George Starostin's Reviews



Become a Certified Commentator today by following this link!

!!Before adding new comments, please check the GUIDELINES. Don't say I didn't warn you!!


Darren Finizio <> (13.08.2003)

i love your reviews of love!...finally someone realises how overatted the original groups output was compared to the brilliant and sinfully underrated post forevor changes lp...what the heck more could you expect?...four sail, out here and false start are,simply,arthur lee at his very best!

Pedro Andino <> (18.08.2003)

love is a great band! the heroes of the 60's! i do know why i love these guys because they are so underrated! git' up you lazy internet bums!

Francis Mansell <> (01.08.2004)

I don't wanna come on like they're my favourite band or something, cos they're not - nor even remotely the greatest band of their time and place (mid/late 60s, California). But to say, "essentially all that Love did was rip off others' ideas" is fairly inaccurate, to say the least.

I had the pleasure of seeing Arthur Lee live a couple of times last year, with a more than adequate backing band, and what it brought home to me (apart from how good his voice still was) is what an original melodist he was. Not the most versatile songwriter of all time, but at his best he had a melodic gift that was all his own, and a pretty original lyrical voice too. So whose tunes were they ripping off, George?   No one I've ever heard. [I very obviously wasn't talking about the actual melodies, but okay, if examples are necessary, 'Signed D.C.' is a good one - G.S.].

Even when they're doing something like 'Revelation' - who'd put a 20 minute jam on a rock record before? [The Rolling Stones. So it was 12 rather than 20, but we're not talking in Guinness record terms here, are we? - G.S.] OK, you're right, it is dreadful, tedious rubbish, and I dare say he copped the idea from one of the many bands at the time who were getting into long jams - and in many cases were a lot better at it. But no one else had done it on record at that point. And I guess you could say that quite a lot of their first album is fairly generic LA folk rock -  but they were one of the pioneers of the genre, after the Byrds, and far better than most. Love still have a fanatical cult 35+ years later because, when they weren't trying to be like their peers [which was, what, once out of twenty? - G.S.], they sounded like no one else.


Pedro Andino <> (18.08.2003)

the song 'mushroom clouds' may remind you of some bad drugs in your mind! i saw a french film and the girl is anna karina. man! she's so beautiful with her lips and her body and she will drive you to the brink of lustful sweaty dirty dripping sex! anyhow anna karina is so lovely!


David Goodwin <> (14.06.2001)

You mention in your Da Capo review that all of the songs on side one are Arthur's...that isn't true, as 'Orange Skies' is a Bryan song (I know that some copies fo the disc neglect to mention that, irritatingly enough).

Philip P. Obbard <> (19.06.2001)

In your review of DA CAPO, you write: "it's funny to notice how the menacing riff that drives forward 'Stephanie Knows Who' is actually similar to Pink Floyd's 'Astronomy Domine' - coincidence, most certainly..." Great observation - I never noticed this before. It might NOT be coincidence - maybe Arthur had that in mind. After all, Syd Barrett was apparently trying to teach Pink Floyd the riff to Love's cover of "My Little Red Book" (in 1966) and wound-up coming up with the main riff for "Interstellar Overdrive" instead. Maybe Arthur wanted to give him a nod in return?

LarryHaak <> (28.08.2002)

Great side,too bad side 2 is such a waste(at least most of it).Still cant get 'Orange Skies' outa my head ,great melody and feel.You can almost imagine what Calif. & the music scene was like at the time.

Pedro Andino <> (18.08.2003)

at least those asshole critics can use dental floss and cocaine for all i care! revalation is a great 19 minute jam. love cannot be denied!

Leo Slick <> (27.12.2003) has been long-rumored that the Rolling Stones were inspired to write and record "Goin' Home" for their Aftermath album after seeing Love perform this in early 1966...

[Special author note: I'd like something more substantial than "long-rumored" to believe that fact... the Stones had been doing lengthy improvised blues jams as early as their club days, and the decision to record 'Goin' Home' was natural for them - chronologically, they win this one (not to mention artistically).]

