Hal

maybe zzzzzzzzzzzz :D in fact I didn't even listen to them because the computer I used didn't have a sound card :D. Also, I was a bit rushed. Maybe tonight I'll give it another shot with more effort and a cup of coffee for support :)

I confess my ignorance, I don't know the album and your enthusiasm is truly disarming, maybe exaggerated, because "something" rock was released before '77. Perhaps you should have been more cautious. The review overall, however, isn't too bad. Even though you do repeat the word rock too many times. Go Fede.

Continues - The situation is different when it comes to multiple reviews. In that case, a rule could be established that prevents the publication of reviews on albums that have already been reviewed. However, this would again undermine the free nature of the site. How can we reconcile these two conflicting needs? Is it possible? Perhaps it is. A rule could be developed such that “If a review of an album already present on the site is submitted to the de baser staff, it will not be published independently but will be inserted in the comments section of the existing review. The publication will still be communicated to the subscribers of the mailing list.” It is clear that this type of review will not be able to receive specific votes. It is clear that we will have “limited” reviews. But they would still be present and could contribute to the debate and comparison among reviewers, albeit with the limitation of not being able to be voted on independently. It’s a price to pay, but it doesn’t seem too high to me. It’s a compromise. A balancing act between conflicting needs. Personally, I would leave everything as it is, but I cannot pretend not to notice the general annoyance when reviews of already-reviewed albums are proposed, see The Bends 3 La vendetta. Post Scriptum: "jurist" is a strong word. Bobbio is a jurist. Mr_Iko and I are just two law enthusiasts who sometimes get a little carried away :) . Regards.

This disorientation amuses me. So where to begin... mumble mumble ... here are rules and principles. Let’s not confuse rules with principles because they are significantly different. Rules provide a defined circumstance, principles do not. Indeed, principles are generally defined as norms with an so-called open-ended circumstance. To give an example: "personal freedom is inviolable" is a principle. "The judicial authority must validate the arrest within 48 hours" is a rule because it provides a specific consequence (validation within 48 hours) upon the occurrence of a situation (the arrest). Back to de baser. The freedom of expression is, in my opinion, a fundamental principle on this site. This means that it is not right, according to me, to create rules that prevent the publication of reviews like this one. Furthermore, it would be problematic to construct a well-defined rule without infringing upon the principle of freedom of expression, because there would need to be a difficult, if not impossible, prior qualitative judgment to establish.

The summary is fine, but there is a limit to everything. Do you really think that’s a comment? From what you wrote (and especially from the rating), I understand that you didn’t like the review. That’s fair and valid, but I don’t understand why. This fact limits my (possible) response and/or clarification. However, let’s try to derive it through a hermeneutic activity. From the fact that you didn’t rate the album, I assume you haven’t listened to it. Therefore, I believe that you don’t disagree so much with the judgment I gave about the album, but rather with that of its interpreter, namely Jaco. If that’s the case (and I can’t be certain of it), I now ask you why. If that’s not the case, please clarify your judgment. I doubt I will get a response, but never despair.
P.S. If you want, you can provide your name or identify yourself (see below), it would make the possible discussion more enjoyable, nothing more. Regards.

DE-baser was different ... DE-baser IS different, because
1. if a review like this (I mean djbobo) appeared on these pages, it would literally be slaughtered in the comments (if you don't believe it, just read further up)
2. everyone writes for free without taking a € in spite of the majors and the banners, logos, ringtones, and more

I trust . . I will avoid. Congratulations anyway. When an album isn't liked, it's not easy to review it. At least for me. Regards

I read it again (yes, indeed) . . .

I assume this discussion will continue in yet another review of Radiohead that has just arrived (who knows what will happen). Anyway, let's not exaggerate. I realize this discussion may seem a bit complicated. But these aren’t sophisms. Perhaps the love for my right and Mr_Iko's has made it so. But the heart has its reasons. Regarding your latest post Mr_Iko, I believe we've reached the heart of the issue, which I see from the following perspective. I understand it's difficult, but it’s always like this when trying to reconcile different and conflicting needs. Given that no value at stake is absolute, but all are relative and limit each other, we can establish rules that restrict freedom of expression to safeguard the non-commercial nature of the site, but in doing so let’s try to be reasonable (the magic word). A shout out to Tabba who entertained me a lot with his post... it’s true, no one dies, and let’s hope Federico has read some reviews and has at least been intrigued. Best regards.