donjunio

My opinion on the album is quite clear, and I believe I have also touched on what you referred to as the "practical side." I mentioned the "expertise of the band in navigating sophisticated scores," for example. Bringing together all these influences is certainly not easy, but it's obvious that everyone forms a subjective idea about the outcomes, and that's what we discuss. For you, it’s a cohesive work that never falls into the banal or the excessive. In my view, however, in some episodes there is less shine than in the past: both in terms of songwriting and intensity, and I cited, for instance, the contribution of McCollum's guitar, which I find somewhat lacking compared to the past. Although there are tracks like "cite soleil," "neglekted," and especially "Omerta/Vampire lanois" where the chemistry works perfectly. In albums like "gentlemen" or "congregation," however, that tension flowed throughout the entire duration of the album, and the three and three-and-a-half stars given to "1965" are explained in that sense. Cheers!

great defense of the wrecking ball! I haven't listened to this album, but it could very well be as iusedme says, who, by the way, appreciated kristallnacht so he is certainly open-minded musically... to future generations the arduous verdict!

Great!

Well done!

truly excellent

Thanks! But tell me one thing, sfascia, why "only" 4 stars for this album???

Except for a few exceptions, grunge was certainly not a particularly innovative movement in rock: rather, it was a good and exciting rewriting of pre-existing ideas, and especially in the first harvest, at the end of the 80s, the yield was particularly fruitful. Its fortune lay in the immense expressiveness of its leading players, particularly Nirvana, which allowed for a stunning impact on overground rock and society, managing to coalesce the spirit of their era. All these emphatic statements about the supposed revolutionary nature that you cite do not merit the attention you attribute to them. There was certainly a bit of exaggeration in the comments on Nirvana and their importance, on Nevermind "as the only masterpiece of the 90s": but this can be attributed to the sense of vertigo that grunge gave at the time of its explosion (which was also facilitated by the void it filled, you’re not entirely wrong), and to the way many jumped on the bandwagon of the winners: but those with a bit of common sense know how to distinguish the reasons behind certain comments and put them in the right perspective. Moreover, it doesn’t seem to me that, nowadays, analyzing that phenomenon fifteen years after its zenith, we find such enthusiastic judgments about the Seattle scene, especially in the intrinsic analysis of the style. So your polemic about grunge seems a bit out of time: it would have been very bold 12 years ago. Today, dear Sanjuro, it inevitably reeks of déjà vu. Goodbye.

it's not really my style, but excellent review as always

Great, I miss these... more than the maximum volume, however, I prefer "santo niente" (Umberto Palazzo was the cornerstone of the first MV for me).

"The unclassifiable" as a genre comes from the fact that I am never interested in defining what I review. Almost always in my reviews, I write simply "rock," for example. In this case, the genres are truly too many, and I have listed them in the review, and some were even absent, like klezmer or avant-garde. It is certainly not an easy listening experience, but I believe it's worth it. Bye!