antoniodeste

Note for Debaser users interested: This person, from the lofty pulpit with over 240 comments to date, has not had the kindness to let us know if there is any stance or critique of a purely musical nature since this is mainly what the site deals with. Instead, he has showered dozens of people with insults and mockery using decidedly unpleasant and sometimes vulgar terminology. Furthermore, there is not a single review from him to date. One does not understand what he is doing here if not to provoke for the sake of it and to update us on his psychological frustrations. I invite those interested to take a moment to look at the nature and quality of his "interventions."

Instead of breaking our balls with your pathetic bullshit that doesn't make anyone laugh, why not talk about music, maybe? That's what the site is about, you ignorant. Can you at least do that? Or are you only "good" at saying nonsense behind the scenes?

You’re right, poor fool. Just nobody except me who enjoys telling you what you deserve. Go annoy someone else. You’ve annoyed everyone here. Haven't you figured it out yet, booger ball?

Ahahah. How charming you are! But what do you think I should follow, silly? No spirit and no tragedy. However, if you go to tell your silly jokes in some tavern, maybe someone will listen to you there, and it will be easier for you to believe you're funny. It's more likely that it will end in a chorus of raspberries. Be a good boy now! Go on, dear, go; Moreover, it really seems that here no one pays you any attention whatsoever, (and I think that's for the best...).

Unfortunately, I notice that (despite the denial) there is a desire to continue to deny or belittle the existence of superior forms based on pretentious character traits. These, I repeat, have nothing to do with or absolutely demonstrate anything, and for artistic purposes, I reiterate this, they are (and must be considered) completely irrelevant and a separate matter from art. Moreover, I have never been interested in comparing one genius to another, which I find ridiculous and pointless. What I consider important is to recognize, in this case—and I am referring to the period when one of the greatest and most revolutionary bassists in the world lived—a significant concept. I reiterate that this opinion/belief was and still is exponentially supported by a myriad of musicians primarily, but also by thousands of simple music lovers who understood well (and are still aware) what the magnitude of the figure was. If you want to bring up that he had this or that flaw, this obsession, and that fixation, you can certainly do so. However, that does not change in the slightest the facts and the substance of the matter, nor does it certainly alter the position in the history of jazz that Pastorius rightfully occupies. I don't know to what extent the "lack of humility" (Jaco was well aware of who the "best bassists in the world" were, and his "braggart" attitudes were usually viewed with good-natured amusement by friends and musicians) can or should have a say in establishing whether Pastorius is a genius or not. To me, as a pretext, it frankly seems utterly unjustifiable. After all, it was just his way of being, and it doesn't seem to have bothered anyone that much; perhaps maybe you. P.S.: Besides, I also recall that for years Monk was underrated and snubbed not only for his "oblique" art but also for his unorthodox attitudes, or, to be blunt, quirky. Or for his more or less cryptic or provocative statements. This, in light of the greatness of his work, has fortunately been placed "in the background" in the overall reevaluation of his work that has occurred over time. And it is indeed right that it should be so. Art is something that lives a life of its own and is fortunately far away from the more or less considerable human miseries. Or from the nonsense that we write...

I believe it’s quite pointless, at this point, to insist on proving supposed "superiority" between the two bands. Moreover, I think it serves no one. Wouldn't it be fairer and more just to consider JA and Grateful simply as bands of equal historical importance with variably measurable value (as it actually is), thus doing no one a disservice? :)

Perhaps someone hasn't fully understood to whom the term "zavorra" refers, but when someone is a "gnocco" and has only their ears hard instead of anything else...

At first glance, I got a bit lost in the first paragraph, trying to connect the characters related to the Byrds-Hillman-Stills projects, but understanding how much you are tied to this scene, I get it and I’ll just say a couple of things. The first is that I don't know this album; but also that what I've read about it has never been characterized by a broad optimism or particular favor, although that may not mean much (and according to your opinion, it seems to be the opposite); the second is that being an old fan of the West Coast scene, I have always had a soft spot for the old Stills (and his various projects) for his genuine and instinctive guitar playing. The third is that I adore the first double Manassas for its styles, freshness, and variety of elements contained in it. I find that even after more than three decades, this work still sounds clear and compelling. Last, but not least, the review is well written and therefore......

I know Donjunio. And at reference post no. 8.

@Alfredo: He is right, the ear of someone who can distinguish Jaco's style from Johnson's. Not to mention the fact that in any case, whether on 8:30 or in the hundreds of live shows of the WR from the '80s until Victor Bailey's entry, it has always been Pastorius who played that piece (which seems to want to prove who knows what). As for the "astonishment," it's better to gloss over the subject. As far as I know, no one ever asked Coltrane, nor did Pastorius ever openly suggest that what came out as his way of playing could or should be interpreted in this unpleasantly biased and reductive manner. Those who think this way, and almost always it's non-musicians, can only arrogate a mere malicious assumption, moreover entirely to be demonstrated and, given the enormous musical value of the bassist, at this point also irrelevant. One way or another, geniuses are geniuses; it's pointless to beat around the bush or try to downplay their gift. The rest is just chatter, especially if it's made to discredit them. In short, I would like to understand: are we or are we not capable of recognizing when we are confronted with phenomena that are exceptional and giving them the place they deserve, even in history, or are we just going to blablabla for hours about trivial matters that concern more about rankings, gossip, emptiness, and the vomit-inducing and pathetic attitudes of mediocre people who can't even read a score and whose only concern might be to have an abnormally large media exposure to promote nothing? And finally, excuse me: have you ever had the pleasure of seeing and listening to Jaco Pastorius live?