panapp

@Darius: I fully support your comment #63 and completely dissociate myself from comment #61 by ILM_igliore, but I can't help but point out that in addition to the subjectivity of artistic perception, there is an objectivity to musical technique. Sticking strictly to the technical realm, many pop artists' songs are musically laughable (I'm not talking about tastes, okay?). Going back to Michael Jackson, for example, his albums from the '80s had a level of production and songwriting that was undeniably refined (think about the arrangements of many of his songs, the innovative rhythms, and many other aspects); this attention to detail has been lost over time, and Michael created increasingly flimsy songs that lack solid melodic or harmonic ideas behind them. I really like "Scream," but it's undeniable that it is a truly fragile song, especially when compared to beautiful things like "I Want You Back" (my favorite from the J5 era). That said, I reiterate that I stand with you in saying that genres do not have a hierarchical scale.

@Darius: the issue is very relative because Jackson was an artist who shaped taste, not one who had to adapt to it. Not to mention the fact that he experienced an undeniable artistic decline, so the fact that he started with Quincy Jones and ended with Akon clarifies the extent of his downward trajectory.

@Rage: look, I didn’t compare anything or anyone, okay! ;) I meant that reviewing a slice of an artist's entire body of work held together by just one characteristic (the form, the genre, the period) is quite risky because, like all artists in the world, Tchaikovsky has obviously evolved over the years, and their productions aren’t easily comparable to one another. friscio76 here has attempted, with admirable courage, to select works by the Russian composer that are united by being ballet music and related suites, so it's a very varied selection, much more than a single ballet, a single album, or a single film. It was a compliment to the intent that transcends the final result, which is very commendable, especially after comment #3.

I'm not sure about the purpose of a review on a large body of work by an artist. It’s like saying: I’ll review all of Kubrick's historical films in one go, or I’ll review the individual albums by The Cure from 1982 to 1993, or I’ll review the countless cantatas for harpsichord by Bach performed by Koopman. I’m not judging the outcome, I’m questioning the initial choice because there’s a risk of being too general when the output is so vast or connected only by a single characteristic. That said, the work is now part of the common heritage and the review does have its meaning.

The combination of the names Akon and 50 Cent on the same page gives me uncontrollable intestinal spasms. The artistic value of it all is frankly unacceptable: this is not a probable example of exploiting a corpse, this IS the most crass exploitation in the history of pop. Even Elvis and the Beatles weren't subjected to such treatment: artistically, it has been on a nosedive in the last 10-15 years, he died leaving us with bland productions; it would make sense to remember him for when he was still truly deserving, and yet here we are with his post-mortem memories enriched by the worst youth of the States. If I could have given it a 2, the sordidness of the operation pushes my finger to click on a symbolic 1.

The review... well, Christmas is approaching and today I'm feeling very, very kind: 2. I love the Cure, but this album (the THIRTEENTH) is both very interesting and quite anonymous, so 3 sounds good.

Welcome to DeBaser! I can't help but lament the choice to debut with a review of Lady Gaga, a character that deserves criticism, not just musically. "The show [...] lacks improvisation and still gives me the impression of being far too constructed; it’s very engaging, it entertains you, it doesn’t bore you for a minute in the total two hours": for tours of this magnitude, it's evident that every single comma is planned and meticulously designed. It's obvious that this is the case, especially since dozens of people are involved, including artists, dancers, and various technical collaborators. If someone dares to make any variation from the program, everything risks falling apart. On December 8th, the famous Japanese singer Utada Hikaru held her farewell concert for fans (she's retiring from the entertainment world for a couple of years): for three straight hours, she excellently sang, played, and entertained the audience worldwide (the concert was in Japan but also streamed online) without a hint of that odious plastic falseness of Lady Gaga, who feels the need to drape her miserable artistic output in eccentric clothes and bizarre makeup. In the film "Chicago," Renée Zellweger wonders how she'll convince the judges of her fake innocence, and Richard Gere replies that all it takes is to give them some razzle dazzle, that is, some glitter that obscures the truth and what really matters. There you go. "She's not beautiful, but she knows how to be sensual in her own way": WELL, NOT REALLY, I wouldn't say sensual. "She's light-years ahead of colleagues like Katy Perry, Rihanna, etc.": it's they who are the pathetic little characters, not her who is ahead.

I quote everything. Being a fan of Piton, who must absolutely be considered among the best literary characters of the past several decades, I can only agree that this sixth volume is the best of the saga. The entire book is excellent; there are no particularly gratuitous lengthinesses or truly useless scenes. Everything is part of a functioning narrative economy, and the proof is in the seventh book (which, echoing madamedubarry, I don’t find bad either, quite the opposite) that operates what in technical language are called "call-backs," referring to the recapturing of narrative elements that seem to be thrown in randomly or for effect but are actually functional to the storytelling (one example among many: in the first book Harry catches the snitch with his mouth: it’s not a coincidence). Perhaps this is where the great beauty of Rowling’s saga lies: it is a saga, not seven books, but one long journey meticulously constructed without gaps, or with gaps justified by clever devices. A note on "The Lord of the Rings": I can't remember whether it was the Daily Telegraph or some other English-language newspaper that wrote a syllabus some time ago, a list of books one must absolutely read; in the "For Children" section were the Harry Potter saga, the Narnia series, and The Lord of the Rings: I fully agree with the newspaper. The mystical fame it has achieved over the years makes it appear today as the final masterpiece, but children's fantasy literature is... very intricate, complex, profound, studied, described [add whatever you want], but that is what it is.

Thus concludes the trilogy of reviews on the Brontës. An optimal review, a book of limited value, but not necessarily bad (still better than 50% of the things that come out today).

For me, it's yes.