antoniodeste

Diplomatically, you don't go too far out on a limb, and I would say I agree. Anyway, let's stick to the beaten path, okay? Bye.

@Hal: do you find "Er" a step ahead compared to other Molvaerian things?

@Nick 81: ah... what painful notes to have to talk again about how it could have been and wasn't... Record labels, however, have in their DNA the tendency to "vampirize" certain artists, or at least those who smell of money, and not to see there, where there is art, how to derive instead a calm and honest profit... I must confess that I haven’t listened to "Dracula" (speaking of vampires...) after the latest, in my opinion, lackluster performances by Mussida and company. However, a review from you would be a must at this point, don't you think?

"Despite the unfortunate first name, Palle proves to be anything but monotonous": I won't hide the fact that, although my friends and I have often made subtle jokes about the origins of this bassist, this setup in this way, I believe, beats them all! Anyway, well done Grasshopper; you have elegantly and appropriately brought some light back to this beautiful work which, personally, accompanied my first steps in listening to the gems of this label. You've dusted it off a bit, and every now and then it's necessary to do so to avoid some beautiful works, which might not seem "historical" or "essential," falling into oblivion. However, the description is refined and the arguments are satisfying. Almost, given the contemporaneity, or nearly, I'm considering writing something about "Solstice" by Towner. As for Jarrett, I'm too ignorant and I'll let others, perhaps as skilled as you, write about it. Siiiuleita. :D

@Zarathustra: I share the sentiment of what you express and I respect it (how could it be otherwise?!). Once again, the subjectivity of interpretation or, more simply, of taste comes into play. Even as a layperson (if I were one), I believe that at the very least, a review like this would pique my curiosity. But you might still say to me: "Of course, because you are a curious person!" And what then? I still couldn't dispute that. These are somewhat delicate situations; unless the reviewer possesses the (rare) gift of a dialectical excellence of style, poetry, and lyricism in a concise content. But I don't think one can expect that from anyone. And then there's always the need to remember, as a "parameter," what WE expect from a review, especially when we know the subject. Tell me, Zarathustra, does that make sense?

A bit of flexibility, for heaven's sake, Zarathustra! Forty, evidently, is a number "x" intended to represent something "long"! Besides, I've often read short, intense, and persuasive reviews, and on the other hand, longer reviews that were neither satisfying nor illustratively convincing. Has that ever happened to you?

great album!

Sure, please also send me some of your writings because crying sometimes feels so good... in exchange, I could give you a train pass... :D. Bye.

...And if the reviewer were a person of few words, would it perhaps be fair to hold that against them? Especially in light of the purpose of a review? Is it really mandatory or necessary to elaborate for more than forty lines to explain the qualities of a work? Well...

Here’s an example of how, in a concise, straightforward manner and without unnecessary "lofty flights of fancy," one can describe and communicate the essentials of a work like this. There is a confident, calm judgment, free from needless exaltation. Good performance, beautiful review, unforgettable album.