sentence

Let's clarify the concept of "a challenge with time"; it’s nothing obscure. Simply put, there are albums that wear you out over time and others that do not, not at all. And it’s not about being "in step with the times," as you say; that’s totally irrelevant. Even Pet Sounds isn’t in step with the times if you think about it; it has aged. What’s the point? The point is that I listen to Pet Sounds now and I like it just as much as the first time I heard it, while Coldplay annoys me after just a few days. And they’re definitely more modern. Even Dark Side of the Moon, now that it’s been rehashed and copied by a thousand others, has lost its freshness, but it remains a beautiful album. Because we’re talking about strong compositions, built on exquisite writing and revolutionary arrangements. And anyway, don’t attribute things to me that I haven’t said; who cares if it’s mainstream, if it’s nothing new, or if they sound like U2? Pink Floyd are mainstream too, so what? What matters is talent, or how much an artist can touch the listener's chords. Coldplay don’t manage to do that with me, and I see that the criticisms I have towards them are shared by quite a few people, so it’s evident that I shouldn’t rely on neurodeliri. And then, what do you mean by a studio-produced product? I don’t care how they produce it; they can do it in a studio or on a washing machine; I don’t give a damn about commercial or elitist definitions. I like U2 and I like the Franti, and I don’t have a problem with that. Sometimes I even listen to Zucchero, imagine that. I don’t know, now a band like Coldplay has become uncriticizable; if you touch them, you’re either a mainstream hater or a snob. “Well, if we take away lyrics and music, what’s left?” It’s not that simple; lyrics and music, the so-called songwriting, are the soul of a song. Production and arrangement are important phases but not as much as the writing and performance of the tracks, which belong to the band itself and not to Brian Eno and arrangers of that sort. That’s where you discover if a band is valid, when they write strong songs. For me, Coldplay’s songs are not strong, or at least, not many of them.

It has nothing to do with it. If, as already widely discussed, the Coldplay album doesn't hold up in the so-called "battle of time" (and I'm not the only one saying this), the work behind it matters little, maybe nothing at all. Take Nevermind the Bollocks, what the hell is the work behind that? Yeah, it's raw, instinctive, powerful but far from complex or troubled. And let's be honest, take away the production and arrangement from a track like "viva la figa," what the hell is left? But I'd rather go with Aserejé, just to scandalize someone. I find that one more original.

Well, if a record doesn’t even have to last over time, then everything is beautiful, everything is wonderful, and everything is listenable. Because, you have to believe me, when “Aserejé” by Las Ketchup came out, I found it pleasant for even an entire listen. An entire one! By the second listen, I would have wanted to strangle those three little chicks, but you know how it is, I lacked the desire to be objective. Who cares if a song has already become annoying by the second listen? And write “gli” at least once every eighteen comments, good god.

good old rat

dear friends, it may be mainstream, I don't know and I don't care, but that certainly does not reflect our country. I mean, I could be wrong, but I believe this artist is only noticed by a handful of people around here. and the reviewer said this, "he deserved more attention both on debaser and in italy." yet reading your comments, it seems that everything mainstream is also rubbish. it’s not necessarily the case.

Gustavo, I’ll try to share my thoughts... a good album should also be able to stand the test of time. As you well know, there are albums that grab you immediately but after a few months become a drag. Well, in my opinion, all Coldplay albums belong in this category... you call it a "brondi effect"? "Viva la figa" was heavily promoted from the moment it was released; it wasn't at all "cool" to praise Coldplay (let's remember, Chris Martin, a promising pop songwriter, revealed his mediocrity in his recent releases). For me, this album surprised the audience, used to the usual Coldplay tunes, thanks to the brilliant production of Brian Eno. But we know, a producer can’t perform miracles if the songs themselves are banal (so banal they seem like plagiarisms of about a thousand other tracks) like "Viva la figa."

I find the song "Viva la Vida" irritating; I'm amazed by the success it has achieved! It's true what they say about tastes and so on.

go take a shit

this album is very well packaged, cute and fragrant, but essentially it’s music that doesn’t leave a mark. the coldplay were at their best with parachutes and even that, I’ve recently realized, hasn’t exactly stood the test of time. I doubt I’ll revisit "viva la figa" in a few months, and that’s the reason for my criticism. a cute album isn’t enough to score 4 or 5, bye.

Great record, it gets a 3.5; I prefer the latest effort from Frank Black, they're different but both are just poppy enough.