Voto:
But this film wasn't made with real actors then recreated on the computer as animation? Nice film, not a masterpiece but good, decent reception.
Voto:
rece good grant, I never liked them, I find them banal and cliché, Dakota is very beautiful though.
Voto:
"I OWE SO MUCH TO THEM" was the phrase from Cobain placed on the label stuck on this record at its release. I have 2 albums by the Meat Puppets and a best of; they are original and eclectic. The review is done very well.
Voto:
great review, I've never listened to them but I love the non-genre and non-grunge movement, but there are quite a few non-genres and non-movements, like britpop for example.
Voto:
you could have said a bit more, but the review is well done nonetheless. I listened to the album years ago; I appreciate Albarn's desire to explore and experiment, but I can't give a rating to this album. Sunset Coming On is very beautiful. Certainly, listening to this album, the Gorillaz, and what they produced with Think Tank, one can infer the reason that led to Coxon's departure. He and Albarn were the souls of Blur, and at a certain point, they took musical paths that were just too different to continue coexisting.
Voto:
well, in '97 I would have mentioned "blur," a masterpiece that shattered the phenomenon known as britpop in every sense (even though the bands thrown into the mix had nothing to do with it, not even in attitude), great review, I like the way you describe the albums.
Voto:
they probably didn't aim to impose themselves on pop culture, but that’s what happened. Certainly, the themes of the Pistols' songs were frightening at the time, but their deeply melodic base allowed for immediate accessibility. I want to emphasize that for me, this is a great quality, just like Cobain's compositional talent, which allowed Nirvana to literally explode onto the 90s scene. As for whether the Ramones and Buzzcocks were more or less pop than the Pistols, I don't really care much.
Voto:
The Ramones essentially revived a dry, essential, distorted garage rock in a total reaction and rebellion against the prog that was rampant at the time. Their songs were immediate, almost always extremely short, with a rebellious and cheeky attitude. The foundations for what would become punk are to be found here; it's clear that they took some ingredients from somewhere in the '60s, but it's the way and the era in which they reworked them that created the punk revolution.
Voto:
Well, mucchidossa, then let's also go back to the Velvet Underground, The Who, some things by The Beatles, what does it matter? In the '60s, the foundations were laid for everything that came after, but that doesn’t in any way diminish the greatness, in this case, of the Ramones, Sex Pistols, Clash, Buzzcocks, etc. etc.
Voto:
But look, I haven't said anything negative about the Pistols, whom I've always liked a lot. The one who doesn't grasp the punk scenario, I think, is you. It's a fact that with the Sex Pistols, punk as a musical, social, and cultural movement entered popular culture. It is also well known that it was with the skilled direction and strategy of McLaren that the four became the main figures of punk as a phenomenon that changed many things at the end of the '70s. However, I repeat that the purely musical roots of what punk was were established by the Ramones.