luciano

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... I WANTED IT! I WAS PLANNING TO MAKE A TRIP TO BOLZANO WITH A FRIEND WHO HAS HIS GIRLFRIEND THERE TO BUY IT! DAMN IT! IT WAS THE THING I WANTED THE MOST! Listen, Bolzano can't be that big, how many helmets like that could there be? It's not like someone rides around on a scooter with a helmet like that. We'll get organized and take it back, and we'll beat him up so much that he won't even be able to ride a bicycle anymore!

Yes, well, I've been listening to it for a while, since it was released, but I still haven't managed to precisely explain to myself what the significance of this work's release is. In other words, setting aside when it should be placed (summer '72), what is the point of releasing a triple album 31 years later that could superficially have a redundant effect on "The Song Remains the Same"? I'm searching for a depth of interpretation that would clarify this for me, but so far I haven't found anything that helps in that sense. I was much more struck by the testimony of the BBC Sessions. 4 for the review that I don't like but which is in line with the spirit of the database, a suspended vote on the CD for which a 5 would be mandatory, but for which the unresolved issue regarding its historical significance makes the final decision "waver."

(continues and concludes :-) - To conclude, linking back to "if someone thought they could do better, they could write a review of Jimi Hendrix, right Luciano?", I believe that once the database offers us the opportunity I have proposed, it would lead to a flourishing that would enrich the themes discussed and could serve as the basis for pseudo-debates that, in the end, could enrich us all more than the forum is currently managing to do (Richard Sanders-Reality, or "I sell burned CDs"): precisely the "cultural function." On my part, as soon as it becomes available, I promise to write one as soon as possible for R U Exp?, not to offer one that I consider better, but to provide one that fully respects my interpretation of it. P.S. (at the end of the 3rd line of the 1st of these comments in response, read "WANTING TO WRITE," not "writing"... I responded on the spur of the moment and, who knows, a slip of the tongue? :-) Hello everyone.

(continues) - ... in this regard, I take advantage of the visibility offered by the comments on a unique work (I want to see the face of anyone who has the courage not to read or not to give a 5 to R U Exp?) like this one, to reiterate the request to the dwarfs who manage the database to resolve the distortion of multiple reviews (assuming you all consider it at least a nuisance; if not, let me know), which I believe could be achieved only (1) by improving the database so that only one page appears for each reviewed work, even when there are multiple reviews; (2) or by refusing to publish additional reviews on a work that has already been addressed. Obviously, the first solution would require some work on their part, but it shouldn't be excessively difficult. Moreover, it would significantly enhance the "democratic" function of the database (and in the long run, its "cultural" function as well). The first example that comes to mind, since I consult it regularly, is: HiFi, Home Audio, Product Categories and Manufacturers Reviews Index Let me know if you agree with me, thanks.

x wwwhatemoornet - I understand and appreciate the desire to stand in solidarity with Elfo, against whom I have nothing personal (on the contrary, I find myself wanting to support him and I invite him to read my first three reviews so he can see how I can truly empathize with him). However, I believe I was not the only one who reacted this summer to the news of Redding's passing by writing a review on R U Exp?. Out of respect for the spirit I sensed in this "circle" (see Mr_Iko), I held back. Had I done it, you can surely believe that I would not have been able to refrain from writing something that could not be related to all the other reviews available online, a rule I have adhered to since Police-Synch onwards. Nor do I feel entitled to offend or belittle others who may have the "great fault" of publishing a review before me. Certainly, I won't duplicate the reviews that are already present; I think that the "purchase advice" that attracts new visitors is ultimately represented by the average rating of the album, while multiple reviews tend to confuse and alienate (forums "request for new features..." and "review boycott")...

Yes, you are biased.

aah..., what an idiot! Thanks for the explanation... :-) You see, it's not that I dislike the M.K., but the album is rather poor; more than intimate, I'd say it's "twisted." The sound is very schematic, simple, even too much so; it sounds like a CD-record-mc from three years ago. Then again, de gustibus... Bye.

x pugliamix - sorry, let me explain myself better: you get the record, which is not easy since many works are no longer pressed in vinyl, you place it on the CD player and why can't you listen to anything else? do you have a CD player with top-loading?

Last job in what sense? I appreciate the spontaneous subtlety of the double meaning. The review is not bad at all, just a bit too brief, but it's efficient. Well done, maybe you’ve written worse ones later because you were pushed by others. The CD is terrible; you could have reviewed "Love." Who is that fool who, even admitting it's the worst, gives it a 5? A-FOOL, FOOL FOOL (refrain). Bye bye.