supersoul

Kurdt, in my opinion, you haven't listened well to either Superfuzz Bigmuff or the first album, because the first things that come to mind are the hard rock of Blue Cheer and the garage punk of the Stooges. It's easy, twenty years later, to sum up the Seattle scene and say that Mudhoney invented grunge because they were the first band from that city to get noticed. The fact is that this grunge so loved by teenagers around the world, which Mudhoney supposedly invented, has brought success and allowed many bands to buy all the flannel they want, while Mudhoney, when they show up for concerts in Europe, are approached by scalpers trying to sell them tickets.

too bad for the tangled half review on the grunge diatribe, because it’s a good review that confirms Mudhoney are in excellent shape in the sense that they still play their dirty, unrefined garage punk hard rock for the masses. The problem is that these losers (and ironically they call themselves The Lucky Ones) are the ones who kickstarted the whole Seattle movement, Sub Pop, and flannel shirts wanting to play as hard as Blue Cheer, and while the other vanguards of the movement have made piles of money catering to public tastes, they stubbornly continue to sound like Magnolia Caboose Babyshit just came out today and not in 1968. Moving and consistent even on this album.

For me, you are on the same level as Sorrentino, for not having indicated the name and surname of the person who made the pirated copy, and the circumstances and facts regarding how you came into possession of it. Long live Italy!

Yes, but it’s not the mere fact of expanding to culture; the issue lies in how they present this culture to you. Let’s go back to Comizi d'amore, where the real embarrassment comes from the educated, intellectual bourgeois who, in their exposition, demonstrate conformity, clichés, and hypocrisy to the max.

Technically valid yet rather monotonous and ordinary, at this level there are quite a few formations, and derivatives for derivatives. Personally, I prefer the filthier ones like Junkyard or Brought Low, which five stars can only dream of. But obviously, it's a matter of taste.

I would also agree if one were free in the process of creating their own culture.

Definitely a record to listen to, well done to the reviewer. I also agree on the version of Somebody to Love, much darker than that of the Jeffersons. It seems to me that here the guitarist was Grace's brother.

And we agree that it’s a well-made film, but it feels like a homework assignment completed with utmost professionalism and no spark. It gave me the impression of those police TV series condensed into a single episode, featuring actors, especially Russell Crowe, who are much more suited for TV than for cinema. A few months later, I watched "We Own the Night" with Joaquin Phoenix, Mark Wahlberg, and Robert Duvall (still police against drug trafficking), and honestly, its hour and a half emotionally and narratively outshines these two and a half hours of Scott.

... and thanks to the piffero, it’s not a movie but a documentary anchored in the present situation and a product of its times, but Pasolini went beyond mere numerical investigation. Those who don’t have eyes lined with bresaola notice that he dislikes that Italy and puts himself out there to contribute to change, not to please the prurient souls like the crude investigative films about sexuality that will later emerge following his example (forbidden to minors under 18!). As Alessio emphasizes, the dismay arises from the fact that behind the culturally advanced facade of university students or petty bourgeois, the worst falsity and hypocrisy is revealed, or even the pompous and useless words of wealthy intellectual bourgeois (I remember Fallaci lying on the beach discussing sexuality). But for me, the contrast remains with the furrowed and hollow faces of the farmers and the humble interviewees, the toothless smiles that serve as great evidence for Pasolini in the films that followed, starting from the Gospel.