42

Then, in order: @UHUHPANICOUHUH: you are right, the message is there and your interpretation is probably the best one possible: let's say that my sensitivity considers it purely aesthetic (and I also clarify here that I have nothing, indeed, against pure aesthetics) putting it one step below this, where the conceptual work, from my point of view, is more complex: I also want to emphasize that my intent is not to review the most beautiful videos in history (also because I am nobody to decide that) but rather those that I like the most and/or have communicated to me the most, so it's understandable that many judgments may seem questionable but in the end, it's nice to discuss them, right? ;-) Thank you for the appreciation.

I'll start by replying to Bartleboom: my "first" review (Boards of Canada) was indeed sent with credit to the director, but during the editing phase, the shift editor credited it to the group. At that point, I thought it was a decision made by the staff, so I adjusted by always crediting the main artist of the video and not the director (in one case, that of Tool, the shift editor credited it to the director, but at the time I thought it was a mistake since it was indeed an exception).

@UHUHPANICOUHUH: Entertainment in the sense that there’s no particular message in that video, but just fun (something that, I want to underline, holds a lot of value for me anyway) and so, beyond the purely artistic aspect, having to choose a video from this group (which I love very much), I chose the one that, in my opinion, best combines art and intent. Regarding the phrase you mention, no, I didn’t mean the NOM (also because I don’t typically believe in such theories, more or less conspiratorial) but rather to the attempt of a forced globalization that is happening especially due to technological development. I think that if I mention the name Murdoch, what I meant will become clearer to you :-D (I could also mention our little Silvietto, to be honest...) and anyway I wouldn’t underestimate the habituation from DeBaser that dear Kosmogabri (hello!) references ;-) I hope I’ve explained myself better.

I like this one more and (for me) it has themes that go beyond simple entertainment (like "Around the World," for example). Then of course, it's a matter of taste. Anyway, the issue of star ratings is quite controversial: 2 things can very well be (and I'm speaking from personal parameters) deserving of top marks even if one of them clearly seems (it's on that "seems" part that you can play) better than the other, and this happens for various reasons. The first one that comes to mind is the difference in genre, but there are others too. On the other hand, ever since Cantor proved that there are larger (and even smaller) infinities than other infinities, the discussion of objective evaluations has gone to hell ;-)

A thank you to everyone for visiting this little page. @SUPERVAI1986: she flatters me ;-)

@PEDRAELIGHE: I love Nada too but that doesn't create a conflict of interest with Polly ;-) @KOSMOGABRI: Is Leuenberger still president of the Confederation?

@UHUHPANICOUHUH: ah, here it is! @ KOSMOGABRI: check your debaser mail ;-)

@UHUHPANICOUHUH: here where? :-D @O__O: thanks to you. Ps: don't stone anyone ;-) maybe the user Giustiziere (thanks anyway for stopping by) really doesn't know who he is...

@Thirdeye: It’s not boring at all, maybe long but I shouldn’t be talking ;-) Your observations are correct and indeed the issue is more about "asking questions" rather than "finding answers": but even here, of course, we can never have a definitive view. Thank you for the appreciation, and thanks again to everyone else who passed by here.

Thank you so much to everyone for the wonderful comments. There are two topics raised that interest me greatly: A) "The Artificiality" of this video (a point raised by colleague Hetzer): I agree it is definitely very "thought out" and therefore deliberately dichotomous, as I mentioned in the review, between sweet and unsettling aspects, and in this characteristic, it can easily be said that the desire to be "catchy" is overly blatant. But there is a "but": I remember that the primary objective of a music video is not artistic level but commercial aspect (a video is a maxi-advertisement for the single and/or the album in question), and so broadly speaking, all videos "suffer" from this aspect. Within this chaos, some thrive solely on the commercial aspect, while others go beyond and create "works" that, even artistically, have a lot to say: that one, in my view, belongs to the second category. The reason? The emotions it is able to convey: I’ve outlined mine above. B) I agree with my friend SHò: reviewing videos offers more freedom. Both because one can approach it on multiple levels: didactic or emotional (I always try to mix the two), focusing on the images or solely on the intrinsic meaning of the song (which often diverge, although not in the cases I’ve chosen: by the way, you are right that I chose videos that are very similar in this regard, and the reason is that I love capturing the common points between song and images :-D), and because, as mentioned above, the video is a universe of its own: it relates and does not relate to the music at the same time, it can be merely commercial or even surpass the piece rendered in images as artistic value. All these factors allow for a truly wide and interesting variety of approaches to choose from. Thanks again to everyone (in particular I promise Cappio_al_Pollo that in the future I will pay more attention to punctuation and I send a big hug to SUPERVAI1986 for the candidacy proposal, which I won't take up ;-) since my goal is to encourage other users to review videos!)