lux

The issue is simple: I'm tired of this, it's not about me being wrong. I focus on the musical aspect, the lyrics don't change the music. I've said it before: a musically poor piece with fabulous lyrics is ALWAYS AND FOREVER a musically poor piece. If the music is a compendium of banality and stereotypes, I don't see why I should cling to the lyrics. Then your argument makes no sense... why should I pay attention to the lyrics for the After, but I should only focus on the music for Brian Eno? Based on which objective criteria? Meh. Because it suits you? Or because, in doing so, by trying to shift the attention to the lyrics, you're implicitly admitting the mediocrity of this album (like: musically they have little to say, better to focus on the lyrics). No really, your argument is plainly opportunistic and ultra-relativist. Ah, have you ever heard of Mould's wall of sound guitar? No, right? I had no doubts.

"It is not that one is simply (and erroneously, in my opinion) tempted to assert" etc.

How can a cultural product be "pure aesthetics"? Isn't it simply (and mistakenly, in my opinion) tempting to assert this just because music, unlike other forms of art, doesn’t have a visual aspect as an evaluative criterion? And so, we look at the sonic criterion as if it were (unfairly) an undefined and undefinable criterion? In reality, sound is something that certainly exists in nature, and should be judged as such.

Oh sure, to judge the music of an album, you have to read the lyrics. This one I was missing. Then, well, I don't feel like arguing point by point; I'll just tell you that if you didn't catch the similarity between Soon and Riprendere Berlino, it's you who hasn't listened to the album, not me. "There's no Wallofsound in Husker Du."----just throw yourself off the balcony, you idiot. And it's me who doesn't listen to the albums I talk about.

Zannab, unfortunately, questionable ideas are abundant on this page, and some slip through the cracks.

Guys, do you really think you can mess with me... you won't succeed even if you die and are reborn a thousand times. Dear Chinaski, aside from the fact that if there's a mother here who made a grave mistake, it's yours, who let your father put it in her vagina (unfortunately, since you were born, you incapable fool who can't abstract and make discussions a bit more universal), it took me no time at all to listen to the record in question. What the hell is that crap you posted in the previous comment, the paraphrase of the lyrics from that hard rock from 50 years ago played with the energy of a Vasco Rossi song called "A Few Moments from the Washer"? Do you want me to read the lyrics of this shitty album too? Do you know what I can do with that, if it sounds pathetic musically? Among other things, you always forget that it all started when YOU said my thoughts were bullshit, and I justifiably responded in kind. Obviously for me, your ideas aren't just simple nonsense; they're the very essence of the mediocre common Italian thinking about Rock, you're the manifesto of the local Qualunquismo when it comes to popular music. You focus on superficial and irrelevant aspects to judge an album, talking about flutes (the snacks?), about a "mix of modern composition(!!!) and grunge," about Wall-of-sound, and don't even worry about seeing, potentially, how these influences ARE PRESENTED IN THE ALBUM, IF THEY MAKE SENSE RESPECT TO HISTORY (which suggests that this is old stuff played without the slightest originality) OR IF THEY'RE JUST TACKED ON THERE to seem "very alternative." Since with the term Wall of Sound, one could also mean that of, let's say, MBV or Husker Du (that's another thing), and given that, if you don't mind, I'm a bit embarrassed to even mention them in a review of this fucking album. Not to mention the plagiarism of Soon in "riprendere berlino"... Hey, take a look and go fuck yourself with your A-CRITICAL nonsense.

Chinaski, you were the first to consider other people's ideas as bullshit. I don't know how to tell you anymore, you are not in a position to claim whether a record is beautiful or ugly; your pseudo-arguments are childish, empty, full of Sanremese pathos (like the record itself). You still haven't understood (abominable) that I am talking about the FUNCTION of arrangements, not TECHNIQUE, not DOREMIFASOLLASI, not mere formal competence. A function that this record lacks because its arrangements are indeed well-crafted and formally perfect, but SUBSTANTIALLY EMPTY, devoid of historical/musical interest, as they are standard, flat, banal. Behind them, there is nothing; they are a decoy (go check what that expression means; it's clear you don't know its meaning). I'm not talking about technique; I'm talking about meaning. This record makes no sense, and it's much (much more serious) than lacking technique.

