Saputello

"Ah, one thing know-it-all, you've really expired on me." -------> But why, I don’t understand, do we know each other? Or maybe you thought you knew me; well, in that case, I’m glad to correct you and reveal myself as someone who isn’t worth a damn (now you finally know me, huh). But above all, the value you give to that son of a bitch makes me smile, and in case I offended you, I apologize; as far as I’m concerned, I hadn’t even thought much about it while writing it. Instead, I could have written "spastici" or anything else, with a tone that was mostly just playful. In essence: is a "fuck you" okay with you? I say it often to my best friend and he doesn’t take offense, strange.

"Apparently, sylvian82 is a protected species here"-----> But protected species, my ass, the protected species here is anyone who writes a good review regardless of differing opinions, which is well-reasoned and well-written, and they should also get a courage award in this case, given that the critics are all busy fawning over this album. Anyway, I'm curious, I’d like to find out how many times those who praise it so much have actually listened to this stuff.

"People would be like how the hell if this album had been released by Thom Yorke, they would have taken to the streets shouting about an epoch-making masterpiece"-------> Yes, that's actually happening, maybe because it was released by Portishead. I mean, you really have to be a son of a bitch to give this a one-star rating.

Certo, invia pure il testo e procederò con la traduzione.

Absolutely. I don’t know, I must have a problem; whatever comes out this year I find repulsive, and this album unfortunately is no exception. Unfortunately, because I had an unusual trust in them, but I’m quite disappointed.

Certo, invia pure il testo e procederò con la traduzione.

"Excuse my curiosity, but do you always look for the masterpiece in every album you listen to?"----> But you know how many terrible albums I listen to?

But what prejudices are you talking about? The only thing I’m trying to do is critically understand why Ghosts didn’t convey much to me. My perception listening to Ghosts is that any musician with a bit of flair could write pieces of that genre, and the only thing that sets them apart from mediocrity is precisely the sounds, which are meticulously crafted and chosen with rare taste. If we want to consider Nine Inch Nails a key group in the history of modern music, then I have expectations (maybe those are the only prejudices, but I’d say they're justified), and finding myself faced with 36 rambling drafts that don’t explore any harmonic or melodic variations and behind which there is no overarching construct or design, I’m frankly disappointed. In this sense, Ghosts feels like a collection of B-sides or ideas that he himself didn’t have the desire (or the ability) to develop. When I heard that all the pieces would be instrumental, I had a good feeling; I thought to myself, “Maybe he’s decided to delve deeper into the composition of the pieces at the expense of catchiness,” and the prediction turned out to be half right, because indeed the catchiness is lacking, but musically there’s nothing in-depth. An honest collection of B-sides that pales in comparison to the gigantic craftsmanship of albums like Downward Spiral, The Fragile, or Pretty Hate Machine.

@ Spaccazucche: you settle for little, because Reznor has shown in recent years to be a rather limited and not very eclectic composer, trapped in the same identical melodies as always, unable to construct harmonic variations in pieces that begin exactly as they end, and he only plays with rhythm (but always the same type), while even in songwriting he is now repeating himself to the absurd. He remains a talent in the recording studio, there’s no doubt about that. Ghosts in 2008 seems to me to be an avoidable album, and the fact that it consists of 36 tracks is certainly not an indication of quality; most pieces feel like drafts, tracks where the piano does the same harmonic loop repeated for 3 minutes with background sounds, tribal mantras with attractive sounds that could have been interesting for their experimental vein and catchy sounds, but if we were in the early '90s, after 20 years of electronics from Autechre to Aphex Twin to Matmos, they can’t be. And then I ask myself, if there is no factor of novelty and innovation, and at a compositional level they are clearly non-existent or at most at the draft level and there is no evolution or development in any piece of the album, how can Ghosts be an album worthy of the name Nine Inch Nails? In my opinion, it’s not up to par. Consequently, your parallel with Patton seems flawed to me because Reznor, unlike Patton, is not that eclectic, and I don’t think he has renewed himself much. Sure, the sounds are more contemporary than 15 years ago, but to me, that doesn't seem enough to say that his music still sounds fresh, because to me it feels like uninspired stuff. I am eagerly awaiting the third quote from lux :)

"to a pharaonic and amazing work like GHOSTS I-IV" -------> Frankly, I prefer real pharaonic works to that melting pot of electronic nonsense and half-baked songs polished up with very clever production tricks (well, I could do it too with Alan Moulder). The sounds are killer, that's true, but I really remain astonished to see people getting excited over such emptiness.