ajejebrazorf

aristarco are the best for me… I can't guarantee that for you though… :)

Giants, real giants. Damon Che on drums is titanic. In my opinion, the greatest band of the nineties. Slint, King Crimson, Albini, Blind Idiot God, Primus, a bit of everything.

I've always had a strange relationship with Gaber. An extremely intelligent and cultured person (though it should be remembered that in reality the lyrics were discussed by Gaber and Luporini and then written by Luporini, at least I believe so), far from being superficial; the right definition is “lone wolf,” as he himself used to define. No one in Italy has managed to put to music topics as subtle and complex as those he tackled, not even people like De André or Guccini. In short, tons of brains just as Grass says, often uncomfortable questions. But why music? Frankly, if one were to evaluate Gaber's records musically, they are really terrible; everything is in function of the lyrics. I often wonder if certain questions raised within the realm of the song (or "theater song," as you want to call it) are useful. It doesn't seem to me the most appropriate medium, and I can't help but notice a lot of self-satisfaction in his powerful tracks that shoot against everything and everyone, like the devastating "quando è moda è moda" and "io se fossi Dio", which, in terms of rhetorical violence, make Guccini's "l'avvelenata" look pale in comparison. In short, I agree with much of Gaber's thinking, but I find his albums to be sterile exercises in self-indulgence, very far from my conception of "art." Sterile precisely because for certain issues, it’s better (in my opinion) to put the subject of discussion on paper rather than have the subject under the spotlight receiving applause.

Wow, I'm really getting myself into trouble with these discussions. That rather daring comparison Britti-Tofani is mine, Symbad. It doesn't make much sense, I recognize, because Tofani has never overdone it with virtuosity or gratuitous things (at least with the Area, I’ve never listened to his solo discography because it impresses me to see him today after his Buddhist conversion, looking like a guru meditating in the lotus position), while Britti never misses an opportunity to showcase his technical repertoire. So it was just a comparison based on what I've seen and heard. And now I’m heading back over there because another great guitarist is going to knock me flat.

Yes, it's not an easy discussion, indeed it's been a while since we had such an engaging conversation (eeeeeh, zebedei cingolati). I hope babbANO comes to clarify things. But could you explain the unconscious evaluation measure and the "thankfully"... :D

No, I know it's not very clear, but I'm not undermining the historically significant importance. I'm saying that for you, Hendrix and his innovations are still the past, and what he did is now almost taken for granted, while perhaps the Heads (whom I don't know except for having read about them here) seem innovative to you. That's what I meant by the genius of it and the interest a person might have in listening to a musician.

I'm afraid of the superpippone too, so I'll try to be clear. I'm giving it a shot, okay?
I start here: "But when we talk about the great classics, they can't be blamed if there was no synth and electricity for which their work was nothing short of genius for their time." Sure, but indeed their work is genius compared to the music of that time. But if I evaluate today, with my ears not as a historian but as a simple enthusiast, if I compare, for example, the four-four time of classical music to the complex tempos of fusion, funk, or avant-garde, or certain minimalists, how can I define that 4/4 as genius? It isn't. Shall we talk about harmony? Until a certain period, the seventh chord wasn't used at all, let alone jazz. Far from dodecaphony or atonality. I obviously make comparisons, and having been raised among certain sounds, if I listen to the harmonic simplicity of certain classical pieces, I don't find it genius, and I can't find it genius IN COMPARISON TO WHAT I KNOW. That’s where my taste and yours come into play, damn it. In a nutshell. Clearly, music can't be reduced to its bare bones like that, obviously, but I do make certain evaluations whether I want to or not. FOR ME, compared to me living in 2006, a wheel is an acquired concept; however genius its invention was (that word is starting to slip like a bar of soap), I'm much more impressed by a robot that cleans the floor. In short, I mean the word genius relatively to the time: something genius, that is, representing a new way of seeing something or looking at it from a new perspective, is so relative to a certain period. And for sure, every time I look at the wheels of my car I don’t say, “wow, genius.”

Hello open, we'll see each other on Don CaballeroS.

"""Because I find her unpleasant and I don’t get along with her""". Well, I was already in the unlikely realm, but you’ve jumped to science fiction:)))) Damn, I remember your speech about classical music (and I even agreed with it). I don’t know, personally, it has NEVER happened to me to consider something brilliant that I didn’t like. I don’t listen to Faust every day, but it’s because I feel like something lighter, not because I don’t like them. I would never say that something I don’t like and that doesn’t resonate with my neurons is brilliant.

So for you, in my opinion, it’s not clear. That is for me the lobotomization you mention, a true conforming to a certain judgment. I’m the first to say that I don’t understand certain things, but I can’t claim to appreciate them. There are no saints: if I say something is genius, I say it because I understand it. If I don’t like it, I can’t say it’s genius. Because I probably just didn’t get it. For me, the example you make about books doesn’t hold up.