ajejebrazorf

Certo! Inviami il testo che desideri tradurre e provvederò a farlo.

Haha, the review actually captures the essence of the film! For me, it's not a blockbuster, but it's watchable. I've never seen the original, though...

Well, of what I've seen of Welles, this is the one I liked the least. Always great, but for me it's not one of the essentials. The review is not bad, but beyond the technical curiosity, I don't understand how the fact that there are 1550 shots can add value to the film, unless in a historical context, perhaps. It seems a bit like counting the notes per minute of a guitarist.

Um, Dave, I didn't mean to provoke with that last video, it was meant to lighten the mood, eh (it wasn't intentional) :)

@emofiliaco>>>>@Ajeje: it’s not politically correct, it’s about education because there are no power games at stake here, but we’re talking about personal tastes<<<< but look, I haven’t insulted anyone (yes, a vafangul to Flinstone, but the previous message seemed hateful to me), as for Fusillo, I merely critiqued what he wrote; if I tell someone "you said something stupid," I’m not calling them stupid (and it was even deliberately stated where I said “move from the specific to the general” in the discussion, since there was the equation “he wrote a load of crap, the site is completely useless”). @Fusillo: don’t worry, I don’t think you owe me an apology for anything; in the end, it seems we understand each other: you don’t need Scaruffi, a fourteen-year-old kid finds there a wealth of freely accessible information that provides a perspective. Full of crap and inaccuracies (but as far as I’m concerned, I’ve never, I say never, read a critic whose work I didn’t think contained far more than a few nonsense statements, especially on things I know very well). In the end, if someone wants to know something about the Beatles or Bowie, for heaven's sake, Scaruffi’s take is just one of many voices (I won’t go into detail, not being particularly knowledgeable). You mentioned Polillo, well: Polillo wrote what remains, even after all these years (damn, how much we need a text on modern jazz), the reference encyclopedia on jazz in Italy: but you see things like Bitches Brew treated with great nonchalance, as if it were just a little disc. But who cares, the rest of the book is full of really interesting things. That was kind of the point.
Ah, Fusì, send me the link to the video if you can, I’m curious.

Dear hemophiliac (was it cptgaio, right?), it’s not a matter of disrespect. I’m starting to detest political correctness: I very rarely disrespect people, but I don’t understand why I should respect “ideas” that, as far as I’m concerned, aren’t such, but rather prejudices. It’s not about disagreeing with what I say; many times I find myself talking with people who have opposing views, and I can easily admit when I’m wrong. But someone who tells me (among other pearls) that “child in time, stairway to heaven, hallelujah” equal the heights of Miles Davis doesn’t know Miles Davis but pretends otherwise. In my opinion, it’s not a matter of genres, as you state above. Otherwise, by taking it to extremes, we end up with “I’m not a girl, not yet a woman” by Britney Spears being on the same level as “A Love Supreme.” Then >>>> but you who tend to listen more to the critics’ advice get worked up at the slightest hint of disagreement with your theses <<<< I didn’t understand that; I don’t feel like a fanatic of Scaruffi, despite finding great merits in his site: but for some strange law, one becomes “Scaruffian,” as if finding positive things in something equated to being a fan. Anyway, I’m ending up talking about my own navel… however, regarding the supposed statement by Scaruffi, if you could post it for me, it seems strange (at least, stated in such definitive terms, it seems absurd) since he often claims that the quality of recordings in jazz is generally quite low, and he also states that many rock musicians have had more courage than classical avant-gardists.

A greeting to Odradek: you haven't missed anything by reading this discussion. I promised myself not to participate, yet here I am again. Anyway, since I have no desire to be liked by anyone here, Longliverock, you've written a lot of nonsense, some of it is truly chilling, like comparisons between Deep Purple and Miles Davis or things like that. No, you didn't understand a damn thing about the kind of music I listen to. And Scaruffi doesn't write any bullshit like "classical and jazz are superior to rock," because that's just a childish generalization. "And yet, yes" marameo, find it, but you won't because it doesn't exist. I know the site.

@fusillo: >>>I'll tell you, jokingly, that "the anxiety to establish records" is all Scaruffi’s. I don’t feel it and I have no desire to say who is the greatest singer in history. And do you know why? BECAUSE THE MATTER DOESN'T INTEREST ME or, quoting my previous post, I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE QUESTION!!!!!! Have you understood that now? Let's hope.<<< No, you are the one who hasn’t understood. You aren’t interested in saying it, but a fourteen-year-old looking for music (the best music, the kind that "speaks to you," the kind that gets you excited) wants someone to tell them what is better and what is worse. The critic does not indoctrinate: the critic provides information, gives a perspective, and that is their purpose.>>>>I come on Debaser not to be a critic. I come to highlight albums and artists that I like. It’s what outside the web is called word of mouth. And I’m not afraid if this word of mouth here takes the form of "review + comments."<<<< In my house, recommending an album, writing reviews, and giving ratings is called "critical commentary." In your house, you might call it Giuseppe, but that is what it is, let’s not beat around the bush.>>>>To discover Tim Buckley’s site, I went through Google and not through a critic.<<<< This is very interesting: either a friend told you (who in turn might have learned it from some other friend who READ IT ON SOME SITE/REVIEW/CRITICS' MAGAZINE) or you were scrolling through the Los Angeles phone book from the early '70s, at the letter "B" you found "Tim Buckley," you thought "let’s see what comes up on Google," you saw the results (the first three hundred all critical, which you obviously skipped), and at that point, you thought "oh, he’s a singer," and then you bought/downloaded something. May I suggest that is somewhat improbable? >>>>Does Lee Underwood play the critic? And so what? He certainly has every right to. He is a MUSICIAN.<<<< And what does that mean? That only those who play can afford to have a critical judgment? >>>>I pointed out some CONCEPTUAL FLAWS that, darn it, I am not willing to overlook. <<<< You extracted little phrases (at least in the case of Zappa, which is the one I could verify) from full notes rich with other things, reasoning, and information, and that is very unfair. As for the video, I didn’t find it.

really great album.