panapp

I'LL TRY TO WRITE IMPORTANT SENTENCES IN UPPERCASE, LET'S SEE IF IT WORKS. @MaTaCà: honestly, I don't care about Scandinavian languages, Japanese, Italian, or any other language (incidentally, the language with the most perfect grapheme-sound correspondence in the world is Korean); I was referring to the simplicity of understanding. NO PHONOLOGY, YES MEANING. Period. Regarding "Sailor Moon": for the reasons that Squall has exposed in his review and that I have mentioned in the comments to his review, I think it's an excellent cartoon; it has managed to combine many distinct types of audiences to create an immense fandom that, 15 years later, still considers this anime an unparalleled total cult. The reasons lie in the excellently characterized characters, the brilliant scripts, and the attention given to every detail of the production (music, costumes, colors, etc.). However, I don’t need to justify enjoying a certain cartoon, nor do I condemn others for not thinking like me. That said, I believe that if this CD had had a white cover, no writing, and no tracklist, if I had found it on the street by chance, and if Sailor Moon had never existed, well, I would have liked this OST all the same. I FIND THIS A SOUNDTRACK WORTHY REGARDLESS OF THE PRODUCT IT WAS WRITTEN FOR. Therefore, I invite anyone to think of this music without relating it to "Sailor Moon" if you find it so disgusting (which is a legitimate opinion). Was I clear this time??? Who knows. As for Philology: in the twentieth century, some fundamental questions about the practical and conceptual meaning of music emerged. Questions about musical practice are mainly related to instruments: playing a violin from the 1700s and playing one from the 1900s are not the same thing because different construction techniques, materials, wood cuts, and a thousand other aspects yield different sounds; keyboard instruments require even more attention because over a few centuries, there have been many forms of plucked instruments (like the harpsichord) and many forms of percussion instruments (like the piano), each different in tone and sound. The sound that Bach heard is still perceivable today? Is Glenn Gould a blasphemer for playing on piano music originally written for organ and/or harpsichord? Does it make sense to introduce electronic instruments into the orchestral ensemble? All these questions and many others are related to the very identifying concept of "classical music," whatever that means. In the 1800s, they didn't have the electric guitar, and so it wasn't in orchestras, but now that we have it, should we include it in the orchestra? Respect for tradition and the need for innovation are the basis for the philological clash within music. Conceptual questions about classical music are related to forms: in the 1800s, three-movement symphonies were in vogue, which we now recognize as one of the standard models, and if a composer writes a non-sung work in three movements, it magically becomes considered classical music. But certainly, even the songs of Josquin Desprez are classical music in the sense of learned music (a well-known example is the beautiful "El grillo": so is it right to consider singer Britney Spears a future classic? What Fedeee says, namely that Britney now has her own label and will have it until the end of days, I don't know how true that is. That’s what I meant: today we have hundreds of genres and nuances (how many types of rock are there?) and musical forms (from musicals to albums to recitals to whatever), but it was the same in the past, and yet today we tend to define everything as "classical music" or, at best, "learned music." The philological issue regarding the concept lies in whether or not to recognize dignity to a certain artist: that joker Giovanni Allevi, for example, makes learned music just as much as Britney Spears. @panNZZOone: is it possible that every time I write a review, someone accuses me