Grasshopper

Very well. But even though I like the 5, it isn’t the ultimate aspiration of my life. The reason I write on this excellent site is to share my impressions of what I consider great music (not just classical: out of a hundred reviews, about twenty will be classical) with those who are not familiar with it. A somewhat prejudiced attitude of distrust, like the one I sensed (perhaps mistakenly) in your first comment, with that irony about the “numeretti” and the “sassaiola,” bothers me a bit, and this explains my equally prejudiced response towards you. Obviously, I don’t know you, so I’m not entitled to fear that Brahms might leave you indifferent; in fact, at this point, I’ll recommend him to you again, but in a different way, hoping that you’ll become passionate about it, whatever your preferred genre of music may be.

Appearance is deceptive. The nickname is appearance, and perhaps the somewhat cheeky tone of your first review is as well. Maybe reality is better, who knows?

Numbers? 2 and 83? It doesn't take much to remember them, and I assure you that in this case, it's worth it. Rioting? Don't worry: we from the loggione are peaceful people, even though from the higher balconies we are in a privileged position to throw stones. If I'm not mistaken, your nickname roughly corresponds to "Satanic whore"... Well, a bit of excellent Brahms certainly can't hurt you: at most it might leave you completely indifferent, and that’s what I fear.

The term "conservative" is, in fact, more of a formal attitude, as demonstrated by Brahms' drastic statement quoted at the beginning, which practically contradicts much of what emerges from his music, including this concerto. Conservative, yes, but only formally: what stirs within his soul is a restlessness that is entirely modern, and it is no coincidence that Mahler is among those who have grasped it.

I wouldn't have abandoned poor Cristina D'Avena. More or less...

Marco Poletti (dixit): can you explain to me what the criteria are for giving grades, can you tell me where I exaggerate (Jannacci, a great friend of Gaber, sang "L'importante è esagerare"), can you tell me that it takes good judgment and measure, you can do a bit of everything... but please avoid comparing Masini's name to Gaber's!!!! We are talking about two completely different worlds that, fortunately, never meet.

I really appreciate the review, but I won't vote for it due to "conflict of interest" (there's one of mine on "Pictures at an Exhibition"). There's not much to add about the works: two masterpieces.

The first CD on which I laid the foundations for my vast classical collection... like Scrooge McDuck's first cent, apart from the objective value that anyone with ears recognizes, it also has sentimental value for me. I wouldn't want to come off as hard to please, but I would have preferred to hear it discussed with a bit more passion, rather than in this very pertinent and exhaustive, yet somewhat impersonal way. Curiously, this is also the criticism I received most often in my early reviews, so let's take it as a good omen. Another interesting point (noteworthy): for once, I partially disagree with Hal regarding the "pompous Karajan," whose interpretations I find unparalleled, especially for the more tempestuous symphonies like the Ninth, the Eroica, and the Fifth. A bit less so for the Pastoral, which remains of the highest level nonetheless. For the latter, I prefer Furtwängler and Bernstein. But this is purely a matter of personal taste.

What Zarathustra said in the first intervention is fully shared by me, including the votes.

I almost forgot: regarding the behavior, if possible, I would be a bit cautious. No one holds the copyright, not even Marco Poletti. Otherwise, he wouldn't inundate us with dozens of reviews, sometimes even well-written, but almost always duplicates, triplicates (or worse) of others already done. Ego dixi.