Io Ho Il Pene Banned

Phidias, believe me at least, I and the anonymous have nothing to do with each other, damn I've been here for 2 days, how I wish IPs could be read.

anonymous you are fantastic, please keep it up because I’m really having a blast, now I would be Vic's smile, not bad, on one hand I can even be proud of this comparison, I mean I don’t know who the hell Vic is, I’ve only read the reviews and he seems like a pretty creative guy, so I’m glad you see him in me, on the other hand I can’t help but point out the huge brain disease you’re suffering from dear anonymous, but don’t go getting checked because I want to keep witnessing these shenanigans, I’m having a great time.

Music is an art, NOT a rational science, just as Freudian psychoanalysis is not a rational science, with Freud, Reich (ever heard of his orgone accumulators trying to measure sexual power?), and Jung being fervent metaphysicians. Now I ask you: do you think a psychological symptom can be objectively identified, that one can build a falsifiable rational theorem around it, and that the whole can be treated in a logical and rational way? As happens in any other branch of rational science, where I include "science" also biology and economics? There were even people who said that Freud falsified data since he had no rational correlation to his theories. Is that true? And false? Do we believe it? Who knows, that’s what a music critic does, constantly falsifying the primordial intentions and intuitions of an artist. I also wonder why the hodgepodge of free and false interpretations of Freud is so often defined as science, and why people are scandalized when we talk about instinctual inspiration coming from the mystique of spirit without rational and structural embellishments, or when we discuss the paranormal?

I respond to you like this: rationalizing does not mean explaining, let alone predicting. However, it can remove some of the mystery and at least provide some idea that there are chains of reasoning, facts, and deductions from which we derive a certain image of the world. For example, to help you understand: "explaining celestial mechanics" does not mean rationalizing them; it would be an impossible task since reason still cannot do anything in the face of the still unfathomable mysteries of physics or astronomy. Trying to rationalize music is even more complicated; Schopenhauer and Nietzsche said it, the Dionysian character of certain arts like music, which is an intangible entity and whose emotions are deeply personal and extremely difficult to express in words. Schoenberg said that it is impossible to rationalize the content of a musical piece in words except through an extraordinarily approximate and imprecise way. We can perhaps talk about how the piece is structured but not about what it is, therefore what music is. The systematic error of wanting to rationalize what belongs to the realm of instincts and aesthetic passions is typical of us humans. And, I add, the more prepared and technically competent we are, the more we are inclined to fall into this error.

to Fusillo's comments: explaining instinctuality does not mean suppressing it. Freud sought to explain it, but not to belittle its spiritual genesis. Even Plato, for example, taught that the self must guide instinctuality, not suppress it, so I don't see the contradiction. I consider rock instinctuality, but above all I perceive its primordial spirit, that is, its chromosomes. How did rock come to be? Rock did not emerge as cultivated music; it arose as popular music. The contradiction, according to you, would be because I cite Freud, who was a person that explained and theorized things since he was a psychoanalyst. Okay, where's the problem?? I repeat, Freud and his school—Reich, Adler, Jung—did not seek to elevate dogmas with their theories. Freud only sought a way to understand and treat problems that psychology and psychiatry at the time were not able to study or confront. More than Freud, Reich was also interested in the aspect of human creativity, in art, from what it originated. Does explaining or trying something really mean rationalizing??

But no, the ones from Trell and Kosmo weren't criticisms, they were a mutual exchange of blowjobs. I don't know if you've seen Wolf played by Harvey Keitel in Pulp Fiction, that's what they are—mutual blowjobs, not criticisms. Then there seemed to be something tender between you two, so they weren't real critiques. The real criticisms came later from many others, and you got really pissed off, stripping yourself bare for what you actually are, that is, an egomaniac who can't accept the slightest complaint. Then you insult me too, calling me crazy and saying I'm missing some screws. I would be crazy because I dared to criticize the perfect little reviewer? I've told you before, if you criticize, you must be criticized in turn. It's just a shame that The Fall won't read your review, but it has happened in the past that some artists reacted poorly to the crap given to them by pseudo-intellectual critics. You say you respect them, sure you respect those who give you 5 stars and praise you, telling you that you're the highest example of perfection.

By weighing them with votes and quotients, it's a pity for you that there are others who do not rightly believe that a person's intelligence quotient automatically increases just because they write a sentence like this: “messi in atto più per convenzione che per convinzione, cinicamente assorbiti dall' indistinto e inesorabile reiterarsi del ciclo sonoro." No, my dear, it takes much more. There are behaviors and ways of approaching things that construct a person's validity. This is what you think; I believe you will have a turbulent future as a reviewer if you don't accept criticism and get upset in this manner. If you really want to be a reviewer, then you must also accept criticism; otherwise, The Fall might get angry about the review you wrote about them, Marc Smith might throw fish in your face, because to an artist, critics like you most of the time are annoying. So you can't expect not to receive constructive criticism, as I believe mine to be. You criticize artists, and in turn, as an anonymous scribbler, you don't accept criticism from other anonymous people or artists; the math doesn't add up. As for the fact that I've been on this site for two days, so what? Do you know how many forums like this I have written in my life on the internet? Let's leave that aside. To Fusillo: I will respond to you in a few hours; I can't right now.

So let's clarify a couple of things: my "death to the pretazzi" was obviously not referring to the person pretazzo, but as is implied, it's a broad generalization, a bit like saying, all the rabbis in this world. However, I think there’s one thing about pretazzo's snappy response that stands out: only one thing shines through, your egomania. You've appointed yourself untouchable, which says a lot. The way you assign intelligence quotients left and right demonstrates the smallness of your character and your truly low approach to categorizing people. Your review is a reflection of this perspective you have on others.

I mean, who would be Vic Sorriso? We feel it's interesting amid this chaos.

But I'm not romantic, for fuck's sake, it's not the romantic vision that drives me to do things, are we joking? Well, at least there’s a tiny iteration in terms of common sense (not convergence, mind you), let’s settle for that, but it’s not romanticism, erase that word from your mind. I mean, as soon as something falls outside the prefab (like in the case of inspiration), you subject it to a romantic impulse (and maybe from the temples and not the heart, which is even worse). Alright, break now.