puntiniCAZpuntini

DeRank : 14,42 • DeAge™ : 7915 days

  • Contact
  • Here since 21 october 2003
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.
Voto:
Look, I really like the album too; I've voted for it positively several times. That doesn’t change the fact that this review is full of nonsense like "Cornerstone of heavy metal," and in the comments, you find gems like "Queen iconographically more famous than the Beatles." Also, excuse me for a second, but you’ve probably read 10 reviews out of 6000; can you explain where you get your so-called "unfounded" from? Read the entire site, all of Francis’s contributions, and then you can talk.
Voto:
<<< the "brilliant but I don't like it" is one of the saddest concepts that exist. >>> But no, come on ajeje, one can perceive brilliance but not appreciate the final result. I find much classical stuff brilliant, like the example of Mozart, but since I don't like the sound produced by classical instruments, I don't like the final result. Obviously, when I happen to hear classical pieces reworked with modern sounds, I get really excited. But the fact remains that I don't like the original.
Voto:
I just saw the private messages. I have a 56k connection and can’t open multiple pages at the same time; this one has so many posts that it takes up all the bandwidth. But we can still understand each other, it just takes clear explanations and putting things into perspective. If you shoot out blunt and sharp phrases, it’s hard not to contradict yourself. I, for example, have very strong opinions about cinema, but at the same time, I obviously admit that I don’t understand the artistic sense of it, or to put it plainly: I don’t understand a thing, as I am stuck in two rigid opinions and the rest seems pointless to me.
Voto:
<<< it is obvious that musical taste cannot be objectified... >>> Ok, perfect, now you can say whatever you want. <<< but I can prove that Parker is musically superior to Eminem. >>> Well, obviously, if we are talking about MUSICAL SUPERIORITY, you are completely right. Since music is also a discipline, some points can obviously be objectified. You just have to """"be careful"""" about how you use the words subjective/objective; that's where misunderstandings arise. Everything else are just respectable opinions.
Voto:
Even so, you wrote earlier that if I had called you, you would have explained how one can judge a piano A to be better than a guitar A... but I like to think you were just playing along. Come on, we forgive you.
Voto:
Ah ok, you expressed yourself poorly. Now that you say <<< the historical and musicological judgment that tends to objectivize >>> I'm totally fine with that. But trust me, in Italian it sounds completely different from <<< music is not subjective >>> Now I can go home calmly.
Voto:
Basentini, okay on the English thing, but I also need to disconnect from the office, it’s a bit past ten. Let’s get to the point: ARE YOU REALLY CONVINCED THAT MUSICAL TASTE (not just ja, ALL MUSIC) CAN BE OBJECTIFIED? The rest of your arguments are completely shareable, and I agree with them. What matters to me is just that question in uppercase, nothing more. Please answer with a yes or no, because I can't conceive how a respected teacher like you could think such a thing. I hope I’ve misunderstood.