omahaceleb

I just want to stop by quickly; I've only read the review and comment, intrigued by the name. As a reader of Benjamin who is not a casual one, fortunate enough to have had some high-level Benjaminian teachers, and considering all the mitigating factors—like the part where you say you're interested in raising a question starting from Benjamin's text, but that you won’t discuss the text in question—I can tell you that you are very, very far from even remotely understanding either Benjamin's thought or the book. But the very questions you raise and the way you talk about them prove this. You spend five paragraphs discussing the "authenticity" of art and music; now, anyone familiar with Benjamin, the essay "Destiny and Character," and all of "Angelus Novus," "The German Baroque Drama," etc., knows very well that his is not a philosophy of authenticity and established aesthetic values; indeed, the fact that you focus solely on that seems almost comical. And sorry to say, but you don't even grasp how Benjamin writes: you talk about "pippozzo" concerning art and its modern condition. Pippozzo? I understand trying to be charming; that’s fine, but that passage is really sad, especially compared to such wonderfully rich thought, for which one should certainly have more respect. I'm talking about the respect due to a novice, respect for the immense work. This Benjamin, the second one—less epigrammatic and more structured, that is, the Benjamin who writes knowing he is misunderstood or misinterpreted—is an extraordinary example of expository clarity. The day you read "Metafisica della Gioventù," you will have an apoplectic fit.

leave a comment on the Gazzetta forum and then go fuck yourself

For a moment, I read Jawbox, and I was feeling all happy. Then I read it again... no, if they sound like Jawbreaker now, they're not for me. You, in any case, are the best.

Mmh, but reading the first paragraph again, I don't know... Here we aren't talking about a phenomenon nor a hack mistaken for a phenomenon. I believe that Josh has always seen himself as a good musician and nothing more. I've read some of his interviews that I remember being quite unexpected, where beyond the aura of a guru, you could glimpse a guy like many others, well aware of the debts and obligations towards his guardian deities. The hysteria around the charismatic figure is more of a problem for those who listen to him. But I haven't been interested in the character since 2011, so I might remember everything wrong, and if that's the case, just disregard what I've written. Bye.

I initially adored the previous album, only to set it aside until today. It was an exhausting listen. It demanded too much from me, even though it was beautiful in a way that only reveals itself with total attention to the listening experience. Now that it seems to have changed its musical style, persona, and even barber, I might consider giving it another thought. PS. Beyond the Mormon hat, I believe he was Pentecostal; at least he was back then.

Listening ok

I remember it, heard during the early days of visiting the site, a couple of phenomenal tracks. And also a great reviewer, too bad we don't see supersoul around anymore.

When the album was released, my little girl was too young to travel far and catch a concert from the tour, and it made me very sad. I had deliberately not listened to even a single song to try to experience the thrill of the novelty live; then, after the excitement faded, it completely slipped from my mind. And now your review confirms that I've missed out on a great album, in short. Thank you for reminding me.

But I have never listened to it, not even at Easter!

Piquet has dumped Shakira, Sasse has cheated on Minogue. In short, the small and tough asses of the old days are no longer in fashion.