CaptainHowdy

@Daytona: Well, whether my arguments were shut in my face is still to be proven, given that those arguments were mere lists of genres that are hypothesized to have had more media resonance than Grunge (and historically, those are baseless claims) and not musical, since I was talking about that. I stated that Grunge lacks the credentials to be considered a genre, and I received scattered responses: A) that what I listen to is more commercial (when I already stated from the first post that this is not a problem for me) B) that Soundgarden and AIC are giants, which wasn’t backed up (while I always supported my arguments) C) that I have no right to speak because I listen to Timbaland and Tori Amos (but when did I say that?) D) that Nirvana weren't a mass phenomenon because there were worse ones out there (thanks to the... of course) E) that if I don't like Nirvana, I can't be considered a friend and that I didn't understand the sensibility of the character.. (?) and others that I'll spare you.. and all this when my initial statement was "Indeed, I believe the comment above yours referred to the 'construction' of the myth and not to its birth; great album, but during those years, there was much better (and you’re too smart not to know that, so there's no need for me to name names). Its 'legend', willingly or not, was built by the media and not by factors intrinsic to the music, and probably this aspect has harmed more than helped the work itself." Post 121 if I’m not mistaken. Well, no one responded to my comment, explaining to me why, in their opinion (subjectively, since I don’t believe in objectivity except for scientific matters, and it doesn't seem to me that music should be considered an exact science), Nirvana should be regarded as musically important and not sociologically important, since that is the question. Regarding Amos, no, she’s not niche; I never said otherwise, but I don't believe she can be considered mass appeal either (but even if she were, that wouldn’t be a problem for me; it seems the opposite is hard for Nirvana fans to admit). Then you say I persist; perhaps, but if questions arise, I respond as I believe is debatable maybe, but I think civilly. I believe the site was made to compare ideas; otherwise, there are Scaruffi or Ondarock to passively endure those of others. Another thing is snobbery; it seems to me that with that statement about Trip Hop, a bit of the snob is you. And I haven’t stated that Trip Hop has been overshadowed (if you see, regarding Brit Pop, I say something in one of my posts above, but it seems you also haven’t read everything I wrote, which is not a problem but it becomes one when advising someone to keep calm and implicitly stop (a bit undemocratic, don’t you think? especially since the tones were absolutely civil, but after all, with a gentleman like Don, how could it be otherwise..). You do it too by trying to turn my tastes against me. Did I say that anyone who listens to Nirvana is an idiot? (I challenge you to find a comment from cptgaio, emofiliaco, or Captainhowdy saying this about someone who doesn’t share my taste.. there are over 2000 if you feel like glancing through). I simply said that it seemed exaggerated for DonJunio to accuse someone of bad faith or ignorance for thinking that Nirvana owe a lot (I’m not ashamed to think almost everything but it’s a personal opinion) to MTV (which, among other things, I think I clarified does not undermine their validity for me, even if I don’t adore them.. I believe I gave this album a 4 in one of the reviews... so no animosity towards Nirvana). Just as with the rest of Grunge (by the way, I like AIC and Soundgarden, and this is also proven by my previous comments on DeB; I just think there was better, so it seems that if there’s someone a bit biased, it’s you towards me), that’s all. I know very well that among my favorite artists there have been those heavily supported by the media, and that’s not a problem (while all the replies

I’m back because I forgot to reply to one of your comments, and it just came to mind now. About the Trip-Hop discussion and Striscia, I honestly don’t know what to say. I’ve never watched an episode of that show in my life (and it's not to be snobbish, it just never came naturally to me). Anyway, it doesn’t really relate to what I wanted to tell you. I’m not saying that one genre is more commercial than the other; almost all of them are commercial by definition, and I’m sorry you keep responding to me based on that preconception. What I’m saying is that personally, I believe Trip-Hop (and I could also mention other genres from those years) was a musical genre because it was cohesive and quite different from all the influences that generated it, which cannot be said for Grunge. After all these years, I still feel those influences bouncing back (of course, we’re talking about electronic music), which is not the same for Seattle Sound (that didn’t have a clear musical connotation but only a cultural one). You can "turn against" any group or influence I mention, but none of these had the media resonance of Grunge. I'm sorry, but that’s historical. The discussion would be more about the question, “Are we really sure Grunge deserved all that space?” and this leads us into personal tastes. I have an answer, but I’m going to remove myself from the conversation for good. By the way, in the entertainment industry, there are generally two types of personalities: those who establish and those who are subjected, implicitly (if I can say that). Take care. Bye!

