Don_Pollo

After seeing the review on the homepage, I had convulsions and drool in my eyes (that’s right, in my eyes) for seven hours and two minutes. Then I ran to listen to the Pooh.

Raise your hand if, before reading the name DeUtente, you immediately said "oh holy mother rax strikes again."

Well, if we're playing the beautiful discs game-age musician, I'm at a disadvantage compared to you who mention the classics... Alright, I'll give it a shot: Mark Kozelek, 23 years old (on average, between 22 and 24), Down Colorful Hill. Of course, citing music from before the 1900s is an easy win, and j&r should be banned from the game for unfairness, take that!

The price issue, however, is tricky... People like Cohen or Waits are now part of popular music; they are icons of the people. So, whether they like it or not, they are forced to be part of a system they cannot escape from in any way, where the most exploited are precisely the artists. It seems the opposite is true: the more famous you are, the more power you have, but in reality, it's the contrary. 200 euros for a ticket, they definitely know it. But in the end, the concerts at that point are made to earn what you can. And of those 200 euros, they'll probably only see about 20%. Asking them to lower the prices? They lower them, but the percentage that goes to the musician doesn't increase. I remember an interview with a metal band, whose name I can’t recall, they were famous nonetheless, signed to a major label, and they charged 30 euros for their concerts (the classic 28.75 for the Milan date). With all the bullshit and expenses, out of those 30 euros, they saw about 2 each. Once you surpass a certain level of fame, even if you don’t want to, you become part of the MUSIC INDUSTRY (there’s a reason I capitalized it). And the bigger money comes from advertising; you can’t rely on concerts and, above all, album sales. Those behind the scenes pulling the strings profit while the artists are the puppets who get the scraps. Moreover, this story is absolutely proportional: average artists asking for a fee of around 5-6 thousand euros are seen for 10 or 15 gigs. Those who ask for a thousand might even perform for free if you’re lucky, or at most for 3-4 euros. Artists signed to major labels have no say; everything is decided by the label (let's remember they are the same musicians subjected to a CONTRACT. A CONTRACT. TO MAKE MUSIC), and most of the money is split between the label and the organizers. Those under an independent but somewhat powerful label are more or less in the middle, but this mainly applies to records. Waits, if I’m not mistaken, has been releasing his latest albums, since around 2000, under Epitaph, but before that, he published with Island (owned by Universal, although it must be admitted it became so after his releases) and Asylum (owned by Warner). It’s a vile system nonetheless, and however much I musically admire certain artists, paying those leeches is out of the question.

Arriving at the third paragraph, with a view of the fourth as well, my eyes turned green and purple and started spinning 180 degrees first clockwise, then counterclockwise. And they haven't stopped yet. If I really have to read it, I’ll put it in print.

"Castellamare del Golfo, one of the most beautiful coastlines in Sicily," and the epicenter of the worst events of a summer 2012 to forget due to disappointments. BUT YOU HAVE IT IN FOR ME MANNAGGIALAMARIAAAAAAAAAA

Ao t-rax, but first of all, who the hell was talking about you, and when did I say that you don't know what you're talking about? What's the matter, do you have a guilty conscience? What a clever trickster.

I look at the cover. I look at the review. I stare into the void. I look at the cover again. I stare into the void again. And I think: wasn’t this stuff in fashion back in 2007? I’m not talking about them specifically, but the shit and their imagery just like others.

On this site, everyone is an expert on everything. But what the hell are you all talking about? Because I'm sure that those who gave it a 5 are capable of dissecting this film technically just like the others, and I’m not, so I don’t get it. I remain the last jerk, the one who just sticks to "good" or "bad" at the end of the viewing. A bit like on Carmelo Bene's videos on YouTube, where, for some reason, even the last of the losers suddenly becomes an expert in interpretations/theater/literature/ poetry/music/direction and speaks in a lofty language that he probably doesn’t even know what he’s saying. Anyway, I have this film on DVD because it was my sister's; I don’t even remember the film anymore, but at the end of the viewing, it definitely fell into the "good" category.