fedeee

It seems that there was no text provided after "Ecco il testo:". Please provide the text you would like me to translate.

It seems that there was no text provided after "Ecco il testo:". Please provide the text you would like me to translate.

an anachronistic reception... and anyway everything derives from what precedes it... so by force the Blink derive from melodic hardcore, which comes from hardcore, which comes from punk, stop... they just took from everyone and that's it, and above all they have done nothing but bring forth the greatest evil: bands like Finley (muahuhauhuahua). Apart from that, I don't think they can be compared to either Alkaline Trio (too niche, and that's saying something), nor to Green Day (who, if nothing else, "invented" pop punk for MTV... whether that's a good thing, you decide)...^^

Pirandello must be turning in his grave for the stolen title (if you google it, the links are all for this Z-movie, except for the Wikipedia disambiguation note), and Moravia for these comments...^^"

'azz I wrote productive with a q ahahahah I'm really the daughter of coolture...ciaociao mukkiodossa^^!

@mukkidossa already :|

Ah, on the issue of the industry... I think it will be around forever... it's a bit like an anarchic utopia to see it dead. Sometimes I think about how music could be disseminated in a modern and fruitful way. In the end, I always come to think of a system like iTunes where every musician puts up their stuff and people can buy it, without record labels in the mix. But then it comes down to it: will this stuff be of quality?? Who will decide what's good and what's not? The public? Once I would have answered, "of course, people"... but now I wouldn't know... it would bring back the situation Alessioiride mentioned... that people wouldn't know how to orient themselves. So we would need someone to regulate the site... and who would that be? The figure of the new record executive :( it's a vicious circle... it wouldn't be worth it.

@mukkiodossa of course, that’s also a problem (and it’s actually represented by the column "musical tastes" deifighettisumyspace")...not knowing the beautiful music of the past, not contextualizing it, etc., is all stuff that people miss out on.
However, my reasoning about culture doesn’t concern encyclopedic knowledge... it’s about culture in an anthropological sense! And I’m not saying that I want to cling to a musical genre/ideal/artistic style, perhaps fictitious, when I’m 80 years old (like many who have lived through previous decades and had their own musical phase)... I’m saying that even now I’m BORED! Why can’t I buy a record of today and say "how innovative it is... how much I relate to it and it’s contemporary... blabla!"... in short, for me, the problem initially posed by the review was related to this.
Then, the fact that people don’t know a thing about music has always existed, and maybe it was even worse due to the lack of the internet that spreads knowledge.
byee ^^

Rereading what I wrote, perhaps it hasn’t been fully understood what I mean by musical culture, which would be: the good music known by everyone and that a generation recognizes... the one to remember when you're old... because you heard it on the radio, you sang it, you played it at home when you invited someone over. My memories will be tied to what? To beautiful songs from previous eras and to stuff that isn't much good to which I'll be attached only emotionally... not for real beauty.
End of rant... sorry^^

Well... before I was mostly talking about musical culture, even though my doubts also concern generational culture in a broader sense... everything that can unite people my age (from political and social issues and positions, to music, to art).
Regarding the musical part (since we're discussing this on Db ^^), in the previous comments (but also in the review), there was talk of what style represented the 2000s and many mentioned the luck of the mix! Well... as I said before, it's the culture of everything and nothing. Even before, musically, there was a reference to what had been done previously, but the solution was never just a simple juxtaposition of elements.
There was an evolution, a change... you could hear the echo of what was... not fragmented pieces of a recidivist past lined up one after the other.
Even people my age who play music only look to the past and nothing else.
I'm not talking about cover bands because the songs are theirs; I'm talking about people who are music clerks... that when they take the standards of a genre they love, they follow them scrupulously to arrive at a pale copy of what others had done 20-30-40 years earlier (of course, I'm talking about rock and not electronic music... because otherwise it would be another discussion as others mentioned before).
In short... it seems to me that in rock there is little sound research, little social and/or political commitment (but I would even accept it if at least there were a sonic overcoming)... it seems that everything is done for the self-coolness of the artist... the 2000s are the years of pop and commercial hip hop, of pop rock and low-tier pop punk, of the so-called third wave emo... because this is what today's veterans have created... those who have done something good are few and not representative of most of my generation because they are not widely known (before anyone knew Bob Dylan, the Beatles, Pink Floyd... etc)... there you go :|