I'll listen to you just on the surface; I'll see if I can catch up.

I don't know. Beautiful page.

So, I've already said everything I think about "Mezzanine," and I feel like I've explained why I prefer the earlier work. All I can add is that, in the end, I think it comes down to personal feelings. My feeling is that "Mezzanine" adds little to what the Massive had already said, but I do think it's a good album, and I understand the feelings you're talking about, even if I don't fully share them. Regarding Portishead, you mention a very interesting album, but in the end, I prefer "Dummy" for almost the same reasons I prefer "Protection" over "Mezzanine," plus the fact that it’s a beautiful album but remains Live of non-original tracks and therefore adds little. Still, I completely understand what you mean. On "100th Window," I disagree; I find it a tired repetition of clichés... but these are just opinions; maybe I’ll give it another listen. Bye!

Never intended to change anyone's opinion, I merely expressed my own. Take care!

@Ocean: You don't even know what I listen to and what I've listened to.. and from what I see, it's better this way, there are already too many people like you, better not to delve deeper. I wish you happiness in your superficiality. (By the way, you didn't understand anything of what I've written).

@Alessio: I don't believe in the idea that there is someone or something that is untouchable. If you look at my past comments, I've given bad ratings to several works by Maiden, Amos, Tool, etc. because I simply didn't like them, despite the creators. That said, I'm not saying, as the commenter from 160 understood, that certain Grunge bands or Nirvana are garbage or commercial (which, I will repeat until I’m blue in the face, is not necessarily a flaw for me). I challenge you to find a similar argument. My point was purely personal regarding the artistic and historical feelings I have about those (beautiful) years; no objective truth in that. However, if you allow me, a band like Nirvana, with the following it had, can't be called underrated at any rate, and regarding the historical merits you attribute to them, I reiterate that in my opinion, there are other bands that deserve them, and I've already named them. Take care! @Ole: As usual, you’ve understood, even though you don’t think like me! Bye! @Don: If Nirvana fans didn’t go around associating others with MTV, it wouldn’t happen. It’s the dog chasing its tail, and anyway, I was not generalizing; the thick-headed exist everywhere. I do notice, however, that small historical truths annoy some, and as I already mentioned in the first comment of this review (or the second... I don’t know?), I would disregard and avoid unnecessary accusations of superficiality or ignorance towards others; that was the point. That said, I renew my esteem and bid you farewell. Bye!

@Ocean: You don't even know what I listen to and what I've listened to.. and from what I see, it's better this way, there are already too many people like you, better not to delve deeper. I wish you happiness in your superficiality. (By the way, you didn't understand anything of what I've written).

I had missed the reflection on Metal as an influence on Grunge. As for Soundgarden, I’ve already told you my thoughts. Regarding Nirvana, honestly, aside from certain "hard" sounds (which are typical of Punk as well), they really lack the premises of the genre. It’s not a flaw, but a stylistic choice. If we accept the fact that Nirvana has metal influences (at least as heavy as it seems you’re suggesting), then we should agree that Metal is the inspiring genre for 90% of the bands from '85 onwards. And honestly, I don’t believe that’s the case. When people say "I liked Black Sabbath," that’s one thing, but for it to truly inspire their music is another. A curiosity: do you know what Steve Harris's (from Maiden) favorite band was when he was young? Thin Lizzy. Now, I don’t seem to notice many objective influences from them in the music of Maiden… (it’s just an example, please spare me discussions about the mass success of Maiden; in that case, I’ll say it myself… Maiden is a mass band).