antimo_d

anyway, much better than Marlene Kuntz...

No, no, I'm not an underground extremist, and I hope I'm not a second-degree snob for appreciating stuff from Kylie Minogue and Gwen Stefani, just to name a couple... (and I came to read the review because I'm obviously interested in McCartney... you've piqued my curiosity, and I'm trying to listen to this album, too bad it's not really just piano and voice ;))

you forgot to say balls…

The 'small' musicians can be incredibly important, I believe... just think about the recent history of popular music: the Velvet Underground certainly didn't make a huge splash in the charts, but their seminal nature (and the quality of their work) is (more or less) universally acknowledged...

but what does 'staying' really mean? continuing to sell in bulk? I don’t know... and is it necessary to 'stay'? Frank Zappa (whom I don't particularly love...) used to say to make music for his contemporaries, that it wouldn’t make sense to listen to it afterwards... if that’s the case, could we consider the music in question less valid? In some cases, rather than rising to the role of 'classics', some 'popular' albums capture the spirit of the times, emphasize it or provide an exciting reading of it...

Well, preamble: you’re not obliged to capitalize when referring to me :DD… strictly speaking, even the Beatles didn’t represent something completely original (after all, I suppose NOTHING can be labeled as completely original…); that said, you ask where the Massive are (let's skip the obvious 'making a new album' ;)), and I’ll respond by pointing out that at a very 'popular' level, in the advertising for the new Alfa Romeo, a beautiful piece by Portishead was chosen, so at least a decade later this music has 'stayed', time will tell how much it will 'remain'…

I don’t know, Primiballi, I’m stepping in on your thesis because it’s quite widespread, and by now, it’s become a sport for me to counter it: "I believe that, in summary, the phenomenon of light/rock/pop music has become largely non-existent. And I haven’t seen any new ideas for a while. The socio-cultural environment in which today’s twenty-somethings grow up doesn’t seem stimulating enough to create something that hasn’t already been said. I swear I’d be thrilled to be proven wrong"... So, there’s plenty of original stuff around, especially considering the easier accessibility to 'making music' thanks to software and various tools; it’s clear that originality may take time to be processed, although that's not always the case: the Bristol sound (Massive Attack, Portishead, Tricky...) has been moderately innovative and has still garnered quite a bit of commercial success, Missy Elliott (who I don't like, but makes quite peculiar stuff) is often at the top of the charts, etc... If I simply have to mention artists I consider good and original, regardless of their appeal to the mainstream, I just need to take a quick look at the CDs I own and I'll be ready to throw a ton of post-'83 music your way...

Yes, yes, got it, Robi ;). This is because you've never had in your hands the fundamental book by Gillo Dorfles 'Ultime tendenze nell'arte d'oggi', otherwise you would have truly put a gravestone on contemporary art :D (it's not even in color! And there are things that don't even remotely seek to be beautiful as we usually understand it, but, what can you do, on one hand many things need a lot of time to be metabolized - Van Gogh wasn't appreciated at his time - and on the other hand the same time is needed to realize that 90% of what was considered was really terrible :D)

The artist's sh*t seems to have been by Manzoni... trell, you don't like Fontana either? gnurant ;) Actually, I hold off on my judgment about Fontana, but his work wasn’t just simple provocation or a concept repeated multiple times... after all, he didn't only tear canvases; he was a sort of painter and sculptor together who sometimes dotted the canvases with small elements protruding from the canvas itself, creating a play of shadows that 'stole' a bit of depth... anyway, I don’t know that much about it, but maybe the artworks should be seen before making judgments, otherwise you just think about the 'slashes' and immediately think 'what nonsense.'

Yes, I get it: but look, for example, there’s also a lot more technique in a painting by Kandinsky (different, of course, but much harder because it’s sought through experimentation and not learned from someone) than in many street portrait artists; well, sorry for butting in, but I’m a bit sensitive on the subject (not that I get angry, eh, I just intervene..) since I studied a bit of contemporary art with people who considered what they were studying garbage just because it didn’t imitate nature like it did four or five centuries ago, not very open to seeing another kind of beauty (oh, I’ve gone through the whole 'what garbage is this?' thought regarding modern art too – then I started to think that, for example, I liked feedback even though it was neither 'classical' technique nor used to 'say' something precise, I just liked it, simply a tool for a 'different' beauty, and so I started to see things that way even in figurative art; actually, I changed my mind almost at one specific moment, but that’s a bit of a boring anecdote and the post is already this long…)