cptgaio

So, here I am. First of all, I want to thank everyone for the positive comments on my little piece, but especially for the contributions made. I see that the main issue raised is the perception of comics as a genre that is quite undervalued and considered purely the domain of childhood or early youth, and the "re-evaluation" that happens when a film comes out (and specifically, especially in the case of "Watchmen"). From my perspective, there are two ways to assess the situation: the first is that if we consider that the world of comics has provided countless stories to cinema over the last 20 years (and often the general audience didn’t even know that many subjects were taken from comics: the first case that comes to mind is Cronenberg's "A History of Violence," but there are many examples to be made), one could sketch an optimistic "come on, things are changing," but then I realize that these are entirely ephemeral successes because they often simply remain (aside from a few cases which, as noted, are curiously rarely acknowledged for their "comic" origins) popular phenomena tied to those 2-3 months of advertising hype: for example, Tim Burton's first "Batman" ('89) had a far greater popular resonance than this "Watchmen" (the film, I mean), but twenty years later, one cannot say it changed anything in the perception that most people have of comics as a genre, and Batman in particular. The second way is more indirect, and it’s considering that, ultimately, comics have never needed to be "legitimized" among the "high" arts like other genres, but have always survived as "Popular Art" and artistically speaking, it still is one of those (in general) most in motion (if we still consider cinema and take animated films as culturally derived works from the world of comics, let me recall that the first half hour of "Wall-E" was among the most "forward" moments in cinema in the last 10 years). Furthermore, by its very nature, it has always had supporters who have, all in all, always viewed what many (pseudo)intellectuals consider insults as compliments, and I could provide a ton of examples, even recently on DeB, but I don't want to raise unnecessary controversies; I simply mention Eco when he refers to Schulz as a poet... In short, I don't believe that it will be "Watchmen" (the film) or who knows what other adaptation to "legitimize" comics in more "elevated" cultural environments, for two reasons: the first is that it’s the comic world itself that does not seek this recognition (not out of snobbery, but because it would betray its nature as "Pop" art), and the second is that culturally it is already relevant as it is, while remaining popular! Thanks again to everyone!

the votes.

mmm, not to be a pain in the ass here, but in a couple of comments by two colleagues from Debaser, there are a few things that aren’t quite historically accurate: in comment 2, dear Pv (I apologize for not using your full nickname, but I'm a lazy person) wonders why "until Freddie Mercury was around, very few appreciated Queen." This statement, if we are talking about public success, is not entirely correct: in fact, both this one and the previous album ("The Miracle") sold a lot here in Italy as well ("Innuendo" was number one for at least 4 weeks, and I remember it came out 9 months before the singer’s death and at least 7 months before his illness was made public). Popularly, the Queen only had one moment of crisis in their career, which was in the early '80s when albums like "The Game" and "Hot Space" had quite disappointing sales figures by their usual standards, only to make a strong comeback after their performance at "Live Aid." In fact, the following year, "A Kind of Magic" was a huge success. If you’re talking about critical acclaim, it should be noted that their reputation didn’t undergo significant changes before and after Mercury's tragic passing: they have always been viewed somewhat negatively and were quite underrated. That Mercury's death may have further fueled public acclaim is a valid point, but this happens almost always in the music world, and the Queen was no exception. The second issue appears in comment 10 by colleague Spirit, namely (aside from the "criticism" discussion, which I reiterate hasn’t seen significant changes due to the painful transition) in the phrase "even the Maiden in the mid-'90s were criticized but sold well..." in two points: A) the Maiden, aside from their very early period with Di Anno, and at most until "Powerslave" when talking about Dickinson (80-85), and in their very late period (after "A Matter of Life and Death" 2006), have always been somewhat criticized by critics (and sorry for the pun) and the consensus here was also exclusively popular: even though less heterogeneous than that of the Queen, the Maiden only became a "band for everyone" after the return of Dickinson and Smith in '99; before that, up until '92 (and this leads to point B), they had enormous success but exclusively within the metal listening audience. B) As already mentioned, saying that the Maiden were selling well in the mid-'90s is quite debatable, but again it depends on what is meant by "well," because "The X Factor" ('95) sold half of its predecessor ("Fear of the Dark" '92), and the subsequent "Virtual XI" ('98) didn’t even reach 300,000 copies worldwide (very low for their standards), to the extent that Dickinson's almost contemporaneous "Accident of Birth" ('97) sold much more. Then it’s obvious: five-digit sales can be considered "great" by anyone's standards, but I remember we are talking about a band that has sold around 70 million records in total, so 250,000-300,000 copies for an album can be considered a flop. I apologize if I’ve been long-winded. P.S: I quite like this album, even if it’s not my favorite by Queen, and the review is not bad.

I thank all the commenters: I’ll stop by tomorrow to address the raised issues. Bye.

But also no...

Certo, invia pure il testo e procederò con la traduzione.

Dear Carlo, I start from the assumption that anyone (more or less intimately) wishes their "art" to reach as many people as possible, and often (not always, of course, but much more often than one might think) those who remain niche do not do so by conscious choice but due to significant mistakes in the marketing and distribution of their product. Having established this, I have never had any prejudice either against those who sell millions, perhaps thanks to the support of many media, or against those who want to be "hard and pure" all the way through, not even now that these roles often reverse, simply because what has always mattered to me is the "product" (the music) being proposed to me. I tell you this because, in my opinion, if more valid groups in the Italian alternative scene (whatever that term means) got their hands a bit dirty with popular means of communication and not just niche ones (I’m not saying everyone should go to Sanremo, there are indeed others...) maybe the average quality of music played on the radio (just to give an example) would rise, and we would not have to listen only to certain ugliness of minor pop from 'na botta di HR and so on. What’s funny is that we are so tied to certain mechanisms (popular success = crappy music) that the first to hinder this process (which would be right) are precisely us users! (see what’s happening to the "poor" Brondi, for example) and it is from here that few have the courage to risk the leap, caught between the dilemma of whom to please (besides themselves, obviously; they also have to eat). Too many people (not you, eh! I'm saying this to you because you're my interlocutor) use music only to define themselves, and this, whatever anyone says, is not a freedom but always ends up being a cage. Both for those who create the music and for those who listen to it. That said, I think we will only know in a few years whether this "Sanremo operation" has been useful or not. Bye!

Although I've never particularly liked them, I must say this is a nice album (but I can't really give a 4 to U2). The review...what can I say? ;-)

I confirm that it is not taken from this comic; however, I didn't like it very much: it was a missed opportunity given the premises it presented. Thank you for the appreciation of the review.

For once, I know something that you suggest ;-) Great album, and the review is good too, but the comments about its cryptic nature are understandable (I have the advantage of knowing the album, of course), but they are just minor details.