Riley L Racer <> (06.08.2006)

The Love song that took up an entire album side, 'Revelations', easily pre-dated the Rolling Stones 'Coming Home' cut. 'Revelations' owes more to the Them song (Van Morrison) 'Gloria' than it does to Coming Home. Revelations evolved from Gloria which they used to perform an extended live version of (around 1965 or 1966). It is fact that the Stones, or at least Mick Jagger, saw Love perform in Hollywood in the Sixties. You might also like to know that the Arthur Lee song She Comes in Colors was also released prior to the Stones song She's a Rainbow. Arthur Lee and Jimi Hendrix were personal friends. Love did Hey Joe, live and on record, long before Hendrix. What psychedelic black rock artists do you know of that preceeded Arthur Lee. It has been said that the best poets are the best thieves. There's probably not an artist or musician living or dead that has not borrowed or stolen from another artist. Do your homework before you accuse someone of ripping someone off.


David Goodwin <> (03.05.2001) hit the nail right on the head, as far as I'm concerned. When I first heard Forever Changes as part of the Love Story set a few years back, I was truly puzzled by it. It just sounds so *calculated* knows exactly what it's doing, and it hits all of the bases. For that reason, it's very hard to listen to the album without being overly critical of it, because it's obviously being so critical of itself (if that makes any sense).

The odd production has always added to that issue, for me. At least two tracks feature the usual group of LA session musicians instead of/in addition to the band itself (Daily Planet and Andmoreagain), and you're right...this does lend to an air of nigh-anonymity. The band is, indeed, relegated to almost the same status that the rest of the Beach Boys so enjoy on Pet Sounds; anonymous backing band, if they're there at all.

The big problem, if one wants to get overly analytical, is Arthur's sincerity, or lack thereof...lemme explain: If you ever manage to track down their first album, you'll be *shocked* by what you find; it's almost completely derivative, some flashes of brilliance (My Little Red Book) notwithstanding. They sound exactly like the Byrds, way too many of the tracks start off the exact same way, and "Can't Explain" steals its lyrics from "What a Shame" (the Rolling Stones covered this on Now!/No. 2). Indeed, Arthur seems to be playing it by the formula. The same problem exists on Forever Changes, and if THOSE liner notes had been out at that point, I would have found the "heartbeat" line in 'Andmoreagain' to be almost a direct cop of the similar line in 'Don't Talk'. But I get ahead of myself.

If you want to hear Love at their most original, pick up the first side of Da Capo (not terribly hard to do; it's availible in stereo on Comes in Colors, and in mono on Love Story...each way, you forego the unnecessary Revelations jam). They occasionally sound unsure of themselves, but you can also BELIEVE in the music; Love makes it their own.

Mark Koenigsberg <MKoenigsberg@DCMDE.DCMA.MIL> (13.08.2001)

Sorry to disagree, but this is one piece of music I never travel without. You know it is one thing to listen to an album 10 years later and review it, and a totally different thing to listen to an album the day it came out. Could you imagine hearing Sgt Peppers or Jimi Hendrix Experience the moment it hit the streets. Well I have and you can't duplicate the experience. This is one of the sweetest, smoothest albums ever and yes it would be in my top 5. It was so very very different from the hard rocking first Love album. I believe Arthur Lee is still in jail.

Nick Vesey <> (29.11.2002)

