odradek

Do you mind if I smoke? I don't even mind if it catches fire :)))

And thanks to your link to Wikipedia (which I clicked on as a chronic sufferer of l'escalier syndrome), I discovered the existence of the book "Insults Made History - Theory and Technique of the Insult," which I just ordered. Thank you very much, Mr.42.

A bit hard to find, it seems there hasn’t been a reprint since '99. I’ve ordered it, I hope it arrives. Thanks for the tip.

Beautiful.

Hal, if it's your first time, I recommend you keep reading his books. He's one of the best authors of the last 20 years.

NEWROMANTIC, now please continue with the course up to the seventh lesson, I recommend. Don't say it was just a joke and drop everything, okay.. because there’s always a need for these useful lessons. Thanks in advance. Anyway.

"..The bass lines, held with the thumb, the pauses of emphasis at the end of phrases, and a series of effects, slurs, rapid picking, and vibrato have generated his personal style. The peculiarity of his invention lies in the composition that develops, in the main theme, around a single chord played in an obsessive and hypnotic manner." And did you write this, little one? Come on. With everything that could be said about the old Hooker, you had to copy him, but are they paying you?

It's been a while since I listened to this strange album. Robyn was a little love of mine, maybe one of the last concerts I saw (not too many years ago, he was already over fifty, I think, but still fresh and perhaps even "lighter" than usual, though a bit "off" too). I sometimes put his albums with the Egyptians on again. But I don't remember this one as a five-bullet album, more like a three and a half, even though when it was released, it monopolized my listening for quite a long time (but I was yyyyoung...). "Stralunato" (or "stralunatico"?) seems to be the right adjective, it seems to me. "Oblique" also seems fitting, for these derailing trains in the dream. I didn't expect you to like this album so much.

Here’s a DeCalice of champagne, Larrok. Cheers to you! And one for HYPNOSPHERE BOY, who I actually like, but you know, us old folks can sometimes come off a bit sour, and I think I may have unintentionally offended him. And if he accepts it, one also for Mr. Mustache, whose page I scribbled on and I even brought him up by mistake. CiaU

Well, exactly. You didn't write it, and in fact as soon as I realized it, I posted a clarification. So why do you keep repeating it? But your post, which I read carefully (less carefully than I reserved for the name of the author, obviously) seemed to want to "put back in line" the discussion, while "allowing" (fine, let's go...) off-topic remarks. Then you expressed an opinion about Luttazzi's borrowing, using the unfortunate euphemism "inspiration," finally asking the question: for what purpose? Well, my dear 222, for the