telespallabob

Here is the extraordinary summary of what Maestro De Simone was capable of, moving forward to talk about an extraordinary musical experience.

I didn't really like the review either; Mùm manages to be really good and confirms it.

I remember a nice movie, with interesting evaluations and reflections. It's not a trivial film.

I miss her, damn it, I miss her! Luckily, it can be fixed...

We want the interpretation! Good job, Nose.

So, I see we’ve arrived at the rebuttal. I’m glad. Let’s move on to the comparison I made: both Duchamp and ABM made a minimal addition to the original parts. Paradoxically, this leads to a huge difference. Therefore, in the bare-bones analysis of the episode, the comparison holds. Now, add an important fact: "Revealing it as true." Here, you offer a useful insight, and you can be right. What you call distorting could have easily been done; it just needed to be stated that there was this addition, that from a reflection on the original, one arrived at a variation on the work. Two assessments should be made: the first is about the final result, which you present with strong criticism. In the second assessment, it should be mentioned that, instead of operations on the originals, explanations are needed. Duchamp also distorted the Mona Lisa; he added a mustache and goatee. The difference between the two distortions you described in the last comment; it wasn’t hard to see, and especially, don’t get angry; it doesn’t help at all, since you know how to make evaluations.

<<Then there's that finger touching another finger... it has always bothered me a bit, to tell the truth... but yes, what's it called... mmm, yes! Sistine Chapel! ABSOLUTELY TO BE CHANGED! But yes, we need to keep up with the times! I would do this: instead of God's hand breathing the breath of life into Adam, I'd have God giving Adam a high five, with the caption: "Nice one, bro!" >> You shout scandal, do you know who you remind me of? Those who were outraged by the Mona Lisa with Duchamp's mustache! You described the same operation that good Marcel thought of, who chose a sign of irreverence. It was a stroke of genius in which many, reasoning just like you, cried out against the crime of art. Do you know what the problem is? You haven't brought up a single argument yet; simply put, the choice of ABM (I'm too lazy to write the whole name) can't be made. I'd love to know why, but you can't know it; you've never asked yourself that. Duchamp was asked, and there we discovered the genius behind it. Perhaps, facing the reasons of ABM, we could choose to side with you. I write anyway because I believe in intellectual honesty, even if I am not worthy of you who come to offer us the wisdom and mastery of the arts. You who sin in the greatest mastery: that of life. A kiss, dear.

Windir, an enormous and badass band! I don't agree with the last statement; I understand it's not something made for everyone, but I believe it can be appreciated by a decent number of listeners. There are bands of the same vein as Windir that are definitely less listenable.

He is really good in his field. However, I haven't listened to this album in a long time.

Welcome to Debaser, Silvia. Let's get straight to the point. Your observation is correct; where’s the mistake (if we should even call it a mistake)? It’s reducing the whole thing to an act of sacrilege, of lèse-majesté as someone rightly pointed out. In such contexts, speaking as an ignoramus here, one should have the sensitivity to investigate a choice like that, which I don’t believe is merely coincidental. Given that, as you said, you know those passages of Debussy well, it would have been interesting to perhaps provide an analysis, to see what kind of modification was made. Let’s add one more thing: it’s not that if ABM does it, it’s valid and must be accepted a priori. This kind of analysis is missing; instead, you felt the burden (without offering reasons for your thesis) to denigrate a bold and particular choice. You said: he added notes to the score, he shouldn’t have done that. That’s it! Oh no, it would be too easy that way. I don’t doubt that your animosity towards this choice exists, but at least clarify it in substance. It’s easy to claim expertise a priori; there are already too many of those in this world. It's difficult to assert one's knowledge because the risk of being ridiculed is greater. It’s called being open to discussion; are you in? It's an invitation, dear.