"I considered it appropriate to evaluate its uselessness" means that if I think an artist followed by millions of kids all over Italy is useless, using Debaser, I wanted to express my opinion... I know there are people who would give a 1 to Mozart and a 10 to the Finley, and this is one of the reasons why reviews like this sometimes arise... a kind of desperate cry from those who listen to serious music saying "guys wake up, look, this is crap!" and, indeed, trying to be objective, I said "it's useless," in the sense that "you can listen to it" if you like this type of pop, okay, no problem, but know that it is useless. Because I deemed it appropriate to evaluate its "uselessness." It's simple, Avril Lavigne is considered "an icon" by thousands of young girls... Now, regardless of whether the music is good or bad, if it is a record, it is useless (in the sense that this same type of music is played identically with the same characteristics by many other artists who play it better) then the artist who interpreted it CANNOT be considered a "legend." I'll give another banal example to clarify my point, changing the subject. I quite like death metal, now a band like Obituary I could consider "an icon" because they invented a genre, a certain way of understanding death metal with particular groove inserts and specific riffing, in three words: they paved the way. Now I can mention any band, like Torture Killer for example: I like them a lot due to their particularly rhythmic riffing and melodic taste in a death context, but that type of riffing has nevertheless been shamelessly copied from Obituary and Six Feet Under. So I can listen to them because I like them, but I will never ever consider them "an icon." Okay, maybe their album isn't useless because it is good and well-played, but think of how many myriad of "useless" death metal albums come out nowadays... avalanches! Maybe nice, but just clones of clones... The same thing happened with Lavigne, who didn't invent anything, claims to be punk but plays a cheap pop that is played better by many of her peers. Now, wouldn't it be the case to write a review on a site like Debaser to make it clear? (I'm referring to users who read from outside, not to Debaserians)
Let's move on to another point: rightly, you say that Lavigne is Debaser's Red Cross on which to shoot zero, and you don't understand how I could write this review "knowing Deb." Well, the explanation is very simple: we are talking about as much as 3 years ago, and this was one of my very first reviews!!! I still didn't know Debaser!!! That's why I said that NOW, IN RETROSPECT, I WOULDN'T REWRITE IT. Because now I know Debaser well and understand how useless a review like this is here (even though it was written for those coming from outside anyway...)
Here is the obscure dilemma clarified! I recommend you read my more heartfelt reviews, those on Isis, Heaven Shall Burn, Piano Magic, Koma, Elend, Morning Beloveth, Agalloch, Minsk... Certainly not this one, which I now consider one of my "beginner mistakes" (just like my reviews of Aborted and Ill Nino, I also find those quite useless now...)
