Stoney

Dear Expert, I’ll reply right away. The example of the sommelier is spot on, well done. So let’s say that within the metaphor, Scaruffi might be a terrible sommelier, but then: do you have the knowledge to criticize a sommelier who is doing his job poorly? Do you have the criteria that allow you to say whether a sommelier is performing well or poorly? It seems to me that you and all the others who go after Scaruffi do not have any at all, and you get upset with him because he rates all the wines he has tasted while the most you’ve done is get drunk on Tavernello. For heaven’s sake, nothing wrong with that, but it would be enough to say, "Oh, I don’t give a damn about wines, I only use them as a trigger for my drunkenness or to accompany a spaghetti dinner with friends," and that would be that. Instead, not only is the work of the sommelier criticized, but it is also insinuated that the sommelier is an arrogant pretentious person, and that it's better to buy wine in a bag without getting too caught up in it, because such a refinement of taste is seen as a symptom of arrogance and condescension. This is what pisses me off, blaming anyone who wants to go beyond, regardless of the method they use. Because no one can convince me otherwise: Scaruffi is hated not for his method, as one would like to believe, but simply because he goes against common sentiment and speaks poorly of albums universally recognized as masterpieces. I am convinced that if he were twice as ignorant and half as accurate as he is now, but he spoke very well of the albums you like, you would have made him your idol.

Alexander, I argued on the DT review, and before my review, I wrote so many comments all over DeBaser that I'm tired of always saying the same things, which people take in one ear and out the other. You ask for arguments, then when someone presents them, you say they don't count because they're ridiculous, so what do you want? Do you want to use YOUR arguments to support my positions?

Traumacronic, but is it so hard to accept that 99% of the music we grew up with is probably garbage, and that if we like it so much it’s only because for some personal reason we’ve become attached and fond of it?

@Traumacronico, since when does someone need to be a musician to criticize music? So a film critic must be a director? And even if someone were a musician, they would be influenced in their judgments by the genre they play and their personal abilities, which they would use as a comparison for what they listen to (and I won't give examples, which are, by the way, well-known, to avoid stating the obvious).

To say that an album is useful for making out in the car means you know music; to say that the Beatles were an often overrated cultural phenomenon means you're just a pompous, arrogant charlatan. So you see, it's not Scaruffi that gets under your skin, it's those who can argue their opinions in a way you don't like. It was clear you were in a bad place, but I never thought it would come to this. I quote Lux at 114.

Uh... yes, it’s clear, but I just wanted to make a joke...

Gustavo, who do you like? Actually, wait, let me guess: you like Princess Leia from Star Wars. Am I right? Tell the truth...

Yes... everything is very nice... but you don't express a "point of view," you dismantle the methodology applied, which is quite different. Would you ever go up to an architect, a carpenter, a painter, a philosophy scholar, and tell him he's wrong in applying his knowledge, knowing that you know nothing about his field? I wouldn't, simply because I would feel presumptuous to think that my opinion could hold as much weight as that of someone who has dedicated their life to a discipline. And mind you, I'm not saying that I have to agree with those who know more than I do, but at least considering that their opinion is more authoritative than mine seems to me like the bare minimum. You instead criticize the methodology, which goes far beyond mere opinion. You are telling a person who has devoted years of their life to study that they've wasted their time, while you, who have merely chosen records off the shelf that you like best, somehow manage to be more objective. So why don't we call this what it is, namely "presumption"? People like you hate those who show their knowledge because you can't understand the difference between talking knowledgably about something you understand and showing off (i.e., being a "smart aleck"), and that's your limitation, not Scaruffi's or anyone else's. You're one of those who drags in the very silly excuse of "serious, calm, and civil dialogue" to imply that you can't stand the existence of people who express opinions too far from your own, and you wish everything could be reduced to talking about the usual things everyone already knows without saying anything too new or too shocking. Far from dialogue. You're the one who gets angry, you're the one who can't stand that discussions take place. That's your point of view, for sure.

Expert, since when does one express an opinion on a method adopted by another regarding a subject they don't know? Or are you also a music expert, allowing you to tell a music critic that they are not doing their job well? No, because it may be that you are one too, you never know, I'm just asking.

How predictable the human mind is. Someone sets up a website where they tell half the world that they might be ignorant when it comes to music, and instead of thinking, "Oh, what is this person saying? Could they be right? Could I improve my knowledge if I just paid critical attention to what they're saying?" people get agitated and nervous regardless. Being confronted by someone who knows just a little bit more is annoying; it's much better to remain in one's own ignorance, puffed up with the usual clichés. This is what "free culture" has turned into today. It's evolution, baby!