Eneathedevil

Opinions, of course; I remain of the opinion that this work is minimalistic, simply because it belongs to that movement. Then if you talk to me, and it’s obvious you are far more knowledgeable than I am in the field, about a whole series of works that you consider minimalistic outright, it's clear that the grass is always greener on the other side. What I didn't like about your intervention is, besides the lack of colloquialism in your judgment, the fact that you attributed to me (ahem, figuratively speaking) opinions I've never expressed (e.g. “Nyman is just a minimalist”), especially since, for goodness' sake, you persist in the habit of saying that the “review is misleading” because it would imply that “minimalism is repetition”... but who has ever said such a thing? And above all, who has ever used the word "repetition"? In fact, in the posts, I even clarified that with certain Italian musicians, minimalism risks, and I repeat, risks, becoming repetition! But what does that have to do with the review? And for heaven's sake, okay that my irony was incomprehensible and I was wrong, but now I also have to come off as someone who says that Nyman does little repetitions? Enough, in case you didn't know, I'm a sensitive young lad, if you say more mean things I'll tell mommy and she'll come after you!!!!

In my opinion, the whole problem was that you didn't interpret the irony of the first paragraph, and probably it wasn't entirely graspable, and from there everything else seemed "confused" to you. To be read as: "How beautiful classical music is, minimalism is beautiful too" [...] last paragraph: "I am addressing those who do not like minimalism because they may have listened to four Italian pianists who don't know how to do it: with Nyman you will truly hear what minimalism is, because he knows how to do it, and you will appreciate it." That's all. Then don't assume that I said Nyman only does minimalism, NEVER SAID.

Hal, I don't understand what you mean. Setting aside the fact that I was IRONIC in the first paragraph (I was putting myself in the shoes of a metalhead who says "Hey, I like Iron Maiden, Chopin sucks"), I essentially wanted to say that minimalism is a genre that, like classical music, can seem rather cloying to the ears of the masses, keeping in mind that "real" music is the cultured kind, namely the lyrical and classical from before the twentieth century, in contrast to the light music of today's times: therefore, minimalism is best interpreted by those who know how to do it well, like Nyman, not by just any Ludovico Einaudi, because it can become mere repetition of a motif ad minchiam, a bit like saying that Fontana's cuts are art just as much as Caravaggio's works (there are those who think that way). As for the claim that this work is not minimalist, I am quite surprised by such a statement: do you really think that "Here to There" is not a simple variation of "The Promise," which is also sampled in pieces like "Deep into the Forest" and others, where it chases and repeats the same theme WITHIN IT? I don’t know... I really don’t get it.

Hehe, I was just kidding

Whatever falls into the toilet becomes shit the moment you decide to flush. Well, your reasoning doesn’t hold up, because you surely wouldn’t say that if, for example, a gold bracelet fell, you would decide it’s shit and flush it away! Better to give it a clean... as you can see, in the end, it's all just a matter of flushing.

Valerio, your curiosities are becoming morbid. I am 21 years old and I've had very intense experiences, I like different music genres but I’m not one of those types who say "I like all music," because, for example, I don't like Marco Masini.

You are verbose, Guevo. Everything boils down to the difference between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition. A necessary condition for something to be shit is that it is forgettable, but this is not a sufficient condition: if something is forgettable, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s shit; or rather, something that fell into the toilet isn't necessarily shit, maybe you just dropped your watch out of forgetfulness. On the other hand, when you shit, you shit in the toilet, and it's purely out of forgetfulness. So, in essence, shit is certainly forgettable (the necessary condition applies), but something forgettable isn’t necessarily shit (the sufficient condition does not apply). Elementary.

"High Hopes" clone, better "Poles Apart"; not that bad the instrumentals "Marooned" and "Cluster One".

Prophilax heavy... bleah, the new wave

But Guevo, you're not balanced in your judgments... if you give a 1 to a "forgettable" album, what do you give to the "merde" (bad stuff, "The Division Bell" isn’t that bad) -2 with ice crystals? Valerio, take it back, "Ummagumma" is good.