uxo

I don't align myself with the well-done review anyway.

5 stars for Justin is madness.

Hey, Contemplazione, when you have a bit of time, why don't you also go and take apart the other ones on Davis? Who knows how much bullshit I've spouted (you know, for the good of the site and the people on Debaser in need of accurate information). Oh, and then there are a ton on Metheny and I must have been damn rough on those as well. Then there are the reviews on Monk, Gershwin, Hancock, Art Blakey (3 out of 4 will be turning in their graves, what do you say, shall we make it right?). You can have fun (I repeat, when you have the time) finding all the crap I've written: lexical-grammatical errors, wrong dates, typos, unclear concepts, and so on. No need for me to point you in the right direction.

Unreliable, trivial, brutal, and imprecise, and I believe I align with the tone of this site. I wasn’t here to stand out, nor to spread shit, just to have fun, as my profile says. I gladly leave the accuracy to you. What I wanted to say is that I’m now heavily demotivated and can’t find other reasons to write reviews on the classics (or films) I discover. I’ve always written with what I considered the appropriate care, and I’ve always expressed myself at my level, which is that of an enthusiastic amateur. I don’t think I’m here to be a journalist, but to enjoy and share the feelings of users, to TALK about music, the music that interests me and that none of the people around me follow. You’re extremely knowledgeable, and if I’ve built something with other critics like happypippo, antoniodeste, and symbad, with you I can’t build a damn thing. This is (was) my style. The end.

I didn't mind the review. Good job on the "oozes with blackness."

amazing! the tracks are pillars of jazz ("solar" I love it) and apart from "You don’t Know What Love Is," which is of a lower standard/a bit out of place (personal taste, of course), the album Walkin' is a gem of priceless value.

HARLEM NOT HAREM. ERRRRROOOOOOOR

And let it be clear. I don't copy reviews (and we know that some people here do it without problems), I'm not a journalist nor a historian. That's why these are just reviews (not THESIS OR CONFERENCE PAPERS) from a beginner, an enthusiast, who can certainly be imprecise. But what do you think you're doing here, contemplating? Don't exaggerate, damn it! SHARE, and get off your pedestal. Thank you.

@ contemplation: I have to point something out to you. It's true, this isn't a forum, but you don't seek clarifications; on the contrary, you just make your points and that's it. Before throwing together such a list, see if you can compare notes with me, since I have my sources. YOU ARE, IN ANY CASE, EXCESSIVE. I'll get to the points. 1) Phil is just a typo from an abbreviation. 2) You cling to the lexicon and at best interpret the sentence. 3) Davis's hard pop is a product of Davis's cool (in the sense that one period follows the other). I wasn't speaking broadly but only about Davis. Even here, you interpreted it. 4) Historically, the formation of the quintet is a story in itself. It's true that there are 2 changes in the lineup, but I was referring to the peak of the historic formation in a conceptual sense. EVEN HERE YOU INTERPRETED. 5) I have sources that credit Mingus and Davis as the authors of "oleo" (DISKY label, VINTAGE EDITIONS, THE BEST TUNES OF DAVIS). Again, at least earlier it would have been nice to have a comparison, because otherwise you make me seem like I'm talking nonsense and I don't like that. "KIND OF BLUE" is MODAL STYLE, EVEN THOUGH THE PREVIOUS MILESTONE BETTER REPRESENTS THE TRANSITION, but it seems obvious to classify it, and I must, in hard bop. It makes no sense to talk only about jazz. Let's not fight over subcategories because that's absurd. 8) typo 9) you are absurd 10) you are absurd. It's a review, not a biography. What game are you playing?

mom what a reception!!!