vellutogrigio

The album is really very interesting, in its urgency and expressive madness. "Ti ringrazio," as you rightly note, is a small masterpiece of (anti)melody and paradoxical, nihilistic religiosity, a piece that leaves a mark. Well done for the mention, although here and there, you make some somewhat gratuitous references: I don't see much of a connection with the CCCP (compare, indeed, "Madre" with "Ti ringrazio" and let me know), because the Wolfango wouldn't want anything intellectual. The same goes for the comparison with the Marlene Kuntz. In short, it’s a unique band.

What you will do, I hope!

I had the opportunity to review Pizzicato Five years ago, and I am pleased to see them mentioned here, even if not entirely in context. I also find it exaggerated to define Gainsbourg as a "nerd," when he was more of a damn (ugly) one, in his own way a corrupter of the beautiful (but not chaste and pure) companion. That said, the review seems to be written in a hurry, with some errors and approximations, even though I don't feel like voting for you. The piece is nice, and in its own way it will remain a small classic, even if I don't see it being played much in ten or fifteen years, in summer piano bars or rearranged in Caribbean or smooth versions (as happened with "50special" by Lunapop or the pieces you rightly mention).

A brief review - albeit heartfelt - for a truly extraordinary book, which I hope to return to when I have a bit more time.

Here it's not about being "frosty, snobbish, and aloof" as you say, Genoo, but simply about giving the right weight to things. Personally, I believe it's never appropriate to react to provocations, or to certain ideas that deserve to be censored but not countered point by point, because by giving them importance you end up making them bigger and more relevant than they are. Also, by reacting, you always end up taking on the likeness, and using the means, of those who provoke and want to incite violent reactions, thereby letting the "banality of evil" prevail. The best weapon to defeat your "enemies" is not to hate them but to ignore them, in real life as well as in its online projection. My personal opinion, of course.

In my opinion, it is precisely by getting worked up over the words of Katharsys (which, I repeat, speak for themselves when referring to the aforementioned "wishes") that one ends up giving them importance and relevance. Unfortunately, no one is immune to suffering, whether their own or that of close relatives, in this world: and it is precisely the significance of those sufferings that makes me indifferent to insults exchanged between anonymous individuals. I’m sure that in real life, Katharsys wouldn’t have the courage to wish such things on anyone; here, they only take refuge in anonymity. A smile and indifference towards these outbursts (certainly not towards pain) are the best weapons in certain situations.

@nettadebaser: no, it is precisely because I have indirect experience of those events that the phrases of Katharsys or others do not move me in the least. In the face of certain manifestations of "thought," I believe there is nothing better than a gentle indifference. It should be noted that the gas chamber doors opened outward. I like this site for its pluralism, within the limits of what is legally permissible to say; I do not categorize “unwelcome people” based on their ideas, otherwise we would have to start expelling different folks: sorry, but that seems a bit sectarian to me (keep in mind that I do not agree with Katharsys).

I wasn't aware of these precedents. They seem to me, in any case, not very polite opinions - and to be honest, not even well-argued or intelligent. The question remains: what to do? Personally, I am not frightened by the insults said online, from anonymous to anonymous despite the nicknames and the whole lot, as much as I am by the insults said and done in real life. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, Katharsys can do whatever it wants (within the limits of defamation). Einar, don't get too worked up either, come on.

@Iside: sorry, I misunderstood. But even Poletti didn't deserve the ban; he was self-commenting! @OleEinar: the strength of democracy and pluralism lies precisely in tolerating dissenting opinions, even those of Katarsys, as long as one has the intellectual means to refute them point by point. By banning or excluding his dissenting voice, you do not erase his ideas; you simply avoid seeing them, risking that they resurface in the form of fake news or under another name, or, worse, that he goes on about them elsewhere with even worse effects. We're talking about an overall polite user who, among other things, bases the revisionist thesis— or better, the denialist one— on the fact that the gas chambers opened inward, thus the corpses prevented entry into these structures, and inhibited the slaughter actually carried out in the extermination camps (it seems to me that this speaks for itself).

@G. and Iside: banning Katarsys would be a mistake. Perhaps I was wrong not to consider that a review like this might attract some denialists, but for at least fifty years, every denialist thesis has only demonstrated the misinformation and superficiality of those who propose it, along with the ulterior motives of those who advocate for it. That said, and here I address Katarsys, the review contained a rather veiled critical observation against the "guardians of memory," i.e., those who have used and continue to use this tragedy for various and contingent political purposes. It would have been wiser to start from there, excuse me, rather than from denialist theses that truly are a waste of time (by the way, the doors of the gas chambers opened outward).