puntiniCAZpuntini

DeRank : 14,44 • DeAge™ : 8163 days

  • Contact
  • Here since 21 october 2003
Voto:
Thinking about Rage as riffs from Morello seems hilarious to me. Drums in 4/4, bass on loop, scratches on the guitar, and the best rapper in history at the microphone. Riffs? Excuse me, but who cares? If you want riffs, go listen to Down, not RATM. If you want the best rapper in this world accompanied by instruments, you listen to RATM. These criticisms sound like the metalhead who says, "what a drag, jazz doesn’t make me headbang." Anyway, Morello copied 2 riffs, 2 out of 30; saying "any riff from Morello is a copy of Page" is a galactic exaggeration. Where is Snake Charmer copied from? And Roll Right? And where is Vietnow copied from? And Voice Of The Voiceless? Sure, Morello, in terms of riffs, seems like a fool like many others, nothing special, but I repeat, who cares about RATM's riffs? Listen to the scratches and the rap, because they are the best in the history of music. Or find me a better guitar scratcher than Morello, and a better rapper than Zack. Spoiler: there isn't one.
Voto:
Unconscious evaluation matrix: Mine is snobbish (yours seems more "real" to me off the bat), meaning: You make me feel a certain way by telling me it’s from 2005, and let’s say I say "crap." Then you go "ha ha ha I tricked you, it’s from 1947"... I automatically think, oh damn, that’s fabulous, way ahead of its time. I can’t strip a listening experience from its release date; it’s certainly a "snobbish" attitude, but it comes naturally to me. Fortunately: "the world is beautiful because it is varied," or even "hooray for diversity of thought," or "if we all thought the same way, what a bore"... choose a wise proverb of your choice, it’s a gift with this week’s "Chi Caz," approved by Giacobini.
Voto:
Oh my god...
Voto:
Yes, I understood that you didn't mean to say that historical importance is useless. It's just that this discussion has reached such an extreme philosophical level that we need to explain every word :D. I got your point, and I repeat, it flows like a train; I have a different subconscious evaluation meter than yours (different, not better or worse, let's keep it subjective) but I would add a "thankfully" :D.
Voto:
Emanuele, I am not trying to "judge" a genre based on an objective evaluation. My argument was entirely focused on your statement "music is not subjective," which I do not agree with, while I do support an "attempt at objective evaluation according to preset criteria." Whether I am confusing things (maybe I am, huh) cannot be understood from what I wrote, as I didn't even address the argument but only provided examples. I don't even care to engage with the argument. The "clash" that occurred on this page has happened and will always happen because you are in a site that, by its nature, tends to undermine objectivity to promote subjective evaluation: reviews written by anyone, not necessarily by experts. It is logical that, being a teacher and a professional in the field, you try to pursue discussions that, although legitimate, honestly do not interest me/us and find a barren ground. I repeat, once you clarified to me that, according to you as well, "musical taste cannot be objective," I am fine with everything; that was just where I wanted to get. And this doesn't mean that you are saying nonsense; "musicology" is surely a very interesting topic, but not for me. Ajeje, your argument flows well, but I can't strip a listening from its release date; otherwise, I would have to say that Simon Price from The Heads is a thousand times better than Hendrix :D
Voto:
... I can't escape the rant... Ajeje, it never happens to me EITHER, only with the classics from the 1800s downwards. Let’s be clear, the classical compositions made TODAY, I say "it might be genius maybe, but I don't like it." because those of today have the opportunity to explore, and if they don’t, then that's their loss, but it doesn’t seem like genius behavior to me. But when we talk about the great classics, they can't be blamed for the fact that synths and electricity didn't exist, so for their time, their work was nothing short of genius. Listening to them at first impact triggers an automatic response that makes me appreciate them solely as notes and I say WOW WHAT A GENIUS, then after a while of listening, my ear finds no substance to sustain it and tells me WOW WHAT A DRAG. But I repeat, regarding modern music, it never happens to me. Here we are on the verge of an immense rant, let’s try to stay on the edges without falling into the 800 post abysses :D
Voto:
Here we are getting stuck badly in an old-fashioned rant. I'm abandoning ship, also because then Flavio changes his mind and won't let me go out with Naomi anymore; I have to seize the opportunity on the fly.
Voto:
However, you are a scoundrel, you throw the girls into the conversation to confuse me. It's not fair.
Voto:
Ajeje... yes and no :D : "Beautiful Naomi Campbell" and Flavio: "Do you want her?" and I said "not a chance!". Flavio asked "why?". "Because I don’t like her and we don’t get along." The dislike for the sound or timbre of an otherwise brilliant/beautiful composition can be compared to the dislike for the character of an otherwise beautiful woman, aka a brilliant product of nature. I'm not saying that the classic "it might be brilliant but I don’t like it," for me it’s truly brilliant, but I just don’t like it; it’s simply grating to my ear. It’s something I can’t explain because it stems solely from taste; it's not an objective flaw, just a personal aversion.
Voto:
Ah, just perfect.