Eneathedevil

Let's get specific: first of all, it's only fair that I address my friend Vinsex, philosopher by passion: any evaluation you have about the form is perfectly fine with me; I argue that this review may indeed not be to your liking because of its tone. But your criticisms make sense, precisely, if you are addressing formal issues, not matters concerning the content of the review. From this latter perspective, perhaps you mistakenly believed you were dealing with someone who writes a bunch of random nonsense taken from a quick reference guide: if that’s the case, you’re wrong. Regarding this, putting aside your absolutely partial and reductive evaluation of Nietzsche, I cannot understand why you felt the need to relate Hobbes and Friedrich at all costs, given that I never said this in my review. We were discussing that excerpt from Frank Herbert, just as in the other parts we symmetrically talk about Von Kleist, Ludwig and company: in Herbert's "Dune" saga, the struggle for the evolution of the species is analyzed through the clash between the Atreides and Harkonnen houses on the inhospitable planet Arrakis: a bloody struggle that ultimately sees only one survivor who receives extraordinary powers that will allow him to dominate Arrakis. Thus, through a relentless struggle where man must overpower his fellow beings (homo homini lupus), he manages, receiving extraordinary powers (the overman that indeed recalls Nietzsche's ubermensch), to dominate the hostile nature of Arrakis. However, having sacrificed many victims to dominate nature, man becomes a scapegoat (farmakòs) for it. Oh dear, I know, it wasn't easy. But you could have sensed it, you know. You're a reckless man.

Regarding the seimpols (to be listened to unconditionally!): 1. the first impetuous piece by Friedrich Nietzsche, 2. the intimate lounge of Georg Trakl, 3. the ancestral incipit of Frank Herbert, 4 and 5. two pieces of a neurotic Friedemann Bach, 6. Tumultuous pastiche of strings by Ludwig II Von Bayern, 7. Second piece by Friedrich Nietzsche, 8. Second excerpt from Ludwig II Von Bayern, 9 and 10. The exhalations of Heinrich Von Kleist; I reserve the right to respond later to the individual concerns raised.

(...) In this case, after all, I did nothing but interpret the titles of the 6 pieces in total, trying to make my own the Schulzian "visions" on the 6 respective characters to whom the German dedicates his work: I don’t believe there is any particular distortion in this; for example, I think that in the storm of strings in Ludwig II von Bayern, Schulze wanted to give voice to the painful contrast between the morality and life of the German monarch, in Friedrich Nietzsche he intended to represent the frustration of a man who had to fight against an existence that denied his philosophical principles, in Heinrich Von Kleist the unrequited love for nature, and so on. All of this supports the notion that there is indeed a substance to what I have written, and above all a substance that is 100% justified by the listening experience and not placed there just to garner applause. From a musical standpoint, as I repeat, I refer to the ineffability of the matter, and from this perspective, I direct you to listen to the samples, which I apologize for not having prepared right away (ah-ehm, the usual problems with frozen computers): I hope they will sufficiently compensate for a description of instrumentation, rhythm, and structure that is absent. And with this, I hope I have somewhat addressed all the observations.

Uh, how many comments. Let’s first set aside all the considerations regarding whether I am full of myself, an onanist of the verb, a narcissist, an egotist, and so on: it’s all true, so the discussion is no longer relevant! Nevertheless, I affirm at the same time that it is always my intention to write reviews behind a well-defined project, thus it goes without saying that here there is not just a mere display of cultural skills. The choice of such an approach stems from the fact that, as I clearly wrote in the comments of the review of Fantoni (who also commented here and whom I thank) on Schulze, I believe it is difficult to fully talk about works that lend themselves so little to musical considerations: in my opinion, when approaching Schulze, to be able to speak about his "pieces," one must proceed through "images," describing the sensations and figures evoked by listening, as the reviewer of Cyborg did in his time. (...)

...but how is the comment above read? From right to left? From bottom to top at a three-quarter angle?

Have you heard Josie? "Then you, Jos, or Caz always arrive on time and everything de-generates!" I feel offended. Let's go and leave him in his filthy seriousness. And next time, stop degenerating everything with your nonsense. Oh.

Well, no, maybe you don't feel ready. And it's fair enough, let's give time some time. We can talk about it another day, if anything. A kiss.

"that you were"... today all the subjunctives are running away! Sorry, but the news shocked me! Jimy, do you feel up to it?

Matuppensa... and I thought you came here just to be the naive stand-in for cazzy, but just think!!!

But just think, Jim discussing music...! After this, I'm ready for anything.