Burns

tabba, look, for your own good I hope you are not the real tabba, at least you don't have that ass face (good job hiding behind the shirt)

I also think that in the years '87-'88-'89 rock underwent a transformation such that albums like this one released in '91 had no reason to exist. I mean, okay, Appetite for Destruction '87, but then Jane's Addiction comes along and throws out a crossover that renders the pentatonics and the easy approach of Guns to dust. Here come the Pixies, here come Sonic Youth, here come Fugazi, here come Bad Brains, here comes Sonic Youth with Daydream Nation, here’s the Rollins Band, and what are the Gyuns doing?? Right in '91, during the era of Spiderland and rock in agony (and I don't know among those who consider rock dead in '91), they serve up this pointless double CD that has no purpose other than to pollute a market already saturated with Led Zeppelin epigones. And don't start on the street glam hard spiel, because that might have worked for Appetite in '87 but not with this garbage of a double CD. Thanks for your attention and excuse the grammatical errors, but when I still hear someone praising this CD, bile rises in me and I write in a rush.

not for sale not for sale, not even if it doesn't work not even if it doesn't work

Come on, but the Holy Cross deserves a bastard's end.

So, we agree on the clear superiority of Houellebecq; I'd prefer not to talk about Burroughs, otherwise we have to bring up cyberpunk and the new trends in science fiction that owe their birth to him. Even someone like Cronenberg in cinema would never have been born without Burroughs (and Ballard, I add), so that’s another story. I'll give Underworld by DeLillo a try; with Chuck, you're already good with the first four works.

Well, Burns, it's no wonder Houellebecq is European :-))), not to say I am anti-American, but the differences are noticeable. The Frenchman’s criticisms are fierce and rely much less on irony, unlike the trio. However, it must be said that I’m not entirely convinced by H. A text like "Les Particules élémentaires" seems a bit pretentious to me, even in its devastating analysis of a certain type of reality. Yet in some respects, the author betrays a fundamentally neurotic personality with morbid-contemplative fixations, whereas Ellis, being pulp, manages to capture a different essence. H. is truly morbid because he is genuinely interested in the sordid aspect.

Yes, more or less it's always what I thought about Ellis, dear Burns. Less Than Zero is quite rhetorical, although the publication date saves it—pre-trainspotting, hehehe. Then, with the ultraviolence of American Psycho, he entered the collective imagination. Let's also say that book contained snippets of remarkable wit, the disconnected passages where he reviewed the empty music of the '80s with grandiose ratings—epic pages, come on, let's give him that. Unfortunately, he then became a shadow of himself, and as a legend, he failed to reinvent himself, to reprogram himself. And here we see the greatness of an artist: being able to screw over their own icon. Ellis couldn’t do it, and he will remain for everyone and forever as the one who wrote American Psycho (which isn’t nothing). I can’t digest DeLillo either, but I have maximum respect for Chuck.

and I really liked man on the moon too

Just kidding Odradek, and here in the virtual world we can't see faces when joking... I would say that if it were possible, we should lock the comments.

Oh yes, they are from Washington, and listening to them, it seemed to me that they were coming straight from Los Angeles, from the ghettos.