It's incredible how far rhetoric can go. Parcondio, pity. I don't know where you find the courage to defend an amoeba like Chinaski, but let's try to throw you a bone too. So. 1: Should I consider the references to my mother positively? Do they correspond to a compliment? I would say no, just no. Then, are they in any way related to the topic of music? I would say no, just no. Are they a provocation from a vulgar and despicable twelve-year-old delinquent from the suburbs? I would say yes, yes, and just yes. He could have skipped it and attempted (I know he can't) to argue something sensible. 2: "I think I was clear in outlining the album's content and the reasons why I can't accept your comment on the 'Sanremo arrangements'--- this one... eh, if there’s clarity, either he speaks in dialect and you can't understand a thing (I can tell that’s an insult, that much I get) or he comes out with empty phrases like the album itself; I challenge anyone to find a minimum of objective sensibility in propositions like this: 'You idiot, it's you who doesn’t understand a thing! You haven't even listened to the album! The form is meticulously crafted and sought after, the substance is there and it’s all about the crisis of the forty-year-old King Manuel, with his family, his kingdom, the mortgage that haunts... the darkness around him... the love for his woman who may be complicity in the flight or just sex “to make her laugh”... this little girl who still doesn’t know what life is but still has the capacity and the desire to dream... and the man stuck a kilometer from home, wanting to escape but knowing it wouldn’t make sense... because a few moments in the washing machine are enough to reset oneself, a bit of fear about washing... in a balanced city, among bats and animated sweaters that could provoke insurrection through blogs and aperitifs!'---- but what is this? What does it represent to me? 3: "Go reread the posts (I don’t think you’ll want to, and I understand you) and see who has replaced insults with arguments (making sure to distinguish from PROVOCATIONS)..."---- Ah well, now Chinaski is the one who argues... hehe, what I have to read. 4: There are people here who genuinely believe that I and Larrok are the same person. And anyway, I find it offensive to him to consider him my little dog. Since that’s absolutely not the case, I just think he agrees with me in this instance, or at least feels closer to my ideas than to yours.

Guys, you’re a bit pathetic in lumping me together with Larrok, as if one were the fake of the other. I know a bit about Larrok's way of thinking; it's true that his opinions are more similar to mine than they are to yours (and vice versa)... but I don’t see what's strange about that. The fact that he supports me more or less explicitly is a consequence of the fact that he is definitely closer to my ideas than to those of Chinaski. But that’s normal; I don’t see how one could bravely share the bullshit of Chinaski.

Chinaski, what a sad day it was when you were born... the very fact that you have to refer to my mother to legitimize your opinions says a lot about their "quality." I listen to only one album from morning till night? Well, how do you deduce that? I don't know, you make things up; you have nothing to say, poor miserable being that you are. Obviously, the albums I've listened to are far more than you can imagine... rather, it seems you're content to keep mentioning good old Uncle Frank over and over, as if that's all you know. "specchio per le allodole" ---> it means that as soon as you hear a bad production and poorly arranged music, you get all excited... you're a fake alternative... "—there you go, you can't even explain what this simple expression means... you really are quite something, huh. Come on, try again; you might have better luck. The funny thing is that you dare to tell others they don't understand a damn thing about music when you drool over such an abortion. Ah, by the way, it seems quite obvious that I can insult you freely now, given that you started throwing insults my way. You're the typical scumbag who denies evidence just to cling to a point that you'll never have. While you're at it, smack yourself in the face with that shovel, maybe it will wake you up a bit. "la crisi del re manuel quarantenne," haha yes, that artistic crisis. What a pathetic person you are.