Eneathedevil

Ugly gay of a party, I stick to it and I document. I haven't expressed an opinion on the Huskers, I've just labeled. There you go.

Iridino! I mean, I don’t understand: I thought, from the fact that you weren't responding to my posts, that you were ignoring me. Instead, here you are, not ignoring me at all, in fact, you even catch me with a bad rating. You’re mean and strange. You remind me of Berlusconi in the last election campaign: shooting darts from his Vespa at whoever he pleased, but then not wanting any debate. Who knows? Anyway, after discovering your sweet and flowery soul, I know what you meant in your post: I touched Simon Le Bon and it affected your sensibility. For this, I apologize and I’ll keep up with your next pearls (without any contradiction)... smack!

What do you want, I reply to that baluba of Geenoo. No, come on, you need to get your facts straight now. You can't say that darkwave is from the '80s like shoegaze is: in one case you round up, in the other you round down. I could tell you, indeed, that shoegaze peaked in the '90s, because, funny enough, the undisputed masterpiece, "Loveless", is from 1991. Eh, you’re just geeking out too, aren’t you?

Listen, I can’t closely examine all the nonsense you’ve written: I even saw that you dared to talk about Oldfield, who produced monstrous crap in the '80s after shocking half the world in the '70s with "Tubular Bells" and "Hergest Ridge" in the same vein, and you had the audacity to mention the Clash, about whom even a non-expert in the field should school you: let’s admit that the cultural-musical revolution of the late '70s with its punk-rock content may have borne some fruit, who knows, in the '80s, but their generational manifesto is "London Calling," which, ironically, is from '79, just to give you a moral slap. You made a shopping list that includes authors from the '70s, new-wave (which validates the content of my review), and isolated phenomena (Enya? With all the affection I have for her, I don't think she changed the course of music, and please... she’s been around since '87, so you can’t be mixing pots and lids now by including those who gained followers in the '90s in the '80s). The game of the authors from the '80s is a cute little nonsense, but it only serves to confirm that there hasn’t been even half a revolution.

I missed this last gem of yours. Aside from the fact that you mention a ton of synth groups, the most inaccurate part that seals your defeat filled with ridicule is the series of quotes from '70s artists. I mean: Tom Waits? Aerosmith? Joy Division? Springsteen? Eno? Let me remind you that the fact these artists "continued" their careers in the '80s after starting earlier does not justify calling them '80s. I mean, Eno wrote Before and After Science and Music for Airports in the second half of the '70s, and that tells me he's not '80s. If I read another one like this, I’ll pass out.

(...) In certain subgenres of metal (certainly not heavy metal itself) and in rap, we can certainly speak of '80s products, but in any case, after this long rebuttal, can you really talk about musical revolution? You can talk about the emergence of new genres, about updates of styles, but a revolution is not what you imply, not at all. Musical revolutions have been brought about by world-renowned phenomena like Chuck Berry, the Beatles, Zappa, Eno, Kraftwerk, capable of changing an entire musical vision: since Berry invented Johnny B. Goode, the entire musical world felt the impact; when Kraftwerk released their works in the '70s, electro-dance music established itself as an international phenomenon; Zappa codified a musical language of seminal importance: that was the revolution, not in the '80s with rappers and thrash metal musicians, who at most updated their genres, but not a global vision. Moreover, in the '80s, there were other phenomena to mention like dream-pop (the precursors of the Cocteau Twins, whom I adore) and grunge (although we’re talking more about the end), but even in this case, we can’t really speak of revolution. Just to dispel any doubts, let me clarify that these lists of names are certainly not aimed at saying, "Come on, in the '70s there were rock bands, in the '80s there weren't." There was much more experimentation in the '70s than in the '80s, that's the point: it's not just about the prestige of the name. Schulze took sequencers and did whatever he wanted with them; Eno invented a kind of electronic rockabilly; the Velvet Underground, well, there's no need to delve into that, as the history is well-known. Even in Italy, the situation is clear: in the '70s, there was Battisti, Battiato (the experimental version), De Gregori, Guccini, De André, Conte, PFM, Area, Banco, Orme, and in the '80s, the list you mentioned, but with all due respect to Fausto Rossi, who did his good work, beyond that there were indeed Ruggeri and Vasco, or the '70s names that had little more to say. It’s no coincidence that Battiato managed to slip in easily during this aporia of gods without bringing any musical innovation. So, for the umpteenth time, I'll tell you: don’t play the sophisticate. When you listen to "Take on Me," you think of the girl at the little bar who was about to give in to you; that's what moves you about the '80s.

