cptgaio

You've convinced me: it's an immense masterpiece!

"PANAPP | An hour ago @The Punisher: um, maybe you didn't read the review carefully" More than anything else, it can be stated with absolute certainty that he definitely didn't read it.

I don't love him very much. The review chettelodicoafa...

I only listened to the Sanremo song: it’s not for me.

"GEMINI | Three hours ago | Rating: — | Album Rating: 4
Well, you can't just start posting recipes after only 7 comments on a debut review, can you? What impression will the new user of the site and the characters that populate it get?"

Surely his best.

I apologize: I wrote following the flow of my thoughts...after all, we're on DeBaser ;-)

In the review, amidst many "fan" inaccuracies, you say one correct thing: that "Metallica were not just a Metal band." In fact, it's almost correct, because if we refer to an interview with Ulrich from '91, where he stated that "Metallica were never interested in making Metal, and if they did, it was only to destroy it from within," and especially to another interview from 2003 (coinciding with the return to "metal," with "St. Anger," in lowercase and quotes not by chance), where he claimed that "Metallica had returned to their roots and to what they did best, which was Metal," we can comfortably assert that even they don't know what they played (although, let's be honest, 12 years is a long time compared to the contradictions we've gotten used to seeing in recent years in Italy, for example). That said, for at least four albums, they were among the most enlightened realities of Metal (and no one can ever take that away from them: anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about). However, when in the early '90s many Metal bands found themselves needing to survive amid the rise of a certain alternative rock (which has never been clearly defined as alternative), they made a choice (economic rather than artistic: and time has proven this statement right) that paid off well at first (for a good five years) but ultimately undermined their credibility (which they retained only in the eyes of a certain type of fan who, nine times out of ten, just happened to be a "child" of the '91 shift) for good. It wasn't just that, though: they were also helped by many media outlets (especially MTV) and a certain type of music criticism that invented the nonsense that "Metallica legitimized Metal" (which isn't entirely clear given what was previously mentioned), without understanding that probably (even if it were true), the average metalhead (at least at the time) couldn’t have cared less about being "legitimized" (if they didn't even find it offensive...).
So it's just a matter of understanding the terms we use (and obviously being able to provide a unified definition for a genre that is ultimately heterogeneous like Metal), but I fear that the question is rather unimportant if we think that simply Metallica hasn't made a decent album since '89: that's the point; everything else is mere cloudbusting...

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