s not on par of its predecessors. I also know that Zep may have plagiarized a few songs and recorded them as their own without giving proper credit, but still it’s not like it was 80% of their songs.

As much as I love Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin’s songs cover a wider range with a variety of themes, than those of Deep Purple. I can listen to DP all day long and I know that it’s hard to believe they are the same band that play “Smoke in the water”, “When a blind man cries” and “Lazy”. Overall I think Zep was able to perform and demonstrate their talents on a more consistent basis than Deep Purple, and this is why I have to rate LZ over DP. The same logic applies to Uriah Heep: as much as I love “July Morning” (I can listen to this song in loop all day), “Rain” and “Gypsy”, UH also fell short to showing what they could have been.

HR

Beethoven

By

On July 18, 2020

In Music

I’ve been pracising Beethoven’s Appassionata Sonata over the past weeks and the one thought that pops in my mind every time I play it is: “This piece is perfect. Is Beethoven the greatest composer of all time?”

This a very difficult topic to address, not only because there are other candidates to claim the title, but also because you would have to set up a very long and detailed set of parameters to judge each candidate in the discussion. For me, Beethoven’s merit comes from several reasons. Take for instance his Fifth Symphony: the entire first movement -which lasts about seven minutes-,
is built entirely over just four notes, three of them are repeated. How did he get away with that? Essentially, it’s just one note repeated three times followed by a second note played on sustain, over and over again, and for some reason, the sublimity of its sound transcends everything we know. Needless to say seven of his nine symphonies are masterpieces, with the ninth being the epitome of his genius.

Then you have his chamber music, which is completely on a different direction from his orchestral work. And then of course you have his 32 Piano Sonatas, eight of which are memorable pieces of work: The moonlight, patetique, appassionata, les adieux, tempest, pastoral, waldstein, hammerklavier and the #32.

How can you argue against that?

HR

Page 1 of 2

Next →

Categories

Archives

Meta

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén