emofiliaco

Alessio, I care about you, and this affection for your idols is touching, but there's still a confusion about one thing. As I already mentioned, I haven't talked about artistic impressions but about production and marketing, and I'm sorry, but the things you're saying are not correct. The information about Nirvana and this album has been very sugar-coated back then, and only in recent years has the magnificent conceptual project of uniting music and culture come to light (and I say this with absolute admiration for Cobain and Co.'s foresight or whoever was behind it). I’ll set aside the fact that you consider me to be ill-intentioned because, in a few years, many of you will come to my side, by the way, without changing the idea about the artistic value of the album. However, it would be nice if you were a bit less indulgent towards your heroes and less aggressive towards those who criticize (I repeat, born from technical and environmental considerations and not artistic ones; I’ve said it a hundred times, but it seems it still hasn’t been understood) and not offensive, as you often are towards others’ tastes, mostly without plausible motivations. Well, have I offended you or Nirvana? No, I made a remark about market demands, which they weren't even strangers to (quite the opposite), so get that into your heads, guys. The comparison with MJ, anyone who knows me knows it is not meant to be offensive (quite the contrary), and if you had read my posts carefully, you would have understood. So don't say I’m spouting nonsense or that I'm being ill-intentioned; it's a rather immature way to behave, think about it… and no hard feelings. Bye!
P.S.: Claiming that SP or PJ were caricatures only reinforces my idea of Nirvana being (erroneously) seen as tough and pure while the others were enslaved to commerce. If that was the case, it applied to everyone, including Nirvana (but I don't think it was entirely so), and above all, denying a huge historical fact, namely that both SP and PJ made enormous records (and I don’t care if they were commercial or not, because I repeat, my consideration revolves around something else) is serious. Evaluate music for what it is and don’t think too much about the purposes; you’ll enjoy it more, trust me. If you need to understand how much I care about someone being independent or enslaved, look at the rating I gave "Nevermind"; if I didn’t think it was a good album, would I have given it that rating, in your opinion? No, I just think it’s as commercial as many other artists, and the story of Cobain being independent from the majors is a myth, that’s all. The History of Music is full of great musicians and characters turned into icons by the mass media (often against their will). Well, for me, Cobain was both things (and still is).

the votes

Hello everyone! So, (for those who don’t know, I'm cpt) I live in Vicenza City (@Flin: I’m originally from Valdagno, by the way I sent you a private message) and of course I will give my precise coordinates to the participants of the event privately. September 15th works perfectly for me; my house isn't very big but we can comfortably accommodate 7-8 people, though we could stretch it to ten. More than that would be a bit difficult, in which case I could book a place in Vicenza where we can be more comfortable (and obviously suitable for all budgets). So I suggest that we accept reservations for the event until September 1st. If we have ten (or fewer, of course) by that date, we’ll do it at my place; if it’s more, I will personally take care of booking another location.
As for the menu, I will prepare things suitable for the event (of course if it’s at my house, you will be my guests, so the thought of reimbursements or other formalities shouldn't even cross your minds). Naturally, if anyone wants to bring a dish, I won’t oppose it. In this regard, it’s important for me to know if anyone has special dietary requirements (allergies, vegetarianism, celiac disease, etc.), but please let me know privately for privacy reasons! Cheers!

Well, you just keep going around the issue I raised, claiming, as usual, to present facts, while in reality, you are speaking in an entirely subjective manner. You're a good guy, and I respect you, but you are too little inclined to question yourself. Every criticism I bring up (and mind you, a criticism is not an offense) makes you assert that "I'm pissing outside the pot," which is strange since you are the one with the absolute concepts. As for the rest, I've said what I needed to say, and I don't think it's worth insisting further. By the way, I don't think the association between rankings and relativism is so wrong; just think about the meaning of the second term, and you’ll get there. Take care and no hard feelings. Bye!

@Black: dear one, it will be as you say, I repeat the impression while listening is completely different, however in order: At the beginning of their careers, the MCs were too far removed from the world of showbiz (I was talking about that and not about artistic quality, at least it seems to me that our dialogue revolved around the commercial term and not artistic purposes) B) When I say that there is a lot of study and work in "Nevermind," I say it as a compliment and not to belittle. Always here for you. Bye!

