antoniodeste

I can understand strongly discordant opinions due to deeply different and/or antithetical cultural, social, and artistic backgrounds, but is vulgarity, offensiveness, and foul language really necessary? I mean: does what I dislike or the person listening to something I don't like need to be treated like garbage? What kind of attitude is this? What deep misery does it hide? What is supposed to be built or destroyed in this way? And, above all: does it become "cultural" heritage for someone when elaborated in this manner? I don't intend to preach or engage in hypocritical moralism, but I'm seriously starting to get annoyed by the often frequent use of unnecessary swearing or completely gratuitous, if not downright stupid, forms of offense. Is it possible to engage in a calm discussion on topics dear to us, or must it end up like in the stadiums?

The wise man says: if there's so much itching, it's best to scratch.....(from an ancient Fu-Manchu text). Enjoy VDGG! Better late than never.

Beautiful confession of love for Sylvian, Ant, I really enjoyed this frank and enthusiastic spontaneity. But aside from the brain, doesn’t this album take your heart far as well?
In any case, your review is great too; it seems to me that this is more than just a simple comment, right? I completely agree with your views on "Blemish" and its related remixes. Any thoughts on that kind of strange anthology titled "Camphor"? Hasta Luego :)

Brass section, vibraphone, choirs, and minimalist yet discreet electronics. These are the first things that stood out to me in this album that I have finally managed to listen to. Someone among my friends even said it's the best (in a pop direction) that Sylvian has done since "Secrets Of The Beehive" (1987), and I can't completely disagree. Both "Dead Bees on A Cake" and "Blemish," to name a couple, had wide mood swings and uncertain experimental directions. Within the "song form" elevated by a fresh, elegant, and original use of arrangements and electronic programming, I find this to be undoubtedly a great work. Stable, convincing, and captivating. After repeated listens, (as noted by Aenima), it reveals new emotional layers. The presumed coldness, for the writer, is practically nonexistent, and the result is quite promising for an artist who, in the bleak and barren 80s, gifted us with "shamanic" dreams for the times to come.

But weren't the lexical "pumps" gone in the last century? And then, is the use of the subjunctive a subjective matter? And where is the "substance" of the commentary on the work, excluding a couple of adjectives? The poetic or lexical "licenses" are granted, traditionally, for merits that I do not seem to discern in the obviousness of the "commentary"; Or are we perhaps facing a new D'Annunzio who "deigns" to "confound" himself with the miserable Debaserian mortals to illuminate them with such abundant wisdom? Smash us again SC! and maybe review "Waiting for Godot."

Indeed, Sylvian1982, I was initially a bit perplexed as well, but... but... I listened to NY "Prairie Wind," and while it probably doesn't deserve the title of "album of the month," it's a truly honorable work for a sixty-year-old who has seen it all... As for Jackson Browne's project, I won't comment except to express my delight that this great troubadour is attempting to reinterpret pieces that, looking at the lineup, are part of American music history. It's not a mystery that Jam is a magazine slightly biased towards the American side. In conclusion, I would say that the scene isn't as depressing for them as it is for us. Most likely, in that particular issue (and therefore for the month in question), the "exciting" releases for them were not that abundant. To speak of an "extremely reduced view of reality" seems frankly "unkind" to the magazine, even though there is undoubtedly, or rather surely, something better than NY and JB. (And I would like to see that...)

For Luca: by the way, Ayers has as much to do with the Oldfieldian world as cabbage does with dessert, let's be clear. Belonging to the so-called area of Canterbury artists, his discourse is a "little" peculiar, and Ayers is indeed a unique artist. Try it to believe it: "shooting at the Moon," "Bananamour," "Whatevershebringswesing." But I repeat, Oldfield was only the "temporary performer" at the beginning. A part that was later highlighted by the great Ollie Halsall (Patto, Boxer, etc.) :)

Dear Caz, I suspected you were a worldly man, and your extraordinary counterproposal confirms it. There are some non-secondary aspects to define, like the fee for the models and our percentage. And the media marketing, how do you think to structure it? Anyway, yes, definitely a great idea, nothing like Herbie Hancock, with all due respect, right? Hasta Luego

I apologize for the "typo" regarding the original group of Oldfield. The correct name of Kevin Ayers' band, mentioned as "Third World," should instead be read as "Whole World." Assuming that the matters of this group are of interest or still available.....
Saludos! :)

I really enjoyed this review. Well-written, well-documented by someone who loves "il Santone" very much. A fanciful style, especially in the first part, with a minimal description of the "actions" of Mr. "x"'s life. I haven't yet had the pleasure of riding the nine horses, but other friends are already calling me to say nice things like Axl, and there must be a reason for that, I suppose. I should inform you that there is a VERY puzzled review in the October issue of the magazine JAM - viaggio dentro la musica, where the reviewer complains about a certain coldness and/or detachment of the author regarding this work. I promise to get the work as soon as possible (also thanks to Axl's inviting review) and to come back, perhaps on the subject, as soon as I can.