47

Ah, can someone explain de-ranking to me?

Nice review blackdog, I really liked Return to Cookie Mountain, and I can't wait to hear this one well, which I've only managed to sample from Ricordi. The previous one was a bit heavy, so I'm glad if they've lightened it up.. cheers

I believe that the review in its proper sense, those from the internet and specialized press to be clear, is in fact in the wrong and uncomfortable position of having to judge a written work; this is where the discussions about "having the right culture" to give a judgment begin, presupposing among other things that it can be quantified by those who criticize the indefinability of art. (I suggest reading "Critique of Judgment") As a dissemination function, everything would be fine if it weren't for the fact that it is not the review that should take on this responsibility (if not indirectly). As I see it, the section is useful for providing keys to understanding the written work, essentially "the book through the reviewer/reader/individual," the one who will then write a very concise essay highlighting this or that aspect of the book in relation to a specific theme.

In reference to post 24, but our friend A. didn't consider the content subordinate to the form? And above all, why books yes and the rest no? Is it possible that I'm missing something?

that record labels stop selling them as "the rock of the 2000s," the big names of today, new melodic phenomena "on the shoulders of giants"… (and maybe for some even above, on 'these giants..) They are CRAFTSMEN, mediocre assemblers of third-hand riffs and melodies. They wouldn’t have trouble finding a place among sincere and alcoholic pub bands, (enough with grandiloquent productions as if they had some great artistic significance, like putting mice at the helm of ocean liners) those fun and unpretentious bands that don’t annoy you 24/7 on the worst FM stations.

useless, but from a radio-friendly perspective, it can be heard

great reception. the cover is the same as that of Don Caballero 2

I haven't heard the album yet, but generally speaking, the groups mentioned at the beginning are really not much (the "charlatans," starting from their name, are quite emblematic), and this mediocrity is debated for months. Anyway, Oasis are not reactionary by choice; they play "rock" as if it were a finished entity. They are indeed interpreters, not composers, of things absorbed over the years from popular rock culture. They may be likable, but the stuff they produce is, at best, third-hand; for those who are truly satisfied with very little.

great rece, nothing else to say. except that my aesthetics professor is driving everyone crazy with cage and stockhausen, sooner or later I'll have to listen. bye

I also think the grunge distortion is pretty garbage; I was just listening to AIC yesterday. Great review!