First, let me respond to that scruffy cucuzza known as Geenoo. First of all, with the dust of your words, you buried the starting point, which was, regardless of the question of "musical revolution or not," recognizing what was popular in the '80s. Regarding this, I repeat that the popular phenomenon, which is what I addressed, was that represented by Spandau etc., with the due complement of the aforementioned dance fashion. Therefore, regardless of whether or not there was a revolution, I tell you that you cannot criticize the review based on the fact that the '80s were something else. I am saying precisely that they were something else, but I was interested in what is popular, unless you now want to assert that there was something else popular, but frankly, even rummaging in the unknown, it seems a daunting task to find the same range of musical myths from the previous decade. At this point, I tie back to the issue of the musical revolution: I don't agree even remotely, ugly freakkone. We might as well take the time to examine one by one the genres you mentioned, just to make you aware of your mess: regarding sampling and electronics, the revolution, precisely, happened in the '70s, and don't make me spend hours citing all of Krautrock, the cosmic music, Eno's craziness, and the whole entourage of Stockhausen's epigones. Moreover, rock groups were also full of samplers, capable of using instruments more skillfully than certain characters from the '80s: King Crimson, Genesis, Pink Floyd. I won't even comment on rock and hard rock; I've named too many already. I apologize if I perhaps didn't cover the hard section in the previous lists, so here are a few names just to illustrate: Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, Kiss, Aerosmith. Then you have to tell me who you were referring to. Regarding the synth, well, the review precisely discusses that, and it makes a mix with the pop you talk about with attention to disco venues. And regarding your last mention, I tell you that disco music in the '80s is an update of that from the '70s: a long way from calling it a revolution.

Of course, I meant to say "You’re not going to tell me that it’s NOT visualized"... For me, the '80s were precisely that, that was the consumer phenomenon, and it was certainly less engaged than a consumer phenomenon like Pink Floyd or King Crimson from the '70s. As for the Buggles, well, they really are in-between; I admit they fit in less than a-ha. And Geenoo, please don’t be pretentious talking about musical revolution: you said it yourself, you liked long, melancholic laments. And admit it, you wanted to do the Tarzan yell like Baltimora and spent hours practicing with your unbuttoned macho shirt.

But look who showed up: that jerk Geenoone! Well, I’m avoiding any interpretation: I never said it was the "only" decade of vests and their kind. In fact, I hoped the message of the review was clear: the '80s were something else, and I did mention, just to point out, Siouxsie and Hüsker Dü (but we could have talked about the Smiths, My Bloody Valentine, New Order), the point is that, I repeat, the popular phenomenon of the '80s coincided with what I focused on: synth-pop and why not, shoulder pads and teased hair. Sure, I can boast that I only lived through the second half, but you certainly won’t go around telling me that when we talk about the '80s the first thing that comes to mind is the eternal battle between Spandau Ballet and Duran Duran or that frilly Almond crooning while singing Tainted Love... Geenoo, come on, don’t be a hardcore freak and be honest: far from a musical revolution, you were wide-eyed when your Brian Ferry crooned "Slave to Love," come on. And then, I know I’ll be unpopular, but the story of the musical revolution of the '80s doesn’t sit well with me: for me, there certainly wasn’t a phenomenon of such magnitude. Sure, now half the world will write to me saying: "But what about the legendary apocalyptic faux-rock of Zuzza Sudazza, where do you place that?"; okay, if you want I’ll put it in, but darn, between the '60s and '70s, in less than a decade we saw Eno, Doors, Velvet Underground, Soft Machine, Pink Floyd, Who, Springsteen, Zappa, Dylan doing everything, and now we’re talking about the musical revolution of the '80s? To me, it’s an unappealing argument. I repeat, it was an intimate, personal, sensational phenomenon of the '80s. But the myths were modest.