telespallabob

Anubis... reading what you wrote really interests me. I forgot to mention, they chose a great name. No complaints about the review.

There's not much to discuss about the album, and I'm not saying anything original about it. The review? It left me a bit puzzled, and I can't quite say why.

I knew it, I felt that there was something fishy about it. And damn it!

Are you serious or what? Anyway, MadCat's question has its reasons, after all, it deserved it.

Thank you all for stopping by. @Antonio, I haven't found the original covers. Unfortunately. And this issue also applies to other records. If I have the chance to talk about them again, I'll try to track them down.

I didn't know they were still recording. I only have their most famous albums and they're pretty good, even if not excellent.

Will I see him sooner or later in some store? I like the review also because the key description is summed up in one word: disoriented. And usually, when you have this feeling, it’s not like you write an epic poem.

A magnificent, intense, and magical album. The review perfectly captures the feelings expressed by the band from Athens.

Masterpiece? I don't think so. Anyway, we’re talking about a giant like Wyatt, but I have the feeling that here he hasn't yet reached his expressive peak. Some might argue that "Third" was released in 1970. This is true, but I don't feel he's fully ready for a solo project. Many elements that are already present here get refined in Matching Mole and ultimately become that Opera of "Rock Bottom". Let's say he doesn’t fully express himself. And now the review (by the way, welcome to Debaser). I don't like the way you set up your reviews: an endless and exhausting chronicle of the album, in which you try to include a whole series of philosophical images that aren’t even bad in themselves but after a while become tiresome. However, it's not fair to slam you just because I don't like the way you structure your review. That's not right.

The word "anarchoid" in the climate that Terek wants to establish doesn't sit well with me. It would be better to say something else: everyone fails to understand the risk and the violent potential of a situation like this and almost willfully exacerbates it, convinced that no matter what happens, the risk is minimal. Therefore, they rebel, seek confrontation, and other situations. In my opinion, they don't self-convince. They simply believe they are masters of the context, which ends up overwhelming them because it rests on perverse foundations. You talk about an impossible self-management in people; I disagree. On the contrary, each of us can self-regulate and exhibit responsible behavior. Trying to play on the irrationality of others, convinced of being superior in self-control, leads you to lose touch with reality. Here, no one wants to build a self-regulated society and observe responsible attitudes in people. It's quite the opposite: they play on people's psychology, believing that everything is permissible, and they can come out unscathed. It reminds me of an article I was reading these days in the "Corriere" about a Reality Show where some contestants fight for a job position. In the case of the film, those who organize the experiment lose control of the situation and pay the consequences. Today, however, there’s a risk that people will reward you by clinging to their seats and allowing you a sequel. No one forces them to choose a perverse solution; an experiment isn't necessary. I couldn't say if social self-regulation is possible, but one cannot assert the opposite based on such events, given that the goal isn’t to build coexistence but to inflict human humiliation. The same humiliation found behind Reality TV and all the people who contribute to such machinery.