cappio al pollo

It's a wrong argument in my opinion. If you like to get drunk, you should also know that sometimes you end up doing something stupid without realizing it, maybe you find yourself in the car without even noticing. Anyway, if you remember well, it all started with "Hendrix/heroin=maintains his artistic credibility/doesn't harm anyone (other than himself) vs. Jackson/pedophile=loses artistic credibility/undoubtedly harms". Well, assuming for the sake of argument that Jackson was a pedophile, the drug discussion is much more complex and hides much more than what's being said. Then the only case in which the drug addict might not have the sense to avoid getting behind the wheel "while high" with the related probable consequences should represent not the same, but still a danger to other people. This is just to emphasize how wrong it is to judge an artist by considering extra-artistic aspects (perhaps, as in this case, unverified).

I’ve been de-loving you for a while, in fact, that's why I took the matter to heart! (Actually, I don’t even remember why I started de-loving you, but there’s definitely a reason.) Anyway, yes, in the end, we more or less understood each other. The crux of the matter was that I didn’t find the comparisons you made apt, nor the lack of contextualization of the evaluations. But peace, everyone has their own opinion.

For me, both the banana album and Sgt Pepper's are five stars (maybe the latter not a full five), because both are incredibly successful albums. The fact that The Velvet Underground & Nico is more seminal and original, well, that’s another story. Anyway, returning to the previous discussion, I understand that rating both with a five might make sense, but context would do justice to the importance of an album like 154, because the specific weight would make a difference [take, for example, the specific weights of liquid mercury and water: with a volume significantly lower than that occupied by water, mercury would have the same weight. There’s the difference between rock and pop ;) ]

In that case, I would say that it’s a subjective matter and, in my opinion, we should distinguish between two types of evaluations: personal ones and those that are more aligned with the truth (according to which an album like that could not have been better than it is).

No, okay, put like that, what you're saying is absolutely true, even though I disagree with the "sets standards" concept understood as "craftsmanship that has nothing to do with art" since music is an art. It's not so much about making an album to fit it into a "section," but the fact that the album can be placed there because of its characteristics, in short, those that make that album a work in compliance, by the rules of art. If the artist can be genius enough to make themselves unidentifiable, that's great, but that's another discussion. What should Jackson have done in that album to make it a five-star one? Should he have completely overturned the "rules" of pop? It wouldn’t have been pop anymore. It might have been more genius, probably, and commendable for other reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that the album in question is just fine for its environment.

Ah, Larrok, I still don't understand. The point is simple: this album belongs to a specific musical movement, a specific era, and a specific genre that have certain standards, which are not the same as those of 154 by Wire (with the exception of the time period). How can one draw a comparison between these two albums? And above all, where is the "universal evaluation" if one discriminates against a genre simply because it’s not our favorite? Who am I to say that it’s better to listen to roots rather than pop? You explicitly stated this when you claimed, "if we give five to this, we give twelve to those." No one forbids anyone from voting on an album subjectively, but I just don’t understand how one can be surprised if someone gives a five to an album like this, perfectly consistent with what an album must be in an environment like the one it is placed in.

5

So, regardless of the fact that there are no incriminating truths in the "Jackson case" (as far as I know) and making it clear that I have never intended to downplay the horror that is pedophilia, I say that I used the example of drugs simply because what lies behind them is not exactly to be foolishly underestimated as is currently being done. Just think that using drug dealers is a way to support trafficking and therefore endanger (perhaps not directly, but that's exactly how it is) the lives of anyone who easily approaches them; consider that behind drugs there is almost always the mafia, and doesn’t the mafia destroy the lives of others? Not to mention those who, under the influence of drugs, commit severe crimes such as rapes and murders; or, why not?, even the perspective of (!) seems quite interesting to me. Does drug use not pose a danger to others? Tell that to the parents whose child is run over on a Saturday night by a car driven by someone who "only endangers his own life." I don’t think my argument was that narrow, and I see the idea of ceasing to trust an artist because he might be morally reprehensible as rather forced. And the music? The separation of the two worlds (artistic - human) is at least necessary. It’s also true that sometimes it depends, but in the case of Jackson, I doubt that a moral-spiritual alliance is even required to appreciate a song. It is illogical for music to be negatively influenced by an external aspect, especially in cases like these where the external aspect is actually only presumed to be such.

I agree, Cornell. I would also add a simple "what sense does it make to artistically judge a character based on questionable human aspects?" Hendrix did drugs. Doing drugs is illegal, morally wrong, it supports the trafficking of controlled substances and thus potentially endangers the lives of anyone who buys from this. Was Hendrix an inconsequential and worthless guitarist?

But what the hell does Off the Wall have to do with 154 by Wire? If you really need to make comparisons, do it sensibly. Who would establish that if 154 deserves a five, Off the Wall must necessarily only be rated a maximum of four? Who would determine that one genre is more deserving than another and therefore is the only one entitled to a five (because that’s the crux of the matter)? It seems pretty clear to me that evaluations need to be contextualized and that you can't expect a five given to a country record to have the same weight as a five given to a jazz record, simply because each genre has different "requirements." So I wonder what is wrong with this record that it doesn't deserve a bouncy five.