I'd never say that Love were one of the more original or groundbreaking groups of the 60's, or that Forever Changes is one of the more original or groundbreaking albums of the 60's, but I would never say that it's derivitive of The Beach Boys, The Moody Blues or The Beatles. Okay, maybe a little bit of the Pet Sounds, but for me at least, the songs on there convey a much different feeling and emotional impact than the ones on Forever Changes. Not to mention, FC is based in folk-rock and is strongly different lyrically, as well as incorporating some Spanish influences into their music, which none of those other bands had done yet. As for the Beatles, yeah, alot of the songs are Beatles-esque, but I find the results to be delightful! The only song that sounds truly Beatle-inspired to me is the spinning, upbeat but jaded romp of 'The Daily Planet'. I mean, surely the Fabs were a strong influence on Love, but Sgt. Pepper and Magical Mysterey Tour were just built on such different foundations than FC. And of course, I might as well say that I don't prefer FC to either of those two: I'll agree that both Pepper and MMT are among the best music pressed onto vinyl. And as for DOFP, well, I'm not sure of the exact dates but the farthest apart they could have been released, the absolute maximum, was 61 days. And for Arthur to have heard a copy of an album from across the lake, and then to hire an orchestra and build his songs completely around them, and then to release it in less than 61 days (probably alot less) just seems too unlikely for me. I mean, alot of bands had been using orchestration at the time, and maybe Arthur was influenced by someone else... it's just hard for me to believe it was the Moodies. Which isn't to say that I completely disagree! I sure don't... like I said, the Love guys would often just copy off of other's ideas, and FC is soaked in influence. And yes, I also agree it's getting to be overrated, and I'd say the same about Odessey & Oracle (even though I like this one alot, too!), but both of those are "lost masterpieces" to me, because whether or not they're overrated now, they were lost in their time. Or maybe not, because at least they ended up being "found". Oh well.. whatever.

Jules <> (04.03.2003)

FIRST: Your site does what so little music writing does: it challenges many preconceptions. Your writing style is highly individual with occasionally mindbending turns of phrase. I was reading for several hours before I checked out the 'about you' section and learned that you are Russian. Maybe this is partly why your perspectives often run at odds with the often terminally boring U.S/U.K monopoly on received music wisdom,

SECOND: I often say it, because I might die listening to its unsurpassable saturnine beauty, and so I'll say it again for your benefit: Love's Forever Changes is a greater artistic triumph than Sgt. Pepper's, great though that record remains, and I heard Pepper's when it came out in in the sixties. I didn't hear Love's masterpiece until 1976,and I have never fully recovered. In 76 there was no 'revival buzz' about the lp. Some sixties afficionado played it to me at one of those arcane English 'public schools' along with a brace of haunting Doors lps - life-altering moments/halcyon days etc.

Richard Nightingale <> (05.03.2003)

Y'know I think it's YOU that needs a lesson in 60'S rock music.

You rant and rave in your review that this album pinches ideas from other people.OK just one question: what do you think The Beatles spent their entire career doing?? I can't listen to Rubber Soul without thinking what you think about Forever Changes. The Beatles and Love were musical vacuum cleaners, sucking up whatever was around them at the time. Right, now i'm really gonna piss you off: Forever Changes is a far better album than Sgt. Pepper. Every track on Forever changes is brilliant (Yes every single one!).Half of Sgt Pepper is terrible(How can you give this 15?)Mccartney's tunes are far too twee and Lennon's songs are very laboured with the exception of 'Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds' and 'Day In The Life'. Forever Changes is one of the most beautiful and well crafted albums I have ever heard.Okay it's not 100% original but find me an album that is.

[Special author note: I'm refraining from a Sgt Pepper retort because every time somebody puts it down based on arguments like 'McCartney's tunes are far too twee' I understand there ain't that much to discuss; however, if I'm true in believing that this comment stems from a slight misunderstanding of the original message, let me specify - Forever Changes is less original than Rubber Soul because it is not an amalgamation of influences (i.e. borrowing others' ideas and weaving them together in a new, creative way), it is a direct transposition; its pretentiousness is seriously grating when you consider the lack of any true musical breakthroughs (at the very least Beatles records practically never, with a few little exceptions, suffered from that); and I'm sick of everybody hailing this album's "uniqueness" when it has none). That said, it is still a very good album which I believe I have directly expressed both in the rating and the review.]

