mista

Very thorough review. Of course, I only know Gwen's singles, but seeing the new video (rather irritating), I had sensed the decline in her offering. With the first album, she hit the mark with a well-packaged pop-hip hop sound and an image of an ex rock girl turned captivating pop star. Now, in the glossy sheen, it seems she has drowned and takes a bit too much pleasure in her new diva status.

This doesn't mean that we can't criticize or make fun of music we don't like or the mechanisms of the music market. I myself have often enjoyed mocking, for example, Ligabue's music, but I find it annoying and definitely childish when criticism or spontaneous teasing turns into a pedantic offense against the person. I hope you understand the point.

But stop it, DaveJon. "I'm not entangled at all," but if in every pop album review I find your comment that says "shit" or insults the reviewer. I simply said that this need to insult those who listen to and produce music that is artistically less elevated than what we supposedly listen to denotes - in my opinion - a lack of self-confidence and frustration.

Surely good music doesn't easily emerge from the shadows, but why expect all good music to be widely distributed? Good music, whether cultured or underground, especially nowadays, is certainly not inaccessible to those who have the desire to discover, and this site is a testament to that. Kisses, The guru of the masses (?) Mista

A different story for the know-it-all, who instead offers the leitmotif "to succeed, all you need is efficient marketing and no special talent is required." I believe, my dear, that this is not the case at all. Writing a successful, catchy song that captivates listeners is certainly not a task that can be delegated to a sequencer; it requires a certain type of musical talent, which is not necessarily artistic talent. If that were not the case, it wouldn't be clear why there are thousands of pop artists who don't break through—even when they are produced and promoted to perfection—or established artists who suddenly produce remarkable flops.

Well, in my opinion, the Beatles certainly didn’t go down in history just because of their sales... anyway. Maybe the argument I’m making hasn’t been fully understood. I’m simply saying that precisely because PUBLIC SUCCESS is an EPHEMERAL thing, the value of musical proposals cannot be measured solely by whether MTV or the radio plays a song. Following this assumption, which I think you share, on one hand, it cannot be said that what is successful is necessarily beautiful, but neither can it be said that what is successful is necessarily ugly! It seems to me that there’s a sort of demonization of the mass channels of music distribution, which I partially understand because it’s true that many deserving artists don’t get the success they deserve, but ultimately it’s decidedly superficial. Then you say that I’m decontextualizing, but one doesn’t need to go back too far in time to discover valid groups that have appeared on MTV. Moreover, this sort of golden age where “selling could very well go hand in hand with 'music and counterpoints'” is a nostalgic suggestion devoid of historical basis. Record labels produce records to sell them; fortunately, sometimes good music sells too (look at Pink Floyd, they certainly don’t seem like misunderstood artistic exiles).

Apart from this kind of dichotomy between valuable music and "music that goes on MTV," I don't really see it that way. Consider that if the Beatles were our contemporaries, they would almost certainly appear on MTV. In general, I don’t think that good music is always in the underground, and the spotlight only shines on subpar music. And this is a conversation that applies to every form of art; Van Gogh died in poverty, Andy Warhol was famous like a rockstar, and so what? I apologize to the know-it-all if I called him out a bit recklessly, even though he seemed balanced in the discussion. However, I don’t think that successful music can be produced by autonomous software; it requires a natural disposition to write it (as well as a good marketing department). In any case, I would like to emphasize that my critique was mostly directed at the excessively extremist and offensive attitudes adopted on this site towards the "unenlightened." Sincerely, Insalata Mista.

Apart from this kind of dichotomy between valuable music and "music that goes on MTV," I don't really see it that way. Consider that if the Beatles were our contemporaries, they would almost certainly appear on MTV. In general, I don’t think that good music is always in the underground, and the spotlight only shines on subpar music. And this is a conversation that applies to every form of art; Van Gogh died in poverty, Andy Warhol was famous like a rockstar, and so what? I apologize to the know-it-all if I called him out a bit recklessly, even though he seemed balanced in the discussion. However, I don’t think that successful music can be produced by autonomous software; it requires a natural disposition to write it (as well as a good marketing department). In any case, I would like to emphasize that my critique was mostly directed at the excessively extremist and offensive attitudes adopted on this site towards the "unenlightened." Sincerely, Insalata Mista.

I also confirm that Bon died choking on his vomit in a car where a friend had left him to sleep off his hangover.

Sti cazzi! Angus is from '55! So at the beginning he was like 16 years old, correct me if I'm wrong dear reviewer, did you get the quotes from the book "Shock to the System"? God, when I think about when my copy of that book dates back to... nostalgia aside, what can I say? In my opinion, AC/DC shows us how a simple yet explosive solution - at least in rock - can earn you a place in history. With an incredible limitation of compositional solutions repeated album after album, they have built an unyielding career, but I believe the artistic depth of their proposal has drastically thinned out since the most recent album.