uxo

IN MY OPINION, CATTELAN IS A GREAT ARTIST. I AM WILLING TO ARGUE. FRANCO BONI IS A GREAT MAN. DON’T CONFUSE HIS WORK WITH HIS CULTURE. I MET HIM IN PERSON BECAUSE I WORKED AT TELEMARKET AND HE GAVE LESSONS IN THE EVENING, AFTER WORK, TO EMPLOYEES ON ART HISTORY. HE HAS WRITTEN A BUNCH OF BOOKS AND REVEALED TO ME SOME TRUE OPINIONS, NOT INFLUENCED BY HIS WORK. I COULD TELL SEVERAL, I HOPE THIS IS ENOUGH.

if you want... it's just that ghemison is like a guru, how can I explain it to you?

true odra, but I realized it posthumously. never mind.

splendid intervention by Ghemison who is (my opinion) a key figure on this site. @luca: yes yes, go ahead and show off now... I knew you knew, but how can I prove it to you now? ahhahah auuauuauahhahah uaua uauau ....ah count....the asses please....ahhHhHHH....

dear MELISSA: you can find everything on my card, anyway: miles davis (birth of the cool), wes montgomery (almost everything), several things by pat metheny (I would recommend his 2006 work with brad mehldau, not the one from 2007).
dear LUCA: fool, but you are abominably right about williams. thanks for the intervention and the positive judgment. this is an essential album, both in form and content, regarding jazz, and the more you listen to it, the more you enjoy it!
dearest CARLO: how nice to read you again. but really, you never write! rascal! But how to catch you is something only you know!
dear ZANNA: hello you! thank you for your always welcome presence.

It is important to understand whether what is "great" for you is also considered great by others, or vice versa. Obviously, if I express my criteria for the sense of greatness of an individual, it’s very likely that I will contradict you. For example, there are three ways to evaluate a work of art: 1) the subjective approach, where you say "beautiful, I like it" based on an appropriate aesthetic taste that you perceive as positive or negative 2) the objective approach, where critics justify the meaning/signifier of the work and, starting from predefined parameters, assess the innovation or conceptual value (and often the aesthetic value, especially in modern art, is not decisive) 3) the objective approach, which is created from the fusion of subjectivity that has learned the material/historical/descriptive objectivity. If you now decide your point of view, your evaluation criterion, it would be a pleasure to discuss it. Obviously, if some user responds to you with "sola" or "genio" without explanation, you will never know if you can share or accept it. I await your reply. Bye Melissa.

you are really good

damn it's not in the choices. it's a scandal.

"I SAY THERE'S NO RIGHT WAY TO PERCEIVE IT" (I'LL PUT THE REVIEW IN THE RECOMMENDED). I read this review with morbid attention. You were amazing, and I hope the Editors don't overlook it. Exactly, he himself talks about modern jazz with melodic improvisations. You see, even from your words, his (Ornette's) way of deconstructing and reconstructing, melodic deconstruction, deconstruction with a conflictual aim (metaphysical -honorific -winning -diabolical -fresh -intense -explosive), extrapolation of harmony directly from freedom of expression shines through. I think we're speaking the same language but not "MISUNDERSTANDING" each other. Well done, damn it.

To fully appreciate seemingly "chaotic" pieces (forgive the term) like "reincarnation of a lovebird," one needs a good musical culture. Today I listened to it for the first time (and only once), and I heard clear tributes to Gillespie and Monk, so excuse me if I missed other references. Blue Cee is also very valid; each instrument that gradually joins in is a pleasure for the whole (with a Blue Note flavor in the style of Art Blakey). For more measured judgments, as you know dear Luca, I will need time and deep listening. In any case: wow! Even "the clown," on the first listen, has all the makings of a piece to love...