Richard Lewis <> (15.05.2003)

I went to Manchester and bought this album. It was a rainy day as usual in Manchester. I got home I was saturated. I put this album on and I was really unimpressed by it. It didn't hit me as anything special so I left it. Then, a couple of weeks later, the sun came out. I sat in the garden and put this on. The genius hit me. I sudenly started to get it. Now I am mesmerised by it. The way he throws all the sixties idealism out of the window then in the next song invites it back into his heart. Arthur Lee is a genius!

Pedro Andino <> (18.08.2003)

a lovely psychedelic album! when i think about the cover i just dreamed that i got long hair and flowers! avoiding the war and making out with 2 chicks! i will dive in colorful pool with swirling colors! the 60's rule!

Adam Smith <> (13.12.2003)

"Truly and verily, hearing Forever Changes before everything else and out of chronological context would certainly lead somebody to assuming the record's "uniqueness" and placing it into any kind of personal Top Tens."

Are you suggesting that this is the case with all those who place it on their top ten lists? I can tell you, for my own part, it was not, and for anyone else who I've ever encountered who values the record, it is not. If anything, Love are EXACTLY the sort of band you discover when you've already ingested the works of the upper tiers of more famous 60s rock acts. The situation you posit, where people ignorant to the seminal 60s works picks up a copy of FC and is bowled over by the (incredibly few, IMO) sonic resemblances it has to other 60s works is not very convincing. Most Love fans tend to be 60s enthusiasts of some kind in the first place. One other big other area where there are a lot of Love enthusiasts is in the circle of indie pop (I've been to indie sock hops where Love are the ONLY sixties act played) but then, you've got to ask yourself why the kids are frugging to Love alone in preference to the Pretty Things or the United States of America? perhaps there are indeed many unique qualities there which you just can't find in the band's contemporaries? In your review you say FC is only as dated as Bach, but one element that has aided it's endurance (and helped the profusion of cliches such as "Timeless" in reference to it)is it's lack of sonic elements such as mellotrons and othe psyche cliches which woudl date it. On that subject of indie pop, If you ever get around to reviewing Belle and Sebastian I hope you will appreciate the completely blatant Love musical references that abound throughout their work: songs like "Dog on Wheels" and "Dear Catastrophy Waitress" are certainly blatant homages to Love, and could not be mistaken for any other band.

the Beach Boys (Pet Sounds is like a blueprint for half of these songs),

Doubtful. Lee denies it (was quite offended by the idea, has little knowledge of the Beach Boys): Pet Sounds was hardly considered a seminal work at the time and a pretentious LA hipster like Lee probably wouldn't be caught dead listening to those square Beach boys. Not that Pet Sounds and FC sound anything like each other anyway. "PS" is heavily harmonised in the classic Beach boys style, is primarily piano/brass based and features lyrics about nascent relationships and growing up. FC has little or no harmonies, is guitar/string/brass-based (and we're talking a very different type of brass, more Herb Alpert than the BBs hollywoodish approach) and has abstract lyrics ruminating on the nature of mortality. not too much in common at all.

the Moody Blues (don't tell me these guys hadn't studied Days Of Future Passed throughout!),

Yes, I'm afraid I can will emphatically and with complete assurance of my total accuracy state that Love never studied Days of Future past throughout!!! Because it's historically impossible! Days of Future past wasn''t released in the USA until April 1968. Even in the UK, it didn't come out until November 1967, the same month that "FC" surfaced. So it is impossible!

