Stoney

Oh, no one has treated them like the greatest band of all time, least of all me, who only said they were three good-for-nothings who accidentally found themselves on the world charts with a record that sold millions of copies in no time. Who has overestimated what?

Is it possible that on Debaser every opinion or observation is always taken personally and leads to discussions and clashes? Oh, then we complain about politicians. Yes, that Pirandello annoys me is a subjective thing, of course. It's my opinion and I have every right to it. Personally, I feel like giving this book a 5 and disregarding the entire Pirandello's work that I can't stand, and not certainly because "I didn't understand it" or for who knows what other personal quirk of mine (as always insinuated when faced with someone who thinks differently, because in the end, it seems that everyone should think in one way, and if they don't, there must be some hidden psycho-pathological reason...); simply, I read it and assessed it, and I don't consider it as essential as it is often presented. Then, if you don't agree, I don't know what to tell you.

Uhm, I don't know if they "communicate" anything. You probably just like them, which is totally fine, but communication... I think it's something entirely different. Anyway, if you want, you can tell me what they communicate to you; I'm curious (seriously, and not as a provocation).

So? If you find yourself playing without knowing how to put two notes together in 1990, you can't. Because either you were born in the '70s and do punk, or you keep strumming in the garage. I didn't know about this law, thanks for enlightening me. And then you get mad at people who have blinders on... oh well.

I didn't say "pleasure" to everyone, I said "communicate," grasp the difference by yourself.

I read that guy's opinion and I commented on it too. To me, he spouted a load of nonsense.

For me, the 5 given to this book is quite comparable to that given to any Pirandello. Firstly because Pirandello gets on my nerves, and secondly because this book, in terms of satire and critical acuity, has nothing to envy the "greats" of literature. Perhaps someone will now wrinkle their nose and start the usual citational and nostalgic exercise rich in literary comparisons, but I’ll put my hands up in advance, saying that true literature is the one that manages to talk about concrete things while entertaining and engaging; the fact that we are used to thinking that "serious" works have to be boring and require "study and sacrifice" is our problem, which has nothing to do with the literary value of a work.

What a mess this review is, huh? Are you seriously telling me what the hell the music of these three idiots has to do with the media circus that’s been built around them? I’m with you 1000% when you go after the idiotic and obsessed fans, but when you attack them personally, I think you’re missing the mark big time. They were just three failed kids like many of their age back in the '80s/'90s, and like many, they made a racket playing in garages without knowing how to put two notes together because they wouldn't have known how to do anything else in life. Should we blame them for that? Sure, let's blame them... But maybe this is precisely the point of the movement they were part of: just as they were incapable and useless, there were billions of others like them, and there still are today, crushed by the alienation of big metropolises (Seattle like New York like any other), and it's a rare exception in history that they gained such media resonance. Something that the independent artists you mention, by necessity, do not and do not want to have, perhaps because they are aware of their role and can choose how to move. Cobain had no awareness of his role, nor has he ever had it; he was just a dead weight dragged along by the current. It’s trivial to write a review just to remember that the pimple-faced thirteen-year-old who has only heard Nevermind in his life thinks Cobain is an absolute genius because that’s his problem. You confuse the idiotic exaltation of kids with the music of Nirvana; you confuse the false message that’s been slapped onto them with what the Seattle trio never wanted to express because they couldn’t have cared less. People need easy myths, and they see in icons what they want to see, just like a religious fanatic sees in their god an objective confirmation of their way of thinking, right or wrong. What the media icon communicates and what people believe it communicates are two different things, and almost always they are diametrically opposed, especially when that icon doesn’t communicate anything at all, and people are free to fill it with the easy and superficial meanings they prefer.

Vigilante, yes, 90% of Zappa's output seems unbearable to me. What's the problem? I never said that Zappa was incompetent; on the contrary, I believe he is the most important musician of the last 2 centuries. However, fortunately, I'm free not to force myself to enjoy it, unlike many others. Music isn't listened to for dogmas, but by separating the personal level from the level of historical significance, being aware of both. Regards.

I'm stepping up to defend Kosmogabri. While acknowledging the absolute importance of Franco Zappa, 90% of his work is unlistenable to me, so it goes without saying that when I have nothing to do, I prefer to listen to something else. And while I'm at it (in the field), I'm also defending Ashanti. You’ve crucified her for a couple of oversights she made here and there; it's convenient when it serves to completely ignore the underlying message of the review. She simply said that it's stupid to mythologize three dirty and rough guys who, while playing, didn't care about making poetry, and that in 90% of cases where it concerns Cobain as a poet, thinking they are "elevating" him actually leads to a complete misunderstanding of his music, his message, his musical function. I see nothing wrong with this; in fact, thank goodness someone said it.