OleEinar

But Scaruffi is the one who wrote that ELP were technically inept? Or that Tool is a grunge band? Or that "Even Flow" by Pearl Jam is psychedelic?

To start with, I am not vulgar; I never insulted you (the dog poop was just a slightly colorful example, it wasn't directed at you), nor did I intend to make syllogisms, much less to say that if everyone except one thinks something, then it must necessarily be true. After all, I have a degree in mathematics, so I avoid making such flawed reasoning. As has happened before, you twist the argument however you like without understanding - or without wanting to understand - what I mean. I simply believe that extreme relativism in art, to the point of saying that if I like something, then it has artistic value, is wrong. Of course, when judging music, the subjective component is fundamental, but one cannot make one's taste a universal measure. Just as in painting and in every other form of art, there are scales of values, so you can't say that a piece of banal commercial pop can have the same artistic level as (just to throw out the usual name) one of the masterpieces by Led Zeppelin (not that you said that; I'm just using it as an example), for the same reason that no one who is not crazy would dream of claiming that Monticelli is superior to Van Gogh. With this, I hope I have clarified my thoughts, and I hope that the discussion is definitively closed.

Here, I hadn't read your latest post yet, but I think I've already replied to you. You know, I really love dog poop, it just drives me crazy. Since taste is subjective, dog poop is a form of art. The seat is removed!

Look, maybe subjectively I would prefer to hang up a painting by a friend of mine, a messy one, in my room rather than a Picasso. That doesn’t change the fact that the artistic value of my friend’s messy creation remains at zero. You can like whatever you want, but shit remains shit. Furthermore, to say that the purpose of music is to entertain is at least reductive and trivializing; music is, above all, an artistic expression (or maybe the Faust wanted to entertain?) and should be judged as such. Then your last post has nothing to do with what we were talking about before; talking to you is like talking to someone who replies "I'm 23" when you asked them "where were you last night?" So I’m not going to waste any more time on useless discussions.

Listen, you wrote << indeed I can’t see the girls listening to Pantera or Burzum; they might as well listen to Tokio Hotel or Jesse McCartney >>, and I replied that between Burzum and commercial pop there are millions of other deserving things, so the point you're making doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense. It’s not me generalizing; it’s you giving absurd examples. So maybe you don’t notice it, but here the one who’s out of place is you.

I'm not in a "gothic" phase, but I'll jot these down.

Ah Christmas... A beautiful page.

Sorry, but do you only conceive extreme metal and commercial pop? Look, there are millions of things in between that are more worthy and can be listened to by young girls too. And just because something manages to entertain young girls doesn't mean it gains artistic dignity.

Well, this is a really interesting proposal; I'll try to listen to them.

@CJBS, no, maybe it was a review of the Alphataurus where you said you preferred Bavaro to Zarrillo. Even there I disagree, I just can't stand the vocal parts of the Alphataurus :D