Pink Floyd (in certain of the more 'trippy' passages),

Again, this is historically impossible, I tell you! The American version of Piper titled "Pink Floyd" wasn't issued in the US till November 1967! Import copies were near nonexistant! It is, however, a recorded fact that the influence ran the other way, with the "Intersteller Overdrive" riff being derived from "My little Red book" (check any Barrett biog!) The thing is, you're looking at this "Orignality" issue from the modern perspective, here we have the benefit of seeing where everyone ended up. You're seeing Pink Floyd and the Moodies as the seminal, influential greats they've been ensconced in the apntheon of rock as; but in 1967, Pink Floyd hopelessly obscure in the US, while The Moodies were an outdated one-hit British invasion wonder last seen crankingout R'n'B covers. Pet Sounds wasn't so widely considered a seminal work as it would be (despite contemporary fans like Paul McCartney, it was hardly de riguer listening for hipsters at the time like it is now). There is absolutely NO REASON to believe that Arthur Lee and Co would have any interest in listening to them: (not that he physically could've to half of them anyway, as they didn't exist yet!) If such a quantity can be roughly measured, Love were as original as most of their contemporaires,and certainly as original as, say, the Doors ever were. Influences went all ways at the time_ Love certainly took a lot from their forbears (the first album alone proves this!!!) but to historically canonise some bands as these original visionaries and others as lumpen followers is wrong, I feel with "FC", Love did create an individual sound that has a unique effect on a significant number of people that they could not achieve with a Moodies record!

I can fully understand the reasons for which Love are so revered for this album in their homeland, yet almost entirely neglected in Europe: in Europe, there's simply no need for an album like Forever Changes, whereas the American public certainly needs its own Sgt Pepper of 1967 - and this is the most obvious choice.

Well, this simply isn't true, it really isn't. Forever Changes went to number 24 on release in Britain, in a climate where every Doors and Jefferson Airplane album up to that point had failed to chart. Meawhile, a comparable homegrown classic album of the stature of the Zombies Odessy and Oracle bombed utterly in the UK. Not to mention the bizzare fact that Arthur Lee was honoured by the British parliament in 2002: a bizzare and completely unpresecented recognition. Y'know, it's not the sort of thing they'd do for yer average visiting writer of a psychedelic masterwork. It really si testament to how unique and powerful the record manifests inself to a signiifcant number of people! Your idea that FC has been belatedly hoisted up as the Ameican lost classic is just so factually incorrect I have to speak out: not only has it always been recognised as a classic LP in all time top 100s since nearly the day of it's release, it's also been promoted more by the British than anyone else! In fact, the day I bought the album, I was looking at it in a cafe queue and this old 50 year old guy comes up to me unprompted, and starts going on about how it was one of his favourite records of all time, since he bought it in 1968! I must say, I came to the album as sceptical as anyone else who's heard so much about this "great lost classic": but I found it one of the very few records that I truly got everythign that was promised from, and more. But don't go on spilling rubbish about how Forever Changes is one of the greatest albums of all time. If there ever was something like an objective approach to albums, such a statement would be blasphemous to the core.

I'm really not saying you should like this album any more than you do. I've not saying everyone should have to homour it. But you must recognise that it has a truly unique effect on a sigificant number of people. (as pompous as that sounds! Ha! we're not a religious cult!) To this significant number, it simply is one of the greatest albums of all time. And if your projected "Objective aproach" is based on originality, then I believe there would be factually no reason to question this.

George Starostin (13.12.2003)

Dear Adam,

First of all, let us refrain from nitpicking. I am well aware that with a bit of energy and dedication every single review on this site can be skilfully ripped to shreds - and since I am one and those who comment are many, I wouldn't have the sheer defensive force to rebutt everything anyway. So, by the way, can be almost any other review, at least, any review that tries to make a strong statement, and so can any other comment. If I were to nitpick over what you sent me, I would have to say, for instance, that Piper actually came out in the States in late October (according to the Saucerful Of Secrets biography), at the same time when Floyd were touring the States, including performances at the Fillmore West; that two of their singles came out even earlier and it cannot be excluded that Love actually heard them; and that the reverse influence - of Love on Floyd - is actually limited to a distorted perception of the riff to 'My Little Red Book' by Floyd manager Peter Jenner who tried, without much success, to hum it to Syd. The two songs don't really have much in common.

