Io Ho Il Pene Banned

here come the reinforcements, obviously anonymously, when a discussion can’t be handled, they always pop up.

It seems to me that after Freud and the beyond of the pleasure principle, it might be presumptuous to say, as the know-it-all did, that artistic inspiration comes solely from experience, passion, and dedication. Perhaps such a belief could have passed in the nineteenth century, but today, after everything that has happened, well, at least let me have my doubts. Anyway, a great eloquence and very prepared characters, not to mention Debaser, which is far more than just a den of ignorant fools.

Yes, when it comes to the fact that they give their all, they really do give their best on stage; it's true that they are great. If they stopped making albums and realized that their mission is to play live for the next 20 years, they could become the Rolling Stones of 2026. In my opinion, they will stay together for another 20 years; this is one of those bands that will never break up (if all the members except Cameron remain alive), like R.E.M., or indeed the Stones.

Salieri was said to be more technical than Mozart, yet it is Mozart who is considered the genius, not Salieri; on this point, I can only agree with the man who has the penis. Nice review, not at the level of Vic Sorriso, but it holds up well.

Okay, you call yourself out, that's fine too, as long as you don't get on my nerves with ontology even in a subject like art that is not architecture, not law, not even working in a factory with machines that you have to learn how to use, but LOL.

If for you true art must be for the masses and comforting, then in your conception of things there can be no spark, but only structures, the moloch, the academy. Yet the true spark that I have spoken of is "quello che non si può spiegare," it is the mysticism that oscillates between the passion of ecstasy and the horror of emptiness. You come to me to talk about the social function of art, but have you read what I wrote earlier??? I'll remind you: "art as social service?? ahahahah, but it's serving oneself at the expense of others! solely for the purpose of a brazenly personal gain in public recognition." Well, what do you think I meant?? Me, who denies the social not only in art but even in life, among the many who forget that "there are no moral or immoral works of art, only good or bad ones." These characters will look at the finger pointing to the moon until the end of time...

no please, here we go again, don’t call me a communist (me, a communist? ahahahah, from the right? ahahah from the left? ahahahah), we were just missing political labeling when in reality we are discussing art, I repeat: any aesthetic escapade and any artistic endeavor is already ideologically conditioned by the preconception of "the beautiful in itself." Van Gogh once said: "when one says -I am not a painter- that is when one must paint." In reality, you strive to be consistent with the phrases you have rightly heard from others and made your own; we all do this. You can't accuse me of quoting something from Carmelo Bene, precisely because we are spoken, we do not speak, we hear with our ears and report, we are nothing but will-o’-the-wisps, representation and representation, we address each other informally, in the illusion of being, you and I, I I I, so as to survive it, lying indeed, my dear accountant, my doctor, inspector or notary, professor, and my critic, I repeat: one who does not devote their entire life to art cannot be an art critic, only another artist can critique the artist. The spark is not part of language, even you, being spoken as you self-define, are not part of language; only the sound that comes out of your oral cavity is part of you, nothing more than that, certainly.

Yes, but not only the punkabestia, as I explained before. And I think, Leonid, that I am staying relevant to the discussion—that this happens because groups are created for every damn action that needs to take place in this society. Nowadays, every action carried out in our relativistic West has to hide a social meaning behind it; otherwise, you’re judged as an outsider. So here come the punkabestia, but not just them; even football fans, notice how they act in groups, never alone. Alone, in fact, doesn’t exist. This vile consociativism is evil, and it also happens in cases of music listeners. From listeners, they immediately turn into experts and luminaries of the subject, the pretentious ones. Why does this happen? It happens because as soon as a group of people willing to read about rock is formed in this way, the pretension of the situation becomes RESPECTABLE. Respectable because there are so many convinced by him to listen to rock from his point of view. And then the distortions begin; rock, from the phenomenon that is the anti-academic par excellence, becomes an academy of meaning. From the "signifier" of the primordial DIONYSIAN SOUND of music (and there’s no need to invoke Nietzsche) to the false meaning of the pretentious professional critic, and so on, until we are all sucked in.

Okay to everything you're saying, but we need to be careful, guys: because by risking generalization, one might end up thinking that Deep Purple, with these parameters, are the only rock band worth listening to, which I hope is absolutely not the message you want to convey. In short, it's a very, very thorny topic.

It cannot be denied that you are right, in Bologna for example, which is my city, it’s full of these people, ciumbia I know a lot of posers, young guys who think they are indie heroes, in short, there’s something for everyone’s taste. I’m starting to understand the hatred many have towards the Bolognese indie scene and similar environments scattered across big cities. A good chunk of the latest generations (those who grew up with the Internet and sites like Scaruffi, especially) have a very structured approach to rock music and tend to discuss it as if we were talking about philosophy. In my opinion, the essence of rock is precisely against this conception.