cptgaio

From Hell...

@Eletto: "From Helle" is definitely a masterpiece, but your statement led me to think you were referring to something universally regarded as such. My apologies. @Ghemi: I always keep track of Eisner's developments, so it's impossible for me not to know Bendis: however, I've never read "Torso" because it was published during a time when I had a repulsion for (almost) all Image productions. I’ll try to catch up, although I guess I’ll have to look for it in English. As for Mack, I assume you mean David Mack; if that's the case, go read here ;-) Comic Book Tattoo - AA.VV. - Recensione di cptgaio In future reviews, honestly, I hadn't thought of Grant Morrison (I think you mean him, right?) but thinking about it, I believe it would indeed be an unforgivable omission.

PS: Honestly, I think that Grunge musically left nothing because it created nothing (musically): it’s more accurate to say that the Pixies (to mention a truly revolutionary band) have left a legacy... not the Nirvana. I'm talking from a musical standpoint: if we talk about Costume, the discussion changes.

@Don: The Tool, from a sonic perspective, emerged parallel to grunge; in fact, among their influences, they specifically mention the Pixies, who heavily influenced Nirvana and other grunge bands. Therefore, it can be said that the two experiences are "cousins" rather than one (Tool) deriving from the other (grunge): a formally incorrect, if not entirely wrong, assertion. As for the rest, the roots of Tool can be found in Prog, which is perhaps the genre most distant from Grunge (as far as the term means) and in Metal, which is indeed more comparable but still, in a parallel manner. PS. A user posted a link: since there’s a (mutual) promise of non-interaction with it, I have no intention of watching it. If it concerns the fact that Cobain didn’t like the Rossa’s version of "Smells Like Teen Spirit," I don't think it's news, and as the author of the piece, he was well entitled to think that way. I don’t believe this discussion detracts from or adds to either of their careers. Anyone who thinks otherwise is objectively acting in bad faith.

The Preacher? ;-)

PS: obviously, these are purely personal considerations of mine, and no one questions your "musical education," for goodness' sake there should be more people like you!

A couple of friendly notes: the fact that you use the term "restoration" indicates that you give a negative meaning to many resurgent genres (even though the term is incorrect because they were just on standby) after the grunge "carnival," and this is probably the point where we are really "divergent" because I would have many anecdotes to share about how, for me and many others, appreciating much of that "genre," its end was in a sense a liberation from hordes of well-meaning preachers of "alternativism" who really indulged in cliches (there are still some out there, but now "strangely" they are more humble... almost all: a few remnants remain, but they are harmless). However, I don't think it's worth delving deeper because DeB, on certain topics, is like West Ham playing at WhiteHL (the concept of "true rock" varies greatly depending on the cultural context). The second note is that I would like to refute the notion that I have an idiosyncrasy towards Grunge, which is not in line with reality: I liked Mudhoney, Nirvana (the only two bands I can put in the "genre"), Soundgarden, PJ, Alice in Chains (who had only the geography and the era of grunge), etc. etc. However, having always been resistant to the purely cultural "fringe" that revolves around a musical phenomenon (and this allows me to be tolerant of a lot of mainstream stuff), I have always evaluated only the musical side, and from this perspective, you know what I think: they were all excellent derivative bands, good but derivative, and therefore, after the storm passed, I still remember them (though with affection) like that. One very positive thing that "Grunge" did as a cultural phenomenon, though, is that in those five years of "apnea," it allowed only the most valid, eager, and honest elements towards fans to survive in many other genres (no matter what many think... I have the evidence, trust me), and I would have anecdotes to share about that too, but I’ll stop to avoid further boredom since our opinions on this matter wouldn’t change anyway. Thank you for the chat, and I apologize to Super for the long off-topic excursion. Long live Zola!

pi' = piu'

Come on, I don't believe Sting needs to "beg." The idea that the more you have, the more you want might hold some truth, but that’s entirely different. Also, I don’t want to throw anyone under the bus: I repeat, my point isn’t whether Cobain sold out or not, but the fact that if we want to stick to the hardcore and pure (punk as you call it), he shouldn’t have done that. He pays tribute to a genre that, at least in its intentions, has an aversion to that kind of thing by bringing one of its slogans prominently displayed in one of the "enemy" locations. Someone might say it’s punk winning against the mainstream, but in reality, it’s the opposite; it's punk becoming mainstream. And anyway, it’s just an example; I haven’t accused Cobain of lacking moral integrity; I’ve said he made compromises too. Just like Sting and many others, and I’ll tell you, he did well because in doing so, he brought his lovely music to as many people as possible. That's something the ones being reviewed can’t claim, for example. Perhaps if more of them thought about being less "pure" and a bit more commercial, we would have a lot more beautiful music around today and less crap. That’s how I see it. And anyway, the last line of my post still stands.

Then, you know what I think? That in the end, the idea that "Rock is dead" depends on where each person looks at it. For Supersoul, it isn’t dead for the reasons he writes in his review, which are different from yours or from those of that old geezer Azzo. From my point of view, a five-year period (because that's how long the phenomenon actually lasted) of "Grunge," if it ever was a genre, hasn't brought about major changes in the landscape of "Rock": all those bands that you purists (a term I use without any irony but with respect) consider "foolishness" are still there, selling millions of records and filling stadiums, and I’ll tell you, one in particular does this without ever appearing on MTV or on mainstream radio, or resorting to advertising channels on national networks. And all of this despite the ongoing claims that Grunge has wiped everything away and changed everything... but changed what? After 15 years, we’ve exactly returned to what was there before: if not with the same names, which many still endure, then with the same genres. For me, Rock has simply never been in danger; it just occasionally changes names, that’s all: I know I’m taking away a lot of the romance, but at least I can focus solely on the musical side. One last thing: often, those who remain niche are only due to a misguided commercial strategy and not out of their own will. Goodbye.