cptgaio

I’ve never seen this adaptation (even though I’ve always liked Clair and have seen almost all his other films), but the review piqued my interest, so I’ll try to get it. P.S. Among the tributes to this great work by Christie, I would recommend, even though it’s not a “classic” adaptation but a reinterpretation in comic form, the beautiful special Dylan Dog #6 “Sette Anime Dannate” by Sclavi and Roi. Bye.

It's always nice to see that someone remembers this lovely group. The little disc (even though I have it on a tape recorded for me back then by friends) is really charming, a review that can be shared.

Thank you for the link (and for stopping by!). I read the article and, beyond personal sympathies, it seems to me like the classic tirade of someone who wants to find ulterior motives everywhere. I repeat: no one denies the commercial intent of the operation, and surely the artists featured in the compilation chose this way (which doesn't seem so ethically wrong to me) to get some attention in broader channels compared to their usual ones, not solely for purely artistic reasons. However, maybe we should also consider the musical quality of the proposal (and I assure you it's quite high, with several "unlikely" supporters who agree with me) instead of just focusing on the fact that they posed for "XL." Because if we start talking about all those who had to engage in similar games (both in the present and in the past), you know heads would roll (even among so-called "heroes"). Then, of course, if someone tells me that the 19 songs from "Il paese è Reale" are terrible, I can say "okay, let's discuss it," but judging the album with a trial of intentions seems rather exaggerated to me. Or not? Obviously, I am talking about the author of the article, not you ;-)

Lewis, of course I care (and I'm glad) if you think the same way I do. Thank you! :-D

Imagine, Carlo, I'm not in the mood for polemics either; on the contrary, it's always nice to have a calm discussion even if we think differently. However, I agree that the evaluation of a musical reality must necessarily be linked to extrinsic factors (the ones you mention), but what I meant was that these should never be the "decisive" ones. After all, as with everything, there are exceptions: if a group promotes humanly wrong ideologies, it’s obvious that I will despise them even if the music they present suits my taste, just as I certainly don't reveal that 99% of the chart-topping phenomena presented by mainstream networks always use the same two chords and base their success SOLELY on extrinsic factors to music. However, I was referring to a general trend rather than a discussion on extremes (and Brondi, who by the way I don’t even like, was a recent example), meaning that it’s often overlooked that one must also compromise with showbiz, and that some manage to do it without compromising their "integrity," while others do less or not at all (though it’s hard not to get carried away). But from the commentators (critics, journalists, specialized sites, blogs, etc., so not just DeBaser), there’s little willingness to differentiate between the two, and sometimes good works are discarded simply because they have the sin of having winked at too many and/or having used (too) popular channels. Your "ethical" discourse on Sanremo makes perfect sense, and I too find it an exhibition beyond the limits of decency, but that’s precisely why the Afterhours (bringing along almost all their stereotypes) made me smile with benevolent understanding, because, from my point of view, their act was one of parasitism towards the "system" and not as guests. I’m not saying this is the truth; maybe one day soon I’ll be contradicted by facts, but I like to think of Agnelli bringing a piece to Sanremo, fully aware of elimination from the first night, but in the meantime advertising something much more underground and putting his own face on the line, risking losing many of his long-time supporters, at least those he hadn’t lost already. I mentioned the "Brondi" effect for that reason: I agree, now he has sold well, but in a year or two when he presents the new album, are we sure that, having lost many of the people belonging to his target audience, the media wind will still blow in his favor? I wouldn’t be so sure.

Hi Anomimo(?) how are you? All good? ;-)

@The Spirit: oh the legendary H/M! (Heavy Eva... ;-) )... Indeed, the three magazines you mentioned covered Metal, Hard Rock, but also Classic Rock, so your point is more than valid, and since I stopped reading them during that period (I mean post-'91-'92), as the "Metal" phase was already starting to fade for me, leaving only my affection for Maiden and very few others (Megadeth, Slayer, Sepultura, to name a few), I can't tell you what their stance was towards Queen, so I trust what you share with me. But, as you will agree, these were also (and you would agree) biased views (I remember a "battle" waged in those years by half the editorial team of Metal Shock against Primus...) just as the magazines I mentioned presented biased views, so it’s a bit of an exaggeration to say that (almost) everyone changed their attitude towards Queen with the tragic passing of Mercury, because it depended a lot on which side of the barricade you were on ;-) also because, if I remember correctly, the "alternative" side at that time was more populous (isn't it curious how the roles reversed, right? from alternative to mainstream...) Bye!

everything and nothing.

Well, oh my, even the Pixies, the Einstürzende Neubauten (totally), Pere Ubu, and Bauhaus (partially) are connected to the '80s, and I include Joy Division ("Closer" is from '80) but they were (and still are) regarded quite differently by the magazines I mentioned: the discourse is more about attitude, that kind of magazine (though I must say "Rockstar" was anything but pro-alternative...) criticized any hint of theatricality and viewed any flirtation with show business as a cardinal sin (only to forgive many acts from those they deemed "protected"). The '90s were, from a musical criticism standpoint, a very confusing time, and often everything was said one issue and the opposite in the next. But at this point, you’ve piqued my curiosity: what did you read?

No, Spirit, I don’t carry notes in my pocket; I was there and I have a good memory ;-) Anyway, honestly, I don’t recall this sudden shift in judgments of the time between pre-November '91 and post, at least not in the newspapers I was reading (and I assure you there were many: some like "Il Mucchio Selvaggio" barely even considered them, neither before nor after). In fact, as the years went by, many judgments even worsened, reaching almost offensive terms like "baracconate" or allusions to Mercury's past. It also depends on the specialized magazines you're referring to: I'll mention a few that I've read over the years, and I can assure you that none of them have been lenient with Queen (especially after '91; before, some didn’t even exist, so we have no idea what they thought). "Rumore," "Psycho," "Il Mucchio Selvaggio," "Rockstar"... Then if we consider, for example, two very well-known and influential Critique websites like Scaruffi or Ondarock, you’ll notice that both are still quite "cold" when evaluating the entire career: Scaruffi gives just a "7" and generally stays between "4" and "6" with others, while Ondarock at most gives a couple of "7s," some "6s," and "6.5s," but many "3s," "4s," and "4.5s," and both rate "Innuendo" with a "6," which may be a sufficient score but is certainly not the score you'd give to a masterpiece, at least I believe so... Honestly, I don’t think these are judgments for "positive re-evaluation," but rather often represent an unjust devaluation of the Queen phenomenon. At least that's how I see it.