easycure

Haha, Alexander, don't worry :-D we cleared things up, even though, fully in agreement with Gbrunoro, I still totally disagree with the "comparativist" logic. Bye!

Whoa, "Almost like if Fugazi started covering AC/DC" I think that's not really my thing :-)

I agree with everything... and thank you for the opening phrase :-) hi!

x Alexander: evidently you haven't understood... who would deny the Gulags? I simply said that making negative comparisons to demonstrate that "communism is like fascism and nazism, indeed worse because it caused more deaths" is simply ridiculous... then ALL of human history is made up of massacres and genocides and then ALL regimes, including the enlightened western democracies, are responsible for massacres amounting to millions of deaths. You yourself first responded to me simply by throwing it back: "there are also the Gulags," but it's precisely that kind of back-and-forth that is ridiculous. There are and always will be differences between nazism and communism, and that is as it should be, because otherwise we undermine memory and based on "everything is the same as everything" we fail to make FUNDAMENTAL distinctions. Wouldn't the "usual reasons" be good reasons? Ridiculous. That Nazism was born as a xenophobic, racist, and imperialistic ideology and that communism did NOT emerge from the same logic seems obvious to me. And I think it's a glaring and especially important difference. I have informed myself, and you?

this is true. but perhaps the most authentic reasons are not the usual ones? namely that concentration camps and similar atrocities are a precise ideological strategy, before being mere annihilation of a hypothetical enemy.. this is what commonly (and inevitably) leads it to be regarded as an unmatched horror. Hi!

Whether the book is reliable or not, it doesn’t really matter... it probably is, for that matter; however, your review contains a bias that I found a bit slimy, and in some inaccuracies it becomes somewhat offensive to the millions of dead who, for example, were victims of repression AGAINST communism, not vice versa... because it’s easy to forget that if we must equate the horror of Nazism with that of communism, then with the same logic we could move on to the greatest genocides in history, that is, the church and all the empires blessed by the church, or, why not, by today’s "democratic" capitalist regimes, so good and kind yet, look a bit, have committed atrocities with the same identical brutal methods of the absolutisms mentioned above. As Robert McNamara says, those who won the war (referring to World War II) would have been prosecuted as war criminals if they had lost: and so let’s take a look at the history of the last 60 years: '45 the United States devastates Tokyo with incendiary bombs, hundreds of thousands of civilians killed. Let’s go on to the two atomic bombs, then we arrive at the two million dead (mostly civilians) caused in Vietnam. Then we could mention Chile under that "savior of the homeland" Pinochet, Argentina with the trio of nice military men who for 5 years stole children from families drowned and drugged in the Atlantic. Let's continue with the Italian state massacres, Nicaragua, the second war in Iraq which already counts its hundreds of thousands of victims in the face of smart warfare. All of this is, of course, completely pointless. Just like your review. Comparing things that have nothing to do with each other makes no sense; if you want to equate the horrors that a man is capable of committing, there’s no end to it, and equating them by stating who has caused more millions of deaths is frankly pathetic, in my opinion.

mmmmm, they've never quite managed to draw me in.. even though I quite like the Jawjaguar as a proposal. From your description, it somewhat attracts me but also does not, I don't know :-D P.S. Alè, tomorrow I'll send the record.. thanks a thousand in advance, it means a lot to me... :-)

rooftrampler, if one has listened carefully to the Interpol and has an equally attentive understanding of what has happened in the last 25 years, one can easily notice how obvious it is that Interpol are not the same as The Cure and Joy Division: they have 25 years more of references and sonic evolutions.. but this is obvious. I deny any "class" in some of their solutions; at the executive and even arranging level, they may have done some not insignificant things. Nevertheless, if one has listened carefully to the period '77-84, one cannot find anything in them that is truly personal. Their only uniqueness is a matter of decontextualization, meaning a choice shared by at least another 1,500 bands that have debuted in the last 8 years. As for the lyrics, a personal choice, I honestly don't care at all.. the music must have its own communication, the rest comes afterward or worse, is purely supplementary.. since what they communicate to me musically is stale and superficial, I have not reached the next step. I find the defense of Bqnks a bit pathetic.. maybe if someone has noticed that he is the same as Ian Curtis, there will be a reason for it.. furthermore his defense is in line with the above discussion; it is obvious that you cannot replicate exactly what another singer has done, but what matters is the substance of your music: that does not have any significant differences. bye

historical disc..I couldn't do without it even though the last time I listened to it was about ten years ago!

Did he really deserve all this description that does him little justice whether he's beautiful or a piece of crap? Anyway, I liked the first single, the second one made me crap, so I didn't delve deeper.