puntiniCAZpuntini

The P2 was certainly something else, good old Gelli really was quite a character... but the Bush family isn't to be underestimated either. Start with Samuel Prescott, George Junior's great-grandfather, moving on to Prescott (grandfather) and George Senior. You'll find arms industries from World War I, banks accused of handling Nazi money in the aftermath of World War II, and, above all, "guilty" of having financed the Nazi party before the war. The skulls & bones pattern always repeats itself for all these young lads, the Rockefeller family and consequently the Federal Reserve are always close friends, you'll find censorship from senators who claimed that something didn't add up... they haven't stopped for a moment, starting with the great-grandfather. Not to mention that now there isn't a single Bush who doesn't hold a prominent decision-making position. I had read terrible things, I delved into it, and those terrible things multiplied and branched out everywhere. And I’m talking about news I read from official sources and completely normal serious newspaper websites (The Times to name one), not blogs that I could also create to write that, in reality, the towers were brought down by Moana, who isn’t dead but has become a bearded terrorist.

I don't absolutely believe in the 19 bad Arabs, nor do I completely believe in Zeitgeist, or this, or Moore. The more you read, the more you watch, the more you inform yourself, the more confused you get. Then you start to think: "Isn't it possible that this one says so because it benefits them?" And it goes on with the ramblings. The architects who say "it's normal for the collapse after the impact" could have been paid, or those who say "a collapse was impossible" might have a vested interest in an American political crisis. I am indeed more inclined towards the conspiracy, but not to the incredible extent described here. It could very well be, trying to reason it out without facts that fully confirm it, that the attackers really wanted to take everything down, the CIA found out, and instead of stopping them, they lent a hand with a few little bombs here and there. NB: I wrote "it could very well be that," I am not at the CIA and I cannot know. Also because there is the flight instructor who says "that Arab couldn't pilot," and then there is another who says "he's not a flight instructor." More than anything, I don't understand one thing: many of my peers know a lot about the towers, and many barely know what "Piazza Fontana" means, and if you say "strategy of tension," they think you are talking about an electrical panel. Not that knowing a lot "about the towers" is useless, but let’s say it would be very useful to know things about our own house.

"They have 'numbers' that are not significant." Precisely, the 'argument by absurdity' had the ultimate goal: let’s raise their numbers and lower the others. But without skyrocketing into millions. I don't believe that a musician, no matter how talented, deserves to live in mansions worth billions and own 200 classic cars (Mason). Too few people circulate within his sphere to make me think it is right and just. It doesn’t bother me at all that Mr. Volkswagen-Audi-Porsche-Lamborghini -Skoda (to give a quick example) has billions; in fact, I respect him greatly, and he is someone who drives the world economy. Jimmy Page, no. When I say "living off music," I mean something average, not lavish things that even annoy me. I could only resist Black Sabbath and Floyd (first 4 Sabbath, Floyd up to but not including DSOTM); for the rest, I never spent on those who already had billions. I have two original Zep records, but they were gifts. Zero Deep Purple, no talk of Beatles, and so on. Obviously, I have my 'youth mistakes' like KoRn or Wu-Tang (mistakes based on the principle stated before, not on the albums, which are still valuable). I only gave in to DVDs, but they are few. I prefer to download Tool (or rather, have them dubbed) and buy Farflung, even if the Tool album is a thousand times better (just as an example, since they are two incomparable bands). And this also serves a different purpose from the principle, namely: many when they have too much money, become soft. And since 80% of my listening is hard music, money can ruin the music. The examples are numerous, as are the exceptions, obviously. << Not the various more or less underground bands that now (since it has become a necessity because musicians live off concerts at this point) allow themselves a wider live audience. >> Yes, that’s true. Jus Oborn, Mr. Electric Wizard, deeply hates going on tour. Deeply. Well, now he even goes. Still very, very little, but he goes. << When talking about artists who don’t go on the radio, obviously in some names this is done as a rhetorical figure. >> Well, not really. I don’t know you, I don’t know what you might mean, and you don’t know what I might mean. Since this is only written communication, which, in addition to the low mutual knowledge, has the added absence of expressions (which help; if I had you in front of me, I would understand your discourse better just from your tone of voice), I take the words exactly as they are written, with no implied meanings. Maybe I'm wrong; I just wanted to inform you that I read "he doesn’t go on the radio" and understood "he doesn’t go on the radio." I default to "for me," and also the fact that since our discussions don’t determine the fate of humanity, one can exaggerate greatly in judgments ("beautiful" becomes "wonderful," and "very good" becomes "genius"). P.S. WHAT A LONG RANT! It’s been years since I wrote such long posts.

I understand well the differences you're talking about. << Azz, here you can never argue (smiley face). >>

A shout-out to everyone else I haven't "seen" in a while. And to Hardrock: no, I stopped studying in my first year of high school. And then, the lawyer... brrr... it's a profession I couldn't do since I always like to say what I think, even when no one gives a damn about what I think.

