Hal

DeRank ™: 9,08

DeAge™ : 8376 days • Here since 6 may 2003

The Beatles Let It Be... Naked

18 nov 03

Voto:

That the Beatles are insignificant in your opinion is something I can easily live with; however, considering them to be merely a marketing phenomenon is, in my view, a somewhat superficial judgment. Yet, it doesn't bother me at all. As for the housewives, the phrase in question was: “the Beatles are what they always were - the safe, money-spinning, housewives' choice.” English has never been my strong suit, but I find nothing, absolutely nothing, in this phrase that you claim to be there. It's fine to interpret, but despite all the effort, I can't see a shareable judgment. It's quite evident that Simpson uses the concept of housewife in a (annoyingly) derogatory tone connected to the Beatles' music. For me, it highlights his arrogance. That's enough for me to give him a "fuck you."

The Beatles Let It Be... Naked

18 nov 03

Voto:

Sorry Mr_Iko, but today I'm slightly pissed off.

The Beatles Let It Be... Naked

18 nov 03

Voto:

Post Script: I hope someone has some opinions to express on this, otherwise they can always paste a link. :) Best regards and kisses.

The Beatles Let It Be... Naked

18 nov 03

Voto:

One could go on, but guys, I have better things to do than write the phenomenology of Scaruffi. Let’s drop these nonsense. I don’t believe the Beatles are the best pop rock band of all time; certainly not the worst. Nonetheless, it’s undeniable that they’ve influenced pop music indelibly, whether we like it or not. As mediocre musicians, behind the curve on everything, and with songs as brief as theirs, their tunes are still being whistled today. If this has happened, I don't think the credit goes solely to the savvy marketing of their record label. Those choruses are pop history. Call them what you want—catchy tunes, little melodies—but they’ve lasted for decades and I believe they will endure. Does this annoy you? Well, that’s a problem that doesn’t concern me.

The Beatles Let It Be... Naked

18 nov 03

Voto:

"The Beatles are rightly judged for the beautiful melodies they wrote. But those melodies were 'beautiful' only when compared to the melodies of those who 'did not' attempt to write melodies." This is splendid, it speaks for itself.

The Beatles Let It Be... Naked

18 nov 03

Voto:

“The Beatles had the historical function of delaying the impact of the innovations of the '60s.” The “historical function”?? I wish you could hear the laughter. “The Beatles only made songs, often unpretentious songs, with melodies as catchy as those of many other pop singers.” It is known that melody clashes with music. How many things one discovers by reading Scaruffi. And then?? Tell us, we hang on your every word.

The Beatles Let It Be... Naked

18 nov 03

Voto:

Even Scaruffi then indulges in classifying music according to socio-labor categories (The Beatles, however, had the intuition of the showman who knows how to entertain the peasants after a hard day's work). Congratulations Scaruffi, a fuck you to you as well, just like above. Shall we continue?

The Beatles Let It Be... Naked

18 nov 03

Voto:

The discussion about Scaruffi is different. Structurally, it's a good analysis: clear and motivated. However, I'm not at all convinced by his assertions, no matter how well-argued. There's a but, clearly, actually more than one. I would like to have more time to highlight them all, but patience. First of all, I didn’t like his what we might call socio-political reading. It seemed to me like a post-hoc forced interpretation. From Scaruffi's words, it almost seems that a plan emerges to curb the germs of dissent inherent in rock & roll. It even borders on paranoia.

The Beatles Let It Be... Naked

18 nov 03

Voto:

Not that there aren't truths in his article. But others are left unspoken or only cunningly hinted at. I don't like analyses that are knowingly half-hearted. There are already too many intellectually dishonest people in Italy; let's not go looking for them in England, please. And the accusations? The charge of being easy listening is downright ridiculous. What does it even mean? If it were true, is it even a fault? But f**k that. And what about the comment on housewives? In very poor taste, it highlights a most unpleasant presumption from the author. Worthy of being taken as a model by various editors of our newspapers like La Padania and Il Giornale. Shall we introduce more categories: music for lumbards, music for terroni, music for kraut eaters, or returning to occupational classifications, music for architects, for maids, for immigrants, for doctors, for workers, for lawyers, for farmers, for managers. But what does it even mean? But f**k that!. Not to mention the morbid comparison between the death of Lennon and that of poor Curtis. Let's draw a discreet veil over Dave Simpson and enjoy the one Simpson that actually matters: Homer.

The Beatles Let It Be... Naked

18 nov 03

Voto:

Count to ten. And why not to a thousand?
Provocative, Mr. Dave Simpson. Alright, let’s take up the challenge. Of course, there’s respect for others’ opinions, but in this case, Mr. Simpson seems a bit unfair and excessive to me. It’s clear from the beginning that dear Dave has never loved the Beatles. But while reading him, I got the impression that he was defending his own prejudice. It was as if I could see him proudly being a skeptic, holed up on a column observing with a half-smile this army of crazy people in love with the music of these four clever ones. Proud to guard a truth, which is that in reality those four meant little or nothing. As if he thought, “Poor fools, you could use just a shred of my intelligence.” But fuck off.