frantz

Sure, the M-16 in A4 format, but is it in color or black and white? I haven't heard the record, but the cover really sucks!!!

I believe it was understood, but just to clarify, "man with a movie camera" is the new soundtrack for the homonymous film (1929) now restored, by the Russian expressionist director Dziga Vertov. So, just in case someone wants to go look for it...

The vote is for the group, because I don't have this record but I have the other one you mentioned, which I find very, very beautiful. At this point, I recommend looking for Vertov's film as well, for me one of the best films of early Russian cinema, to which this new soundtrack fits very well. You won't fully appreciate the record if you keep it disconnected from the film. Moments like the sound of the siren find completeness when contextualized. Enjoy the viewing!

......thinking about it...... bastard!!! you stole my review, I wanted to write it. Damn, what a great concert! It was awesome, I really enjoyed it (four red beers, no wonder I enjoyed it!), the guitarist is a god of noise and the voice was really beautiful, even if it leaned too much into the York(ian) stylistic elements. Among the tracks, I was truly impressed by the noise transformation of "heros" by the Thin White Duke, starting from a version quite faithful to the original and then turning into a sonic delirium worthy of the best Mogwai. Lastly, a couple of observations: Finally a fair price (ticket and beer), a truly valid band, but when will they decide to take "Interzona" out of that moldy old General Warehouse?
The only counterpoint

I listened to almost the entire album and left it where it was, then I read you and got confirmation of my move. However (forgive me Kosmo) I would have bought it just for the cover; if it had been a cardboard LP, I might have bought it blindly to place it among the covers I like.

Important album, not the first wave in Italy, and Fiumani will never make Diaframma a stadium band because he's a hell of an egocentric who will centralize everything on himself, making himself hated by many people in the so-called "scene". Still, this is an important album like Desaparecido, especially for its historical significance in Italian music, for me the birth and oblivion of Diaframma.

I don't know this album, but "rose" was one of my favorites of 2003, even though it had some flaws. I remember telling a friend that it would be the album I wish I had written, but I was biased; I was shamelessly trying to make it happen!

Never felt so recognized in a review, including the rating.

I agree with you on many things, dear South. My comment wasn't a personal attack but was directed at all the subsequent remarks that, as is customary, glorified the early albums (U2 specifically). Sure, I aimed it at you too since I even borrowed your words to give an opening to my "attack." I never criticized "Boy," but rather the tendency to glorify it just because it's the first. You know, I say "bullshit" because there's always some "asshole" who wastes time reading it (sorry, but you asked for this). With respect, my Sir.
As for Iko, second albums are important; just look at how The Strokes freaked out at making a record different from the first with a producer who would have made them change their fashion cliché (very personal opinion).

A great album and the greatest band ever, oh my, if you take The Edge away, they might as well close shop!
But why are U2 considered great only in their first 3 albums, while we need to "leave aside One, With or Without You, and fall in love with these U2"?
I never understood why in certain "circles" and discussions, the commercial success of an artist would equate to a decline in their artistic integrity.
Let’s clarify: if "Pop" is indeed unlistenable, "The Joshua Tree" is a masterpiece and likewise, "Sgt. Pepper's..." is a milestone of pop music just as "Michelle" is a song worthy of the worst San Remo. Yet, even from the latter, many great songs and artists have emerged, or "The Dark Side of the Moon" is the epitome of commercial success not only for Pink Floyd, but you can't say it's commercial garbage. Glorifying the early albums of anyone is just a snobbish and somewhat ignorant whim that naively rewards the originality and freshness of a new and (here's the beautiful part!) still niche artistic product, but doesn't take into account the concepts of maturity, awareness, and evolution of one's "artistic signature." And if what I do (the artist's "I") is liked and successful, where's the mistake? Does Beethoven's "Ninth" count less than an aria by Pergolesi simply because everyone has at least once in their life, maybe by accident, heard "Ode to Joy"? I would love to hear enlightening opinions on this matter; maybe criticize me harshly, or let’s open a forum...