ajejebrazorf

The verse quoted by Alessio is beautiful, but in "you know what a fortune it is to be free, beings liable to freedom that seem infinite..." I see the very origins of the current Ferretti. The former atheist (at least that's what it seemed) got rid of some freedoms that were troubling him. After all, I musically like him much less today than in the glorious days of the CCCP, but humanly, whether I agree with him or not, he certainly doesn't "disappoint" me on a human level. I've never seen Ferretti as a messiah bearing truths that someone wanted to read into his deliberately paradoxical slogans; he made great music, and that's enough for me.

If you're interested, I have some perplexity about the (or the?) barycenter. If you want, I can upload it somewhere for you.

you know how it is, I don't consult the encyclopedia before leaving a comment, I don't remember a lot of things. But if you prefer, I can take on the authoritative tone of someone who knows it all even when they don't. And by the way, the first Italian horror should be about Frankenstein and not the vampire, I remembered it wrong.

It seems that the most "mythical" one is a 1927 film by Tod Browning, "London after midnight." "Mythical" because it hasn't survived to this day. Well, if that's the case, the very first Italian horror hasn't survived to this day either, which I believe (unless I'm going crazy) was called "il vampiro." No, I'm not confusing it with "i vampiri" by Freda; I'm talking about a film that, if I'm not mistaken, should also be from the 1920s. Oh, by the way, I can't remember if I thanked you, but thanks for the Buckley video—it’s awesome.

Well, beautiful, seen an infinity of times. Of course, seeing it today for the first time can't have the same impact as it did back then, even though the scene where Nosferatu takes action for the first time is still impressive. However, even though the importance of the film is indisputable, I prefer Herzog's version with a colossal Kinski. A curiosity, does anyone remember whose classical soundtrack is played in the Italian version?

Damn, I open Debaser and I get quoted for a comment from ages ago: anyway, that song is of a truly unquantifiable trash.

great western, and very likely Eastwood's best film (I'm missing a few, but I believe I've seen all the big ones)

Look, regarding the examples you made, especially about Coleman, I can only agree: I infinitely prefer The Shape Of Jazz To Come to free jazz, which has always seemed to me (of course, I might be wrong) like a cold demonstration of a theory rather than true music-making. Paradoxically, it's an album that aims to abandon the rules and, perhaps due to a certain "inexperience" (after all, even if there were precedents, it's the first album where the concept of free is approached in a systematic and radical way), ends up doing the exact opposite. It seems to me that being "free" counts more than making music in that record. However, for example, just to be boring and use the usual examples, I find Witches and Devils by Ayler, which is completely free (even if less extreme than other things I hear around), absolutely communicative. In short, it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to draw clear boundaries on the subject. I believe that Polillo's analysis (music = succession of events, and that's it) does not exhaust the discussion: I remind you that Polillo considered Bitches Brew as a curious experiment, interesting yes, but expressed with a tone of "good job but enough": but beyond that album, Polillo missed certain aspects of the issue in certain music, especially in free, probably due to his background, such as the taste of sound, which becomes central in free music like never before. As was the case in the avant-gardes, both in classical musical avant-garde and in painting, for example: in music, the sound; in painting, the color and the way of applying it (now I’m reminded of Rothko, for example).

>>>on Bitches Brew (which is not free jazz)<<< I wouldn't be so categorical here; in Bitches there’s a lot of free stuff, there’s free, there’s funk, there’s rock. There’s plenty of material, schematic definitions often really don’t do it justice.

Okay, the grading table is very clear, you explained yourself very well, I had misinterpreted. As for the free aspect, I agree quite a bit; I also don't like sterile exercises where there's a lot of noise just because it's artistic, and I think there's a lot of stuff like that. It's just that the boundaries of what is cacophonic and what is not change from person to person and even over time, so it's not always easy to distinguish and understand with just a few listens: for example, for a long time, certain things by Cecil Taylor seemed pure chaos to me and I didn't like them at all, no matter how much I tried, nothing. Why the masochism? Well, everyone sings its praises, the doubt was that I simply didn’t get it. Then recently, I put them on, really with eagerness... and everything made sense, so much so that I was amazed at how something that seemed to me like a kind of gratuitous musical scribble now seemed perfectly logical and even constructed and structured. Go figure...