ajejebrazorf

Flinstone, can you send me the link to this top 100 where Enya is supposed to be? Because I don't see that it exists.

@flinstone: to open the link, you need to make sure to remove the spaces that form in the bar (spaces that, if not eliminated, are replaced by ---> %20 <---). I quote one of your phrases: "non me lo viene a dire uno seduto dietro a un pc che pubblica nel suo sito le sue classifiche aride e morte." Well, given this phrase of yours, I would still like a response from you, because I wonder if you read my post, since I was specifically talking about the utility of those rankings that you described as "aride e morte." Anyway, on Scaruffi's site, there is no list of the best hundred rock albums, which makes me think you might be a little off-base, without really knowing the site well. There’s a small ranking with about thirty albums.

@flinstone: you haven't replied to me.

Lord, you really spoke ill of them just the other day, in response to the phrase that they are obsessively quoting to you "Godspeed You! Black Emperor, Slint, Tortoise, Dinosaur jr., Labradford, Bark Psychosis, Dirty Three, Swans, Vampire Rodents, Built to Spill, The God Machine, Mogwai", to which you replied that they were MTV bands controlled by the production (and in fact, I intervened by citing Steve Albini, whom you pretended to know: by the way, Albini produces using the method I explained to you for Dirty Three, who are on the list of bands you define as MTV). Just for the record.

For me, it's a good movie, especially with a nice pace and great actors. Nothing that will change the world probably, but very enjoyable.

I would like to take a moment to defend Scaruffi: Flintstone, in some ways you say very shareable things, especially about "We are our own best music critics." The fact is that without criticism, it would be difficult to know which of the millions of records is truly worthy of being heard. It's a necessary evil. And you are right that Scaruffi is influential, but if we want to be a bit serious, any critic influences us. The attitudes of those who say, "You are Scaruffians, you don't think for yourselves, I do" frankly make me smile due to their naivety. That said, one can remove these influences and form their own personal opinion, but only when they have a solid foundation. With Scaruffi's website, you can build that foundation. You mention the errors: it seems absolutely ridiculous to me; it is clear that there are industrial quantities of them, it is clear that certain analyses can be superficial, it is clear that he may have biases, but that’s not the point. The point is to provide a comprehensive view. There is a radio interview that I will post later for anyone interested, where he talks about Renaissance geniuses (Leonardo, to name the most obvious one), who had expertise in various fields and managed to provide a synthesis. Over the centuries, as knowledge grew, most scientists, critics, and knowledge workers have become more and more specialists in a single field: Scaruffi on his site attempts again to provide a comprehensive view. Rough and full of errors (he says so himself in the interview, and asks to point them out on the site), but it is something extremely commendable. I know very well that some of his rankings, especially the non-musical ones, can be amusing ("the best monuments," "the best works of art," "the greatest geniuses of the 20th century," etc., we’re just missing the ranking of his best wanking), but they provide a lot of insights for those who want to grasp them and do not limit themselves to differing opinions on a single entry or the error of a date (there are even blunders far more pronounced). As for the claim of "objectivity," that’s another big nonsense: it is his objectivity, it is clear that they are his opinions, just as any other critic has their own. He often exposes himself more, and fortunately, he does not litter the site with "in my opinion," which anyone with a modicum of intelligence should understand is implied. Anyway, here is the radio interview (in English):

And which standards should be adopted? Even The House with Laughing Windows or Don’t Open That Door are genre cinema, but those are blockbusters. For me, there’s an abyss. But even films that I don’t consider masterpieces like some of Bava’s or Fulci’s works I like much more than this...

but then what the heck does "omega darkness" mean?

I missed this one, damn what a mess, come on! People criticize Hollywood movies with such disdain and I can understand that, but then they reassess trash like this? Terrible script, totally absurd actions, ridiculous dialogues (hilarious the guy who says to the girl in the hospital not stuff like "you'll make it", no, "not even death will separate us", like they say to all patients anyway), depressing actors (the lead was clearly sedated with some horse anesthetic: how can we talk about convincing acting?), one worse than the other. The only redeeming quality are the murders, which are so absurd they end up being funny. Horrible.

But it’s not true; one is naturally free to listen to whatever they prefer. But if someone comes to me, as I listen to several other things without blinders, and tries to talk about the great superiority of prog, I rightly respond that it’s nonsense, especially when certain examples are brought up. (I mean, a group like Alphataurus was cited, who sing things like: "ritornoh al mio paeseah soloah e a soffrir(soffrir damn it, not soffrire, soffrir, 'who do you think we are with the hair we have, a sense of ridicule equal)non vedoh la mia genteihle stradeih son deserteahmi guardo intornoh sento la vitah che se nei vah) should I say they are as good as Van der Graaf or Michael Mantler? No, they suck; not even that, they are mediocre, which is even worse. This isn’t hating a genre.