gbrunoro

@Odraek
you can find all the information at the link in the book’s page, the one called "the book page on the publisher's site." The publishing house is Good Mood Edizioni Sonore and the series is called Libri in Auto.

@cazpuntini
Okay, this last comment makes total sense. I’d say we’re on the same page and starting to understand each other. When I was talking about radio, I was referring to the Italian networks, which is the world I know best. And anyway, I believe there’s a middle ground between the music industry and music craftsmanship, even though your division does seem very sensible. I completely agree with the idea of the “no-mainstream king,” which today is hugely amplified by the internet and the long tail phenomenon, offering many more opportunities to super-craftsmen.
Oh, just so you know, I’ve reviewed Miguel Bosé and Maiden, but I also listen to Beer for Dolphins and Acqua Fragile. I love Purple and Satriani, but I also really like Michael Hedges and La Mano Negra... in short, I understand well the differences you’re talking about.

Stopping a tour because you're losing money doesn't mean you can't make a living from your own music. That seems quite evident to me. It's also clear that (in Italy) Zappa was never given any respect by any radio network: they all woke up only after his death (typical of the average Italian), and mostly they limit themselves to playing Love of My Life on the anniversary of his passing. I don’t recall Zappa being a regular guest on Radio Deejay, Radio1, Radio2, or Rtl. Nor were his records ever on their programming. It’s true that he was played on the radio in America, but certainly not on mainstream stations (the ones that sold records, to be clear). However, in the U.S. he was also a guest on SNL and many other TV shows, but that didn’t mean he was invited every year to Sanremo as a super guest. In short, let’s talk about facts: don’t come here trying to be fussy with me (especially about Zappa…).
Another point: the "serious" music market doesn’t exist. There is just the music market, period. Until now, the market was based on record sales for 80% and live performances for 20%: bands that sold less relied heavily on live shows to earn money, and the proportions would invert because they had a very loyal audience. Now things have changed precisely because records are no longer sold, which has heavily affected those who previously sold fewer copies.
One more thing: improbable records are being reissued and can be sold because the internet has eliminated distribution and product delivery costs; the fact that music is downloadable or not has nothing to do with it. And this also allows various bands to have greater profit margins on records, so even by selling fewer copies, you can still achieve a higher margin since you can bypass the record label.

What do radios have to do with it? Zappa never passed any radio and he never had any problem living with his music, as did another hundred thousand artists. These days, to think that radios influence the record market (which, by the way, doesn’t exist) is truly ridiculous. It might be valid perhaps for the USA, but even there with a thousand distinctions…

Indeed, geeno is not completely wrong, quite the opposite. Especially since the nonsensical ramblings of cazpuntini assume that he is the objective holder of revealed truth. In short, if someone enjoys listening to crap, that's their business, right? Because otherwise, someone will come along, starting from your same assumptions, and say that we should eliminate the albums or the music of Zappa just because they don't like it. Come on, please, it's fine to joke around and act like fools, but we're really spouting some epic nonsense here... Finally, to alia76: sorry, but when you want to focus on a riff or a solo, or on a particularly significant scene from a movie, what do you do, rewind and then scream like a hen "how horrendous"?!?!?!?! Please...

cptgaio hit the nail on the head: this is not about a reading of the complete text but a genuine radio drama. The first comparison that comes to mind is a movie adapted from a book. That is to say, a work that originates from another work.

Great review. For years I've been meaning to read this book by Dick, but I've never had the chance.

@ PUNTINICAZPUNTINI
Exactly, childish and pretentious. And a smile every now and then, right? Always taking oneself too seriously. Mythical... Oh, by the way, you haven't discussed the work, since you couldn't possibly do so without having listened to it. I welcome someone who says "look, I listened to this audiobook and it sucked": maximum respect for differing opinions. But this is a different matter from what you've brought up. And, to conclude, this isn't about laziness; it's about different media, a concept that's pretty simple to grasp. A concept or a form of expression changes depending on the medium we use to convey it, that's all.

@Alessioride
I completely agree with you that it’s pointless to review great classics on Debaser (and if you take a look at my reviews, you'll notice that I've always tried to review works considered minor), but here we are dealing with something different from the mystery stories written by Poe, as seems to be quite clear from the discussion that followed.

@CPTGAIO
you perfectly hit the nail on the head: the benchmark isn't books but radio dramas, that's all. It seems very simple to understand. If while I’m running, driving, or cleaning the house I want to listen to something that's not music, I see no reason why I shouldn't. As for the issue of adaptations or reinterpretations, I would close the debate right away because it seems truly ridiculous: many of humanity's great works have stemmed from adaptations, reinterpretations, or covers of great classics, so it really feels like a rather dogmatic stance (either the original or nothing...).