Stoney

Jack Daniel's, I'm responding a bit late. I don't want to be a phony moralist, please. Rather, you fell for the provocation that the clever De Lorenzo launched in the review, and you didn’t even realize it: you shouldn't say you've never known a communist happy to share his woman to prove that De Lorenzo is talking nonsense; doing so only gives him reason. You defended yourself against a non-existent accusation; instead of pointing the finger at his populism, you accepted it at face value, implicitly considering his expression as an accusation when it isn’t, and that way, you conceded defeat. It’s like when, as a kid, someone called you "faggot," and you felt compelled to respond, "No, I like girls!!" For twenty years, the left has been throwing these verbal tricks in our faces, and no one has learned yet. People like De Lorenzo thrive on this nonsense, proving what they want by using moralism as a weapon, in the name of that old principle "if I can’t discredit others' ideas, I can always discredit them as people," and you have no idea how much it frustrates me to see them come out as winners.

I don't see anything truly communicative behind this "It's just us," just a handful of phrases held together by a vague thread that is "we're a mess, we don’t care, you don’t understand us, so we won't pay attention to you." This piece communicates nothing, except for the unwillingness to communicate, the rejection of confrontation, the epochal generational clash between young and old presented here in its most superficial form. If this is truly the mirror of the generation that was, then it was a generation that would have taken anything said by a "rebellious" guy from a stage as gospel, and that's exactly what happened: Vasco's merit was simply being that someone. Which, I would say, doesn’t constitute an artistic gift at all; it’s more a matter of pure coincidence, so ENOUGH with these compliments and improbable comparisons with artists from across the ocean that Vasco doesn’t even remotely resemble.

Jack Daniel's: just because "almost everyone" does something, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily right or that it's a universal principle. I didn't say that I would swap my woman, I didn't say that everyone swaps their woman; I said that if someone does it and is happy that way, they don't deserve the condescending little finger of De Lorenzo, who from his lofty, obtuse, and conformist security calls him "invertito." It's not an irrelevant detail; it's the same reasoning that leads to calling a gay person "malato," pair and pact. De Lorenzo bases all his analysis method on these principles, which is why it doesn't even deserve to be considered. I don't know; it seems like a very simple thing to understand to me; if you don't want to understand, that's another story.

Dear DeLorenzo, a phrase like "no one would want to share their woman or their man with other women or other men, unless they are a pervert or a homosexual" deserves at least two lines of commentary. Aside from the fact that the dogs and animals you mentioned earlier separate males and females without batting an eye, and this contradicts the absolutist ambitions of your metaphor, I want to point out that there are millions of people in the world who share their partners freely and are happy because they enjoy it that way. Or do you perhaps want to delve into their lives and decide whether they are happy or not? These are personal choices, yet you, with your finger raised, judge them as "homosexuals." I'll tell you why: because your arguments do not exist. They are nothing more than an imposition of conformities accepted on a popular basis under the guise of philosophical-literary inquiries. Reading your reviews is like watching a pig being walked in a suit and tie. Your judgments are a priori, with a vaguely national-popular flavor that is worthless as arguments. I find it unbearable that you explain nothing in your interventions, do not investigate, do not critique: you base everything on "a priori" principles that you don't even examine because you think there's no need, and the mere act of citing them seems sufficient to give them some validity. You reason according to the conforming arrogance of the majority, so if 90 out of 100 people think that someone who shares their woman is sick, that is automatically true for all men, and not only that: such a decision becomes a truth and a human moral principle that holds always, and otherwise "diversity," "inadequacy," if not "sickness," is triggered as an infamous label. Dear DeLorenzo, the behaviors of the majority of people are not at all expressions of the ultimate essence of "all" men, of which, moreover, you don't even go into detail, but throw around randomly, in an orgy of abhorrent totalitarian populism. This is the biggest mistake someone who wants to delve into these types of discussions can make, and it classifies you therefore as intolerant and unable to interpret the world you are trying to describe. In short, you are, if not exactly an arrogant racist with an appealing way of speaking, at best a rhetorician with coarse methods. While waiting for you to consider the possibility of responding to me (but I won't perish if you choose not to), I offer you my best regards.

"to prove that the most emotional pieces are not written by Tiziano Ferro" ?!?!?!?!?

Perhaps it’s me who can’t understand this kind of music (am I getting old? Who knows, yet I listen to a lot of music), but it seems to me that I’m facing an infinite, monochord chaos that repeats throughout the album. Where is their genius? What’s important about this album? Because, not to be polemical, but when I read phrases like “it feels almost like plunging into the most extreme abysses, only to then soar unexpectedly, gliding over that ocean of despair that is life itself,” I just can’t take it: this is a sentence I’d expect to hear from a twelve-year-old infatuated with the coolest guy in class, not from a reviewer trying to encourage someone to listen to a record. Sorry, but either we talk about concrete things and explain what’s genuinely valuable in this album black on white, so that even someone who doesn’t grasp it at first can be guided to understand, or we don’t say anything at all.

Records like this will never be made again, that much is certain.

I had the unhealthy idea of going to see the uncensored cover, what made me do that?

"You need to think about it for at least 30 seconds to come up with at least one." I can't think of any even if you give me 3 days and help from home.

@Lupin "Nice as a mosquito in a condom." HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAUAHAUAHAUHHAUA HAUAHAUAHAUAUUAUAUAHAHAHAHAUAUAHAHA HAAUAHAHAUAHAHAHAHAHUAHHAHAUAHAUAHA UAHAHAAHAUAHAHA