But never mind. I actually was referring not to your factual corrections, but to some of your assessments of my opinions. As for facts, well, the fact is, okay, suppose I will accept that Love weren't influenced by the Moodies (you've convinced me), nor were they influenced by Floyd (somewhat less convincing, but possible) or the Beach Boys (doubtful, to my mind, but this is subjective). Does it, in any way, change the general conclusion? Nope. This does not, in any way, change the fact that Forever Changes came out in late '67 and did not set any trends but rather followed them. Even without these bands, it is still a mishmash of Beatles, Hendrix, Byrds', Jefferson Airplane and others' influences. There's also a figure I forgot to mention earlier: Donovan. Substitute the Moody Blues with Donovan and there you have it. Surely Arthur Lee must have heard some Donovan by late '67?

Speaking of the actual influence of Love and Forever Changes on the indie scene, well, I am not going to deny it, but "influence" and "originality" are two different things. Not that I am willing to doubt any of your statements, mind you, but both the beginning and the end of your comment read something like: 'If Love aren't so unique, why are people obsessed with them in the first place?' Well, let us not forget that sometimes it is all based on a special kind of social conjuncture at the moment. The reason that there are indie sock hops where Love is the only Sixties' band played is obvious: (a) Love happen to be a good pop band (there's certainly no denying that) and (b) Love happen to be an obscure Sixties pop band - it is a natural anti-Beatles-type-of-reaction where people have to create their own kind of elitist idol to replace the "popular" idol. I understand that position, but, of course, will never agree with it. As for the number/quality of bands actually influenced by Forever Changes, well, this is very subjective. Obviously, Belle & Sebastian are, but the status of Love as a massive, driving, influential force in Nineties' music is still much debatable. Your mention of Lee's being honoured by the British parliament only further supports the "social conjuncture" thing: am I to believe that the British parliament honoured Arthur Lee because every parliament member (not just Peter Bradley) has always kept a copy of Forever Changes in his bedroom? Don't tell me it had much to do with the actual music, or I'll start believing that Mick Jagger was knighted because 'Satisfaction' is the Queen's favourite song of all time. It was nothing more than a political gesture on behalf of some Labour members. (And all it did, supposedly, was inflate the man's ego to even uglier proportions).

It may be, of course, just a matter of attitude between the two of us. You say you were originally sceptical about the record - well, I wasn't. I'd read all these great things about it, including how it blows away the Doors (from Wilson & Alroy), etc., and I expected to hear a truly unique masterpice: what I heard instead was a solid, but painfully derivative art-folk-album coming out at the tail end of 1967 (and we all know how quickly time was flashing by back then). I'll agree that it displays some individuality (not to be confused with uniqueness), but even that individuality is essentially limited to the "tormented loner" image which Arthur Lee certainly did not introduce - in fact, in my mind, Jim Morrison definitely did that one better. And furthermore, all of these suspicions were confirmed when I started listening to the rest of Love's catalog. If Arthur Lee was content with ripping off the Byrds in 1966, inefficiently imitating the Stones' 'I'm Going Home' in early '67, and later on, settling into an unpretentious Hendrix-derived hard rock pattern, I have no reason to go ahead and force myself to believe that, for some reason, on one and one album only he delivered a brilliant, seering flash of unique artistic vision and then burned out as quickly as he lightened up. I don't believe in God's grace striking just once; I believe in consistency. And I am being honest about it, believe you me. If I did this just out of a desire to slay a newly-sacred cow, I would have done the same to Odessey And Oracle, which is actually a better record.

Oh, and speaking of Europe, please accept my apologies - I meant 'continental' Europe there, since we all know Great Britain is just the 51st State anyway. :)

PS. Again, please let nobody take either the review or this response as a slamming of Forever Changes. That this is a good record, deserving of recognition, has never been denied by me. The only thing I am violently protesting against is its status as "one of the greatest of all time". To put it in other words, it's solid enough to be nominated as such, but based on my observations, there are at least a couple hundred records that precede it by a long shot.

Stephen Legg <> (11.01.2004)

Concerning FOREVER CHANGES by LOVE, THIS ALBUM stands the test of time. The lyrics are very mature and the tunes are magnificent. Definately a better album than your beloved dated SEARGENT PEPPER.

Forever Changes by LOVE is the best albumever made by any band in any countryin any era.

