DanVerlaine

Fiquata, I expressed a personal opinion; it's a formula I arrived at personally, not because I read texts by authors. It's quite obvious if you reflect on it, but some people don't, that's all. It is in fact an assumption that should be taken for granted, but it's not. Anyone conducting an analysis uses parameters; you do too. Even in dismantling what I said, you used parameters. It seems to me, however, that you yourself pointed out that you are the first to make use of them, so I don't understand if you want to play with rhetorical paradoxes and the philosophy of the absurd. In this case, you would be the one trying to show off, perhaps because it's the only way for you to get hard. The schemas are the ones you use to interpret what I say. I didn't say that if you know her you don't appreciate Pausini, but that taste is influenced by experience, and not everyone has that clearly in mind. It's not trivial. I could elaborate on it with two meters of posts, but this is not the place for sociology. Aah, since you label Weber as boring and trivial, I'd like to know if you happen to be Tocqueville's grandson? Maybe Simmel's son. By speaking in such terms about Weber, you perfectly qualified yourself; there's no need for you to say anything else. Yes, yes, go ahead and insult, adios.

Fortunately, despite all the homogenizing forces, people are still all different. Thus, even intellectuals express differing opinions among themselves, thankfully, just as it happens with criticism, fortunately. I only said that knowledge influences perception, and if you have pursued a path of knowledge in any subject, you should have realized this in your own skin. I wasn’t setting up a classist dichotomy; I’m just saying that, for example, some works of art can only be truly appreciated if one has a certain type of education because then they can be conceived even from a conceptual perspective. If you show a person ignorant in the matter a Pollock painting, it is very likely that they will see it merely as a scribble. Conversely, an Art History student may not appreciate the style, but they will look at it with a whole different respect because they know what lies behind it, and that changes everything. These are two stereotypes; I’m not making it an issue of elitism. If you show a kid 800 special television programs about Warhol and maybe have them read a biography, it’s pretty normal that this character and his works will take on an immense aura of fascination that will lead them to appreciate even Warhol’s worst pieces. It works like this; we overestimate ourselves. Those we consider to be our tastes depend, in my opinion, for no more than 20% on our nature; the rest comes from orientations induced by a multitude of factors. The martyrdom of kamikazes seems absurd to us, but if we had grown up in Afghanistan, raised in a certain way, 3 out of 5 of us would think that martyrdom is a wonderful act, full of meaning. Those who grew up with salty bread will find unsalted bread tasteless, while those who grew up with unsalted bread will find salty bread heavy—habits and culture influence taste. Ah, anyway, being astonished does not mean being captivated by something. It could also be that the mountain dweller (like the tourist in New York) finds themselves wide-eyed because they are faced with something new and difficult to understand. Obviously, the student will remain much less baffled, but this does not contradict what I have stated. And I repeat, every trend has exceptions.

Fiquata, in my opinion, you don't understand the meaning of "parameter," otherwise you would avoid writing such nonsense. The fact that certain evaluations are useless to you doesn't mean that there aren't parameters. Upon closer inspection, even your way of listening to music is based on a parameter. Moreover, you add that everyone has their own parameters, which means you contradict yourself. Expecting everyone to have the same parameters when judging something is probably a result of your annoyance at the wonderful variety of the world. When we all have the same judgment parameters, I will shoot myself. The discussion about taste is fundamentally shareable, but there is one variable to consider: culture. Knowledge influences perception, this is undoubtedly true. If you show Guernica by Picasso to an ignorant mountain dweller, he will think it's a scribble; if you show it to an Art History student, he will be completely fascinated. KNOWLEDGE INFLUENCES PERCEPTION.

Masterpiece.

Real rating: 3.5.
Band to watch, good album.

Highly discouraged even for Beatles fans.

Recommended.

Over time I have partially re-evaluated it. It’s a decent album with some anonymous/ugly tracks but also several that are quite good. Living Well Is The Best Revenge is a powerhouse, with that pulsating bass line. Hollow Man and Supernatural Superserious combine quality with mass appeal. But the track I’ve re-evaluated the most is Houston, a gem. Until the Day Is Done remains a boring track, feeling overdone, a regurgitation of the sessions from Around The Sun. Discrete Man-Sized Wreath and Mr. Richards are anonymous, the title track and Sing For The Submarine are forgettable, and the detestable Horse To Water is ugly and tacky, while I'm Gonna DJ is just bad.

This is a really great album. Underrated. Just picture music like a little snapshot of a tranquil beach life on an American shore from the '60s. The stupor it conveys is intentional. It’s warm and dreamlike, but its melodies work, and the arrangements (Beachball) are worthy of Brian Wilson, to whom the album is ideally dedicated. I’Ve Been High is one of the top 10 tracks by R.E.M., and Imitation of Life is a lesson to the world on how to write a commercial single without sacrificing quality. Classy pop with experimental touches. Not to be missed: Beat A Drum.

I don't know this album, but Caught By The Window was a nice record.