Larrok

At 1 minute and 50 seconds into "Ritratto di un Mattino," one of the most stunning passages in the history of Italian prog begins. Great record.

They all mimic the stereotypes of the groups that the media trap in the distorted cauldron of grunge, a container that is not well-defined because often when there is a '90s group making alternative rock, if it can't be easily categorized, it gets slapped with the grunge label, which makes no sense at all. The so-called post-grunge, which would include bands like Bush, is the formalization and emptying of an image and never of a content.

I like the Beatles regardless of what the media says, and I know them very well so I speak with knowledge of the facts. Certainly, the media are also the ones that made you believe there’s a genre called grunge, and especially that Bush makes Grunge.

Hahahahaha!! The Bush!! Okay, now I understand who I'm dealing with.

"Fantasies for guitar and banjo" by Sandy Bull - Oh Scaruffi Scaruffi...how many victims are you claiming! :D

Talking about the rock sphere means considering rock in a broad sense, from electronics to death metal, from singer-songwriter music to psychedelia, not rock in a strict sense (Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple). While talking about progressive grunge, I repeat, is an abomination because the genre "grunge" simply does not exist; it's a bullshit invented by journalists to refer to a scene, that of Seattle, which contained everything and the opposite of everything.

If someone writes "Unlistenable, it's worse than a kick in the balls," I read it as an absolute statement, and moreover, one without argument. However, if I said "I find it unlistenable, it conveys nothing to me," then that would be completely legitimate because it stems from a personal impression. Objectively, one could at most discuss historical importance or potential influence, while one cannot objectively say "it's unlistenable," as that's subjective.

That was a single, the first album by the Kingsmen is also from '64; I'm waiting for the name of some high-level album released in '63 that isn't jazz, blues, or "The Freewheeling" by Bob Dylan...

For me, it doesn't make sense to talk about people being consistent or inconsistent. One can be consistent on some issues and inconsistent on others. Personally, I appreciate people who are consistent on the fundamental values of civilization... that they then change their mind about something, well, that's natural, but what's important is that the healthy framework remains standing. Berlinguer, for example, was convinced of the application of his ideals in democracy and was steadfast in condemning the totalitarianism of Stalin and Tito, even at the cost of antagonizing a good part of the European communist parties and even within his own movement. He paved a way that many others followed and he adhered to it until his death. This, for me, is true consistency, just like the fight against the mafia of Falcone, who died because he was stoically consistent in pursuing his goals, or Enzo Biagi, who was ousted because, faithful to his principles, he did not want to bend to the powerful, but to continue informing and nurturing the consciences of citizens as he had always done.

I don't think it's fair to have to choose between inconsistent and deplorably consistent individuals. I would be in favor of consistent ones in a positive sense, on the major values... take Berlinguer, Falcone, and Enzo Biagi (I specifically chose them from very different contexts to illustrate the point).