1. First of all sorry I react a little late, but I tend to read blogs like once… a month? Or such. My point: I just read your entry.

    But whatever: It is true that Kirito presented these songs mainly as a “tribute to a very good band of the past”. This being said, as soon as Creature ended… they played Reborn. When you know how much both songs are linked, you’re probably allowed to see more than a relation between two songs here.

    (And I don’t think there was any idea of challenge when they played them, would it be only because it also implied the three other musicians, not himself only… and from the way he presented it, it really was mainly kind of a present for us fans + trusting Kohta’s reaction, the “Pierrot topic” is still a difficult one for him, even now: Kirito never seemed to be the kind of person who would play with others’ feelings just for the pleasure of a challenge… especially not his brother’s).

    This being said, I don’t know how much he links both bands / he would accept to say “yeah, of course Angelo is like a Pierrot 2 in some way!” if you asked him… I’m pretty sure he would completely deny it actually. But as for me, from the very beginning, Angelo plays music the way Pierrot did under many aspects, and uses the same kind of themes, references, and such in the lyrics (Kirito-trademarks, for sure). The only, yet important, difference is that you can’t hear Aiji’s weird and Jun’s funny guitars in Angelo. This is what makes Pierrot be Pierrot, and Angelo be Angelo, in my view… and whatever Kirito may (officially) say about it.

    As for Angelo’s audience, all I can say is that there were far too many youngsters at the Budokan (and other concerts) for me to consider that Angelo’s audience could consist of nothing but Pierrot fans / 95% of Angelo audience would be Pierrot fans and point. Or it would mean that they were veeeery young in the Pierrot days… which is a possibility, I admit, but well… Yet, I’m pretty sure that Angelo would have NEVER been able to play at the Budokan without the Pierrot fans who turned to them in the end.
    …But is it bad? I’m one of these Pierrot fans who also love Angelo… I don’t see why Angelo should be blamed for attracting Pierrot fans, as long as they do good music and don’t simply get money from using the Pierrot memorabilia over and over again (which would be the case if they played too much Pierrot songs in their own concerts, for example). It may be because I’m European and this is what happens the most in Europe, but I prefer and respect far more musicians who assume their past career, as part of themselves / their personnal and musical evolution, than people who just speak a few words about it once in a while but generally prefer leaving it faaaar behind. But well… that’s my view, for sure.

    (P.S.: one day I should learn how to post short entries… one day!)

  2. + I forgot the other main difference between Angelo and Pierrot: Angelo plays far more aggressive music than Pierrot… which is a good thing to me, though I can understand some persons may regret it.
    (+ This is the direction Pierrot seemed to lead to, so you could probably consider it as part of the “Pierrot 2”-thing too, in the end.)

Comments are closed.