ajejebrazorf

Fusillo, you know very well that this comment of yours is heavily insincere because you went looking for every nitpicking issue without mentioning anything positive. This is not a site about Tim Buckley; it's a profile. But for fuck's sake, even for me, Phantasmagoria in Two is not even remotely the best love song and blah blah, but that doesn't matter. As for the best singer, it’s good to take risks, and as far as I'm concerned, I agree, having never heard anyone at that level. Oh, tell me one, ONE SINGLE CRITIC that you like. As for the "exhausting track by track," let's leave that aside; besides being very well-written (if only I could write like that), that profile goes far beyond just listing the tracks, but you don't mention it at all, proving your insincerity. I detest this kind of conversation with those who want to be right at all costs. Go ahead and take it.

splendid album, I miss a lot of things from Miles (and I would like to see, there are hundreds of albums and live recordings), but this one comes right after Bitches Brew in my preferences (in general, I’m not just talking about the electric period), of which I find it to be the progenitor much more than in A Silent Way. Tout de suite is a piece that I’m very attached to.

Ah, come to fuse, you don't accept the accusations of superficiality, but that's what it is; judging immense work based on three pages is absurd. You can reason only on those three pages, not pass a judgment. Regarding Buckley: I'll be honest, I've listened to "Live at Sin" very little compared to "Grace" (and partly "My Sweetheart," and other things) that I've consumed. So I'll abstain; I would have had a say on "Grace," much less on that. About Zappa: it fits perfectly as new wave for "We're Only in It," especially since the Residents, perhaps the founding group of the genre (with whom Zappa collaborated, and in many ways is perhaps its greatest inspiration), had records that had a lot in common with the chameleonic style, themes, and apocalyptic pessimism of that album. As for "Absolutely": I find that comparison a bit perplexing too (even if that album has a bit of everything). However, aside from those two words, there’s an endless list of valid analyses. I'll take that 99%, you take the 1%. Valid assessments? Many: for example, those on Robert Wyatt, or on Faust, or on Nico, on Jon Hassell, on Tim Buckley, and many more, famous or not, are excellent.

@fusillo: apart from the fact that that fake was hilarious, in the sense that it parodied phrases from a site you can’t know, having only just brushed against it, I am SURE S U R E, like without the slightest doubt. "But maybe..." no, it wasn't him, end of story. I won’t go on because it would be tedious, but it wasn't him and it makes me smile that more than one person believed it (parody aside, with that wobbly syntax, right?) that it wasn’t him. Well, you don’t know the site and you’re justified. Anyway, you saw three pages, you can figure it out yourself: you don’t know Scaruffi’s site. There are plenty of mistakes (and the cinema section is, I think, just starting out and full of nonsense, it can't be taken as an example: if you want, I can explain this too). As for Jeff Buckley, I don’t know what you think, I as a die-hard Buckley fan (father and son) find it to be a very balanced profile. We can talk about this too, as long as you don’t think I’m an idiot for it (and if you say you don’t, you’re being disingenuous ;) ). Anyway, the answer to "Why the hell should I keep browsing Scaruffi’s site? To appreciate the effort of reviewing 20,000 albums and eighty thousand films?" is: because besides the errors you pointed out, there are also excellent entries, particularly deep and interesting viewpoints, and an overall vision. To just shoot down a critic (not for no reason, but "for some mistakes, even when gross") seems to me an exercise in superficiality, especially when one doesn’t know. Critique is essential, it serves a purpose. And you can’t agree one hundred percent with anyone.

Above, in my last comment there is an incomprehensible piece, I’ll try to tame it: "but I didn’t say that being distracted means one can’t get confused, the mistake exists and it’s evident. It’s also clear that if one reads the ranking, it’s obvious that it’s in alphabetical order. I mean, it’s a completely venial mistake, how many whips should one receive for having DARED to get the link(s) wrong?"

@flinstone: you can go wherever you want, the review won't run away! Anyway >>>If the site scaruffi.com has to correspond to the opinion its owner has of himself, everything should be impeccable<<< this is totally incomprehensible to me: aside from the fact that Scaruffi's character has nothing to do with the site, it's normal for such a workload to be full of errors (he says it himself, and I've written it above, if you had read it or 1. you would be replying to this or 2. you would be implicitly agreeing with me or 3. you didn't read my comment carefully). >>>...within just a click of the mouse, instead of five or ten in the lucky cases.<<< I wonder how you came up with that five or ten erroneous cases for one correct. It's nonsense, and anyway, see above regarding the presence of errors. Wanting to evaluate such a site based on errors like this is frankly depressing, you know the proverb "when the wise man points to the moon..." etc.? I mean, someone gives you the opportunity to consult a site that deals with everything, with a reasoned view of things, and you stop at the wrong link? >>> Note that in the misunderstanding about this Scaruffi Top 100, even @riccardo has fallen, who since the discussion started has been defending him tooth and nail<<< but I didn't say that being distracted you can get confused, the error exists. It's also evident that if one reads the ranking, it's clear at a glance that it is in alphabetical order. >>> Moreover, I didn't respond to you because I didn't see you asking me questions; I saw you expressing your opinions. What should I respond to? I'm so sorry, huh?:) <<< Sorry, and if I don't put a question mark it means there's nothing to respond to? If you want, when you log back on, I can repeat those concepts to you in the form of simple little questions, who knows.

And didn't it seem strange to you that a top 100 consists not of 100 albums but of several hundred? Anyway, I just read something that made me smile: FUSILLO! But please tell me you didn't believe for even a second that the guy who intervened on Debaser was the real Scaruffi? Please say no! @Flinstone: now you can twist it however you like, but besides not having responded to anything I've said, Scaruffi's website is perfectly understandable. The lists are there, and they are all clear and easily accessible for those who don't approach it with preconceived notions like you do. That isn't a top 100: it existed, but it was removed and has changed several times, so it's possible that the link still has the name, but it's in alphabetical order, come on, it's manageable to understand. In front of my grandmother's house, there's a sign for a butcher shop that closed about fifty years ago, and you can see it. Now, if you tell me you didn't understand that Scaruffi's list is fine, if you say it's incomprehensible and confusing, I'm afraid one day I'll see you in front of the former butcher shop waiting in vain for it to open to get half a kilo of capocollo, saying in disbelief, "but it says butcher shop here, why isn't it opening?" and so on :)

Hey man, doesn't it seem a bit strange to you that a top 100 is in alphabetical order? Take a closer look at it :)

"and for this indoctrinates, hypnotizes, takes away from its readers independence of judgment and critical ability, produces zombies that always repeat the same things." Damn Flintstone, now I’m certain you haven’t read my comment and you’re lecturing me about my education. Holy moly, what rampant populism: basically, anyone who reads Scaruffi is "hypnotized" while you’re a clever one with a free mind unconstrained by any type of mental conditioning, and you’re immune to it? Please, how many concentrated banalities, coming from someone who speaks ill of a critic who, in his opinion, doesn’t really know his stuff... without knowing him except superficially. One thing time has taught me: orthodox anti-Scaruffians almost always manage to surpass orthodox Scaruffians in devastating obviousness.

Ah, but that's not a top 100, it's a list of votes (which change quite a bit). Enya gets an eight among various hundreds of albums, she’s not in any top 100.