Cpt, instead, I understand you perfectly; we just have different views. Let’s see. <<< we should name names: >>> I’ll give you some Italian ones: El-Thule, Doomraiser, Skywise. Three names that more or less operate in the same field. There’s no need for a long list; I just want to specify that I’m talking about very very underground. <<< if technology is doing so well for the market, why is everyone trying to do as many tours as possible (the real source of income for musicians). >>> Here we are: the fact that they do more tours is good for us "customers." There are three times as many shows going on, and not just from the band that's around the corner. Festivals are constantly being created anew, and the people who perform there aren’t chosen haphazardly. In the 90s, I would have dreamed of a festival like Stoned Hand Of Doom in Rome. It would have been impossible to see Colour Haze in Cagliari, let alone twice in two years. In Milan, between Magnolia and Cox 18, the cream of world psychedelic rock has come and continues to come. Fu Manchu has been around for 18 years, 18 years, and they only came to Italy after the advent of the internet, and for various dates. The Garbage Dump Booking Agency is a friend of mine with two square balls who has been organizing events with the crème de la crème for a year, just because he wants to do it. How did you find a musician by phone before? Now you send an email; sooner or later they see it, sooner or later they respond. Sooner or later they come to play here. <<< Now I don’t know if your take on banning bad music is one of your funny (and I say this without irony) remarks>>> I started by saying, "let’s make an absurd argument." Of course, these are "free thoughts," utopias of "how wonderful it would be if it happened." <<< I wouldn’t put too much stock in the various charts you see around; they seem so rigged to me >>> I also don’t believe it’s true that they still sell "a million copies," except for very rare cases. And that’s another good thing! Even Cream had to go back to cashing in live, hooray! Even Led Zeppelin, but even better!... and so on.

<<< Stopping a tour because it's costing you money doesn't mean you can't live off your music. >>> You're using an example that doesn't quite fit. We're still talking about a superstar here. I'm talking about people who make great records (each in their own genre) and who are followed by genre enthusiasts. <<< It's true that America has played on the radio, but certainly not on mainstream radio. >>> Given that America is vast, throwing out a random number without exaggerating, let's say there are at least one equivalent of "radio 3" in each state. How many states are there? Quite a few, right? And since you know well that there's not just one equivalent per state, if you do the math, you'll realize that being the "king of the non-mainstream" in such a large country still means fame. << There's just the music market. >> We can still divide it into two: The music industry (Aguilera, Tokio Hotel, etc., etc.), and the craftsmanship of music (let's say the Pontiak, since I'm listening to them right now). I looked out of curiosity at what you reviewed (I had never read or noticed you before, just to clarify and not to belittle), and I think that if those are your listens, we would never understand each other. And I don't say this with a sense of "wow, that's awful," but just in the sense I mentioned earlier, meaning we couldn't possibly connect. If you talk to me about Billy Idol or Satriani or Deep Purple (people who have had fame, even if not as massive as Michael Jackson), and I talk to you about Yob (a warehouse worker, a supermarket clerk, and the other I don't remember), then it's normal that our conversations wouldn't intersect. Then I repeat, I found it funny that you self-reviewed, and I wanted to tell you. The main reason is this, obviously at the beginning not knowing what you listen to I couldn't have known we could talk for days without ever meeting in common. But, just one thing <<< don't come trying to be pedantic with me (especially about Zappa...) >>> Well, you also admitted to saying something silly, namely that Zappa didn’t play on the radio. So it seems to me you could be a bit pedantic. Especially about Zappa, too. Maybe you know him well too, but don't worry, you're not the only one who has spent hundreds of euros just to have at home even a portion of the vast discography.

As you well know, it’s been technological evolution that has messed up the music market.>> Big lies, huge lies. The SERIOUS music market has only benefited from the internet. People who played only in their own country for years are now touring worldwide. They are now reissuing albums that sold only ten copies at the time of their release. It’s the crap that used to sell 5 million copies that now sells half, exaggerating. And that’s beautiful. And it's not "for me," it’s just the way it is, because live sales and reissues are hard facts that can be found everywhere. Take a look around the internet and see how many albums that were "sold out" for 15 years have been reissued after the advent of the internet. <<< So? What does this have to do with listening to Radio Deejay? >>> I wrote that earlier. It’s not like I can repeat things a hundred times every time.

Well, if we want to be precise <<< zappa was never played on any radio >>> Bullshit. Zappa was definitely played on the radio, and he always received great acclaim in all the magazines around the world, and when he died, it was reported by every news program in Italy, let alone worldwide. <<< he never had any problem living off his music, >>> Bullshit. He interrupted countless tours because he was losing money. Okay, opinions are fine, but when it comes to factual accuracy, in my view, you've written nonsense, or inaccuracies, or just plain bullshit.

<<< thinking that the radios influence the record market in any way >>> No. you didn't understand the point. I didn't write that, and I don't think it. Reread it, you'll be luckier.