Stoney

Scaruffi is a guy with square balls. Because before speaking, he had and still has the good sense to study, inform himself, understand, and connect the dots. When someone studies a complex subject like music, and art in general, the parameters by which they judge it cannot be the same as the public, who have certain emotions and memories tied to a particular album. Therefore, within the historical context in which Scaruffi operates, it is perfectly understandable that he dismisses the Pink Floyd, the Beatles, and other groups considered fundamental by everyone else: the perspective from which things are viewed is different. In the end, art history books say that, for example, the Parthenon was built in a certain year, that a certain material was used, and that it had a certain cultural impact; they don't say, "the Parthenon is beautiful and I like it a lot." So why should music (if treated seriously) be different? Why should a critic take into account the popular appreciation that the Beatles or Pink Floyd enjoyed as a judgment parameter? I respect Scaruffi and his modus operandi, which I believe is the only possible way to bring serious and coherent criticism; I appreciate his opinions, often at odds with common sentiment, especially since he has never claimed that it is "wrong" to listen to the music he criticizes, nor that one should ONLY listen to the music he appreciates. Above all, I admire his attitude, which rightly acknowledges that the tastes of the general public have always been influenced by advertising that preys upon widespread musical ignorance. In particular, I appreciate his persistence in pointing out how "mass" musicians, regarded as great innovators, have often been, in most cases, merely skilled copycats. Perhaps this is why many hate him, because they cannot stand questioning their idols, and even less can they bear to think that these idols have often contributed to negatively influencing the culture of a portion of global society. Personally, I continue to listen to the Pink Floyd without being offended by his harsh ratings of Dark Side of The Moon; it doesn’t change my life to think that an album I like isn’t the masterpiece I believed it to be.

The fact that she had to expose herself to sell this latest piece of crap says a lot about how far she has fallen. And the fact that there are people getting off watching this failed excuse for a porn star desperately trying to act like a whore is even more concerning. The day will come when people realize that with proper post-production, any female being recorded on video can become the most mind-blowing piece of ass on the planet, and perhaps they will start to understand that there are various universes of difference between being sensual and being fake digital whores. In the meantime, I disdainfully enjoy the decay of this sick world.

Well, Scaruffi may say things that are not universally accepted, but he is someone who has studied and listens to music critically. He has the right to say whatever he wants; his opinion is respectable in every way, even if sometimes disagreeable, because it is not the result of his personal tastes or foolish opinions expressed out of bias, but follows a coherent and structured critical logic based on studies and deep insights: exactly the opposite of the musical populism with which 90% of the reviews on DeBaser are written. Within the historical framework of his music criticism, it is perfectly understandable (in fact, it would be strange if it were otherwise) that he tears apart bands like the Beatles, Black Sabbath, and (sigh...) Alice in Chains; I just don’t see where the problem is. Can’t you enjoy an album that you like while being aware that, in the end, it might actually be worthless musically?

By the way, she doesn't seem that hot to me at all.

I quote comment 89 for life.

Ktulu, I returned here after several days away and re-read my review, then our discussion. Well, it makes no sense for you to keep talking about Images & Words as if it were Michelangelo's David, and it makes even less sense for me to keep trying to convince you of that. At certain levels, after the topic has been widely discussed and dissected, it’s no longer a matter of lacking arguments but of artistic sensitivity: one either has it or doesn’t; it cannot be explained.

No, it pisses me off that people first shower him with money and then envy him for being disgustingly rich. I mean, you envy someone who got rich thanks to your money and your idolization, it doesn’t make sense.

I'm sorry if my previous comment was a bit angry, but seeing people praising this man really gets on my nerves.

Comment 18: and you know how much I care about the Caribbean and the girls refreshing their balls in the wind? I have plenty of things to do in life rather than lying around all day. You might find it strange, but not everyone dreams of pussy, the sea, and billions. A jerk like that can only appeal to those who envy his easy success built on nothing. What a beautiful world where the sense of compensation for what one cannot have leads to idolizing such useless individuals :)

"Once, you just came, put in a double 1, and fired off nonsense endlessly. Now putting a one next to this idiot is even considered prejudice." Sacred words, sacred words. Just think, because they keep saying that criticisms are only the result of prejudice, there are even those who have been winning elections for 20 years. This gives a pretty clear idea of what kind of monkey country we live in. And we also have to find reasons to justify our disgust, otherwise we end up looking like idiotic detractors. Us.