Socrates

In truth, in my heart I hope that Charles and Giuseppe are right. As soon as I’ve listened to it, I’ll let you know. The last works, a bit less the latest one, are actually quite heterogeneous, to put it mildly: some tracks are spot on, few, much craftsmanship, and frequent drops in tone. However, they are from "Definitely Maybe," and they should always be taken seriously.

And I want to thank you first and foremost, Hal, and everyone who has the patience to read and comment on these my "pieces" written in my spare time, which, with a certain boldness, we call reviews. ;-)

G_à, it wasn't my intention to discredit alchemy, but to refer to those numerous improvisers, somewhat charlatans, who have contributed to the negative prejudice surrounding this protoscience. In today's world music, similarly, many make a mess of things.
Zion, give it a chance. Bye!

One of the best pop albums of the '90s.

Too kind. I'm really glad that Rouse is to your liking, even though, knowing your tastes by now, I'm not surprised.

I’ve been an early admirer of the Go-Betweens, but I still have to listen to this album. Well done, El!

Aeneas, I would recommend rereading what you’ve written because it seems rather unclear to me. Quoting me doesn’t allow you to make me say what I didn't say, namely that only what I think about an album is "sincere" and "objective." I stated, and I’ll repeat this one last time, that in judging a review, let's set aside objectivity and sincerity; for me, the listening of the album is fundamental. That’s all there is to it. What Gabri says above seems to align with this direction. It’s not a far-fetched opinion. In the absence of listening, the data, which is indeed objective, the judgment on the review, whether positive or negative, will necessarily be tied to the quality of the writing; it would be like giving a grade to an Italian essay. It can certainly be done, but I don’t find it appropriate. It has happened, on some rare occasions, that I’ve given a grade to a review without having listened to the album in question, for Ben Folds by Pacino, for example; but I did it because I was well acquainted with the artist's other works and especially because I agreed with every line of my friend’s analysis. That doesn’t change the fact that even in that case it felt like a small stretch for me. The reference to the hermeneutics was meant ironically, but evidently it will be best to avoid it next time. ;-)

Aeneas, if you could point out where I claimed what you fancifully assert, I would be grateful. If you limited yourself to what was said and not to your own interpretation, you would realize that I supported, in other terms, what you mention to Hal, namely that to verify the sincerity and accuracy of a review, an objective piece of evidence is needed. "Sincerity" is in quotation marks because it is a term that Hal had used previously. If you want to be an interpreter, then read all the comments.

I share the idea that it’s possible to like a review without the critical judgment contained in it coinciding with your own, although that happens to me rarely; to understand, however, whether it is "sincere" and "accurate," I need to have listened to the album, but those are probably my limitations.
Let’s put it this way: I would be tempted to give a negative rating to the review for its approach and for some somewhat superficial considerations on pop and punk, but I withhold my judgment while I wait to hear the album. If the work truly deserves a 2, I couldn’t deny at least a 3 to the review. ;-)

Humax, there's little to understand. In other words, would you give a good rating to a review that tears apart an album you like, especially when the reasons are so weak? I wouldn't, but that's simply my opinion. You, on the other hand, give a 5 to the review without having listened to the album and considering, if I understand correctly, the Coldplay positively, and that's fine with you. Two different ways of judging, that's all, nothing transcendent.