Mark <> (21.01.2004)

You know George, I agree with you entirely on this one. Maybe we expect too much out of our "Long Lost Classics" that people throw out every couple of years. I picked up this album years ago after reading a "Rolling Stone" record guide state that this was one of the best albums of the 60's. Disappointment. I think it's okay. I'm not the biggest Sgt. Pepper fan in the world (like Adam's comment above, I am not killed on some of the material, although the production is virtually perfect - but then again, it had to be to disguise the lack of killer Beatles songs....not saying that Pepper is not good, because when it's good, it's amazing, but overall, it's not as killer as Rubber Soul or Revolver). Anyhoo, comparing Forever Changes to Pepper is silly. As good as FC may be in places, it's no Pepper. lee might have been good, but he was no John Lennon. As to the "derivativeness" of FC, I could give a rat's ass frankly. everything back in the glorious 60's was influenced by everything else. the Beatles did Rubber Soul, Brian Wilson then was inspired to do Pet Sounds, so Paulie conceives Pepper. Blah blah blah. Who cares? But the music......I don't get it. I have heard all the Beatles, Stones, Floyd, Airplane, Doors etc., and I think that while FC was 'influenced' by a lot of them, it simply is not as good. Sorry. There is a fucking reason that Pepper gets picked almost universally as the greatest album of all time and FC gets neglected as a "lost classic". Maybe we expect too much of these classics, or we are so desperate to find them, that we get disappointed. Our expectations are way too high. And about this comment that "you had to hear it when it came out to get it"....that's just shit. I was born in 1970, so all of this stuff is before my time. The Beatles blow me away years later, Love doesn't. Competent? Sure. Interesting? Yeah. Mind blowing!? No way. And if that is the general consensus, "you shoulda heard it when it came out", doesn't that prove your point, George about it being "dated"? Sorry, I just don't buy it. (I agree also with your comment about Lee getting honored by the Brits. It is to curry favor with people. Not that this is a bad thing. I mean, The Fabs were given MBE's at the height of Beatlemania, and everyone (especially Lennon) saw it for what it was.....trying to connect with the young 'uns. I'd love to see the Queen dancing to "Sympathy For The Devil" or smiling at "Lola" - to honor the latest award to Ray Davies). On only a few occasions have "lost masterpieces" lived up to the hype: Van Morrison's Astral Weeks is the most obvious example, and to a lesser degree, Big Star. But FC and Odessey And Oracle? Not for me. This to me reeks of this attitude that I hate in rock and roll "Look how cool we are because we like something that you never heard of!!!!" Maybe that is too much of a generalization, but I don't think it's too far off the mark.

Richard Nightingale <> (12.07.2005)

I've just reread my comment that I posted on your site way back in 2003. Funny how tastes change, I put this album on at the weekend and it sounded dated, clumsy, stupid and irrelevant. Okay, maybe that's a bit harsh but I do agree with you that this album is not a lost masterpiece. I think i was guilty of getting caught up in the hype. I don't remember when all the hype started actually but I bought my copy in 1995 and it was included in Mojo magazine's top 100 albums. Having listened to Forever Changes on and off for the last ten years it's possible that my tastes have simply changed. However For Certain Because by the Hollies still sounds fantastic. Now, that really is a lost masterpiece.


Pedro Andino <> (18.08.2003)

a double album for love ! you say the eletric drum in this song is underwater! from rockers, to ballads, to power pop, to guitar freakouts!. instead of bullshit like my baby love's love! GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK! hippie chicks are in love with the album! and maybe you are not a hippie but a dumbass ! well do you watch all the bullshit vietnam?! or the wife screaming the shit outta you?! or the goddamn race riots! or the junkyard girl screaming and beating the shit and caking your nose with blood and snot! i do not want to picture an burning building! oh i'm sorry! did i break your concentration? up against the motherfuckers! sorry! any how i do miss the trdition of the 60's! fuck the 00's!


No reader comments yet.

Return to the main index page