Then I don't understand one thing: you say you don't care about relativism, so why do you look at the charts? Just don’t look at them; the charts exist because relativism exists (and in the case of sales rankings, it may be crude but critics are certainly no joke, only to later preach about objectivity). I’ll be honest, and I'm not saying this to attack you but because I want to have a frank conversation: I see a lot of frustration in your words. You make terrible accusations about trivial things like "Sc" by the DT being second in the rankings when (if I understand you correctly) you should be happy because since you don't consider it artistically relevant, it would prove (though in reality it doesn't) your idea that art is for a select few. And yet you're always complaining that the masses understand nothing; if you really thought that way, you shouldn't even be here discussing it because the others (the masses, whether they like it or not, we all are part of it) are incapable of understanding. I think you have a strong envy towards those who experience music lightly (which, based on your words, doesn’t seem to be the case for you) and this makes you even more aggressive against realities that have many supporters (I’m talking about true fans, flesh and blood, not fictitious sales rankings), not realizing that groups like Maiden (but I could also mention Vasco in different terms) don’t take away space from any other reality because they occupy a dimension so uniquely defined by their uniqueness, that even in their absence, a fan wouldn’t appreciate, say, Fugazi, even if they had more visibility. You call this a lack of critical sense; I call it a matter of taste. The fact remains that this makes your attitude even stranger. Bye!
P.S. This week I won't be able to reply to your response (if you want to reply); don’t worry, I’ll get in touch as soon as possible.

And who or what would establish the average musical good taste?

No Misunderstanding on the Terms: I also lived through that time, I repeat behind "Nevermind" there is an enormous productive and technical effort (and there is very little spontaneity in those sounds but a lot, a lot, a lot of calculation, in the positive sense of the term, meaning research) that anyone with good technical knowledge can recognize. (From my point of view, this thing is also positive), and it wasn't a matter of word-of-mouth but rather a bam bam media explosion that, I repeat, was not very different from that surrounding any mainstream artist of that moment. I'm talking about this album; the argument you make is correct up until "Bleach," then it isn’t. The comparison you make with the Motley shows that you probably know their history from "Theatre of Pain" onwards. Anyway, let’s put it this way, you can think that "Nevermind" wasn’t a mainstream and commercial phenomenon (commercial in the sense created specifically for big numbers and not in the negative sense of the term—I need to explain it to you because it doesn't seem clear to you the difference; not only the most crass Pop can be sold well but also less assimilable genres, it depends on the historical period, "Nevermind" was the right album at the right moment in this sense). Personally, I don’t understand the difficulty in accepting this argument; we are not debating the quality of the album, indeed, the comparison with Jackson is only from a production standpoint (in terms of work and research in the studio, because it might seem impossible to you, but there was a lot in MJ) and distribution (Mainstream Hits, Heavy Rotation on TV and Radio, Grunge becoming a cultural phenomenon, surpassing musical boundaries), not from an artistic standpoint (and anyway, at least until "Dangerous," even Michelino wasn't to be discarded in his genre, quite the opposite). Is it clearer now?

Like it or not, Nirvana's "Nevermind" was commercial, so much so that it was under the protective wing of Mtv. Talking about the album, we are faced with an excellent work, one of the most important of the '90s, but as I have already said, the production and distribution mechanics of the "Nirvana Product" were not so different from any other mainstream album of the time, and this is history. But aside from that, I'd like to know what changes? Is the album good? Yes... so who cares, experience it for once in a sterile way compared to the usual discussions: "mainstream band = shit, niche band = geniuses". As I've said in other reviews, anyone with a basic instrumental knowledge can't help but notice the incredible work done in production to create this album (in defiance of a supposed spontaneity that's been so touted), and for me, that's not a flaw but rather a merit, a sign of a band that wasn’t just there by chance. The fact that there are supporters continuing to claim Nirvana's alleged independence from market logic while detractors exalt its commercial side (which existed, and I repeat, at the risk of being attacked again, wasn't so different in mechanics from the advertising for any Michael Jackson) means that both sides haven’t understood one important thing: that music (and art in general) should be evaluated for what it is and not for how it presents itself or how it is sold, or whether it is niche or popular. Leave these pretentious arguments to the intellectual critics, listen to the music in a pure way (both mentally and emotionally) and you will see that nothing else will matter (and here I’ll pay royalties to 'tallica).

the vote...