cptgaio

@Zurk: then don't waste time, especially if you need to quote Cossiga...

Let me explain it to you in simple terms: to support Mazzucco's theories would mean that there had to be so many people involved in the plot, including executors, witnesses, etc., that it would require half of the U.S.A. If you want to believe that, go ahead, but unfortunately, Mazzucco, who is well-known in Italy among hoaxers, tells nonsense. @Sertes: in the book I recommend, that urban legend is indeed debunked, read it. @Senmayan: you are the one who is poorly informed, the inquiry commission may have been unique but it relied on various parallel independent investigations, I repeat, if we accept the conspiracy theory, we are accepting that half of Americans are involved, come on, let's not joke around. Then, if you base your views solely on the information that this "documentary" provides, that's your problem, just like believing in UFOs or iodine dye as a cure for cancer (a campaign that Mazzucco has been promoting for a while...).

Of course Cossiga is an authoritative source, let's not descend into ridicule please.

@Caz: but you will admit (and it seems you do) that you mention names that are extremely niche, which, with all due respect, have "numbers" that are not significant on a large scale: in short, whether using technology or not in radio (or other media), they would never be seen as a "calling," and besides, if they were, they would lose the respect of those who follow this subsubsubterranean market. I'm not talking about you (who have a very coherent line on this), but you know very well what the average listener of very alternative music is like: "I like it as long as we only talk about it among ourselves" (the example of Brondi, who until he was considered by the media had an average close to 5 on DeB, and now that he's on everyone's lips, including the media, he doesn't even have a 3; he's there like a rock supporting what I'm saying).
What I mean is that in the underground scene, the channels may have changed (MySpace above all), but the attitude of the listeners certainly hasn't. We agree that the proliferation of live shows is a wonderful thing, but since I'm someone who tends to think negatively if possible ;-) I can’t help but think, and this time I’ll cite someone with mass success that I like and who I know causes hives in the average DeB user, that the Maiden are more credible in their apparent pluggery of 50 concerts a year across 5 continents (and their average since '81, and I remember they didn't perform in stadiums in the '90s but in gymnasiums: in '96, I saw them in Montichiari and there were about 200 of us, more or less) than various more or less underground bands that are only now (which is now a necessity since musicians live off concerts) opening up to a wider live audience. Of course, what I’m saying is provocative and doesn’t take into account other numbers (merchandising, etc.) that make a difference between the two realities, but still, when we want to analyze these singular coincidences, we must keep them in mind, right? One last thing: when we talk about artists who don’t get airplay on the radio, obviously in certain names we do this as a rhetorical figure (but I think you know this very well), meaning that they do not benefit from airplay in the major networks, not that they don’t get played at all ;-)

"It is curious that those who deny these conspiracy theories (which, as they are presented in the documentary, are not actually theories, but merely an exposition of doubts and inaccuracies) are diametrically opposed individuals who hold prejudices or are passionate, and not people of significance regarding the events in question..." It's not true. Investigations into September 11 have been carried out thoroughly by both American police and political commissions: to believe that Mazzucco's theories are true means to say (and just look at the calculations regarding the dimensions that this so-called 'global deception' would entail: it's logic, not metaphysics...) that the 280 million Americans (or however many there are...) knew. Do we really want to believe that? You decide...

It's funny how, as often happens, those who get taken for a ride talk about fairy tales to others... but please. Goodbye, guys!

@Setes: you're citing all urban legends that have been disproven for years: please get informed! Of course, if we take only this "documentary" as a source when all the others have already dismantled it, it's understandable that such nonsense can happen. Guys, do yourselves a favor, don't let yourselves be fooled... just... go inform yourselves about who Mazzucco really is, for example, and his "informative activities," and then we can talk about it...

@Zurk: but it's not true that Odifreddi disproves the theses of the book! From a political perspective, which if you think about it isn't contradictory: he speaks of the moral responsibilities of various American administrations in having poorly managed international issues over the years (especially the Middle East) creating the premises for a "reckless act" by the fundamentalists, he particularly talks about a Bush administration that had warnings and underestimated them, he talks about a Bush administration that took advantage of the situation afterwards: in short, all things that are not at all in contradiction with the theses of the book that aim to debunk (with objective evidence) the conspiracy theories claiming that the WTC was bombed and other various nonsense. Come on, let's try to go a bit deeper into the discussion and not just stick to the surface of things!

P.S: I am disheartened to see that the majority of commenters still do not understand that the audiobook in question is not a simple reading (which I reiterate has its own charm for the reasons I explained a few posts above) but rather a reinterpretation...

@Caz: at this point, we should name names: which groups have benefited from the technology? Because, honestly, the numbers (that I see on Billboard, to which I'm subscribed, and don't ask me why…) suggest that only the big names on one hand and the commercial pop phenomena on the other are still selling classic physical media. There may be reissued copies, but the ones breaking all preorder records are the Take That. However, I agree on one thing: the fact that the classic media (the CD) is disappearing certainly benefits the record companies, who save a lot on ancillary expenses (hard support, packaging, etc.). But on the other hand, I can't understand why, if technology is so good for the market, everyone is trying to do as many tours as possible (the real source of income for musicians). But aside from this, which I care little about since I'm one of those who still buys music legally (for my own reasons that I won't explain here because it would bore you), what interests me is still the "Radio" discussion: Now, I don't know if your suggestion to ban bad music is one of your charming (and I say this without irony) quips, but I think you're smart enough to understand that if the perfect world you dream of really existed, it would probably save various Spears and, I don't know, to cite a band I know you like, the Kyuss. Because, as Matheson teaches in "I Am Legend," normality is a concept that depends on what the majority establishes: so I'm the first to agree with you when you say that bad music spreads (but I would also add a "not only") through radio, but the problem is that, and I'm quite convinced, human beings (in their mass behaviors) seek the banal much more than they seek the sublime, and the media (including radio) are just a simple reflection. Even DeBaser, whether we like it or not, follows this primal instinct, but it does so in reverse by elevating anything that belongs to the two or three dominant genres on these pages, even if not everything in these genres is worthy, while discarding everything that is generally looked down upon, even if there are good things. Anyway, I wouldn't pay much attention to the various charts you see around; they seem heavily rigged to me.