47

First of all, I greet everyone and thank you for the comments. Anyway, no blech, even though that phrase seems familiar to me.. ^^

It's hot here too, but the sky is a mix of big clouds and a beautiful blue. In fact, if I had written it today (the review), it would probably have been different :) @ Blech: thanks, but whose quote?

totally agree with jargonking.

Ezekiel, you seem so much like one of those new age gurus, effortlessly moving on to treatises about emotional intelligence, being positive and therefore winning, who align themselves with the ideal of a person asserting themselves in the constellation of capitalism as a creed, applying marketing to life like in a disturbing new positivism. Meanwhile, I’m studying philosophy, and when you talk to me about “social status,” you just make me smile half-heartedly. Overcome, it shouldn’t require much effort.

@cornell: I've thought about it for a while, and if a name must be given to the situation, it's total disaffection. Good ol' Chris devotes himself to what he does as one would dedicate themselves to any ordinary "job," where I would exclude any expressive or creative implication from the idea of work. Perhaps "craft" is a better term. Cornell is a singer, and now he thinks the best thing to do is to put his voice at the service of the masses, of his music, which I remind you, as a mass, constitutes the majority. He no longer gives a damn about rock, about his teenage years, about trying to imitate his friend Buckley using his voice in who knows what way. Now, he's produced by the most acclaimed producer there is, makes a ton of money, and "rightfully" when interviewed, he tries to sell his product in the best possible way. Because as far as he cares about being an "artist," he certainly isn't going to give too much importance to a past that the millions approaching the music he makes now don’t even know what it is or what it means. Once that's said, it's best to shrug it off and move on. Maybe it's better to focus more on the music rather than the artists.

I was referring precisely to this: -"what causes us to look at all philosophers with half skepticism, half irony, is not so much their naivety and childishness, how candid they are, how often and easily they become lost, but the fact that they are not honest enough: (...) They all pretend to have discovered and arrived at their opinions through the autonomous development of a cold, pure, divinely unperturbed dialectic, while underneath there is a preconceived thesis, an idea, a "suggestion," most often an intensely abstract and filtered desire, defended by them with elaborate post hoc justifications: they are all lawyers who do not want to be called such and, for the most part, even cunning defenders of the prejudices they label as truths, and very far from the courage of the conscience that confesses this, just this; (...) this spectacle makes us demanding ones laugh, we who take a small delight in keeping an eye on the refined tricks of old moralists and preachers of morality.”-

suonoonous: considering that Nietzsche claimed that philosophies are nothing but the exteriority of the inclinations (moral and otherwise) of their authors (philosophers), judging philosophy based on its authors has its own motivations. Of course, this is not a task for just anyone, let alone for those who say that a philosopher is such due to unspecified motor dysfunctions.

@sfascia: of course, even ++ :)

I, on the other hand, have only heard this, distractedly, enough that it hasn't left any marks on me. But it didn't seem unpleasant. Generally, though, I'm not really following much of this year's releases, apart from the Zu, (seen live, so much fuss for nothing) which I preferred before they decided to emulate Slayer, and not much else. I need to listen to Dan Auerbach; I've had it waiting for me for a while now. @franci: aside from my happiness for the new Sy album, since I also listened to the last one to exhaustion, you forgot Teatro degli Orrori ;)

vote for the hot chick (y) (y) (y) (y) (y)