cptgaio

I didn't understand one thing, Lux. For the good I wish you (and I assure you I'm not a fan of DT), can you explain something to me? In the opening, you say that you now listen to various groups (Pere Ubu, Pixies, etc.) but that you were a fan of DT, and you clearly imply that this is almost a stain to wash away because now you've been enlightened on the path of good music (I swear there’s no shadow of irony in my last sentence; everyone thinks as they want, I generally distrust—musically, not personally, of course—those who listen to the bands you mention, but for you I will make an exception). So, given that this is not a great album (I've had it for two days and it doesn't seem like much), given that they often disperse their energies in technical evolutions for their own sake, given that 90% of their fans are rather irascible and not willing to engage in dialogue, can you explain the reason for this review? I don't understand it; there were already five if I'm not mistaken. I don’t mean to say you shouldn’t express your opinion (heaven forbid!), but you could have easily done so by leaving a comment on one of the other reviews. Your review, honestly, doesn’t add anything new; we understand that you think the album is awful—you already said that. This review isn't about contributing something new; it's pure provocation, both in tone and content. You could have avoided it. Now, I certainly don't defend the 4-5 who offended you; in fact, they demonstrate even more their little tolerance, but remember, to dust off a cliché, that "those who sow the wind will reap the storm." So, don't be too surprised by the reaction; you brought it upon yourself. Go in peace... Aloha!

Sure enough, Poletti pops up everywhere... Fortunately, I didn't see this.

Certo! Inviami il testo che desideri tradurre e provvederò a farlo.

@Paloz, but at this point I'm starting to doubt that you saw it in at least a distracted way; the metaphor is definitely there...

Well, we could talk about this for eons, but I don't want to be too much of a pain. Bye!

Well, it really comes down to personal parameters; the charm of F4 wasn't so much in the protagonists but in the parallel universe created around them, and from that perspective, the stories were anything but predictable. Moreover, the characters back in '61 were not trivial either. They were eventually surpassed, which was to be expected. I was just responding to your statement "the weakest of Lee" because historically (and I’m not the only one who thinks this, but almost the entire passionate multitude invested in the Marvel universe) it's a bit of a bold claim. That’s all. Of course, you are free to not appreciate them, but believe me (including the X-Men), all the subsequent American comics owe a lot to them, often much more than it may appear. Bye!

With "Surrender" they were already known to everyone; "Hey Boy, Hey Girl" was in heavy rotation on all radios and TV stations, playing at least three times a night in any club... Trust me on that... "Come with us" and "Push the button" only confirmed it, but it's with "Surrender" that there's a mainstream breakthrough. When I say "lose," I don't mean you haven't listened to the first two albums, but that getting to know them after "Surrender" is quite normal (most of the people who listen to them now), while it's less common to find someone who was blasting "Exit Planet Dust" and "Dig Your Own Hole" before '98, and I really know very few of those.

I made a mistake in a sentence: "they were the non plus ultra" and not "they weren't". Sorry.

@Ghemison: The X-Men owe a lot of their epic journey to the F4; I'm not talking about aesthetic beauty or textual depth but about historical significance. When they were created (in '61), the F4 were not the pinnacle of avant-garde (even when considering purely technical parameters). Everything that came after owes a great deal to them. The fact that at a certain point they were surpassed graphically by other comics was inevitable (also because it was a precise choice by Marvel to keep the F4 at somewhat outdated drawing levels). However, in terms of concept, they remained unsurpassed (in my opinion) until the late '70s. Of course, new sagas and characters were added (in the Marvel universe) that reached or perhaps surpassed them, but those can also be considered as grandchildren of the F4. From my perspective, they are second only to Spider-Man. If we want to talk about character development, we need to distinguish Marvel from DC (where "Batman" resides, just to be clear) because the two companies have followed different policies over the years. At a certain point, DC was forced to revisit Batman and Superman, while Marvel, having fresher characters and stories at its disposal (for example, the X-Men), preferred to keep certain historical characters with their usual style to avoid too much dissatisfaction among the more "seasoned" readers. Ultimately, it’s a matter of editorial rather than creative choices. I repeat, to understand the F4 (as with everything else), one must consider the historical period, otherwise, one risks losing important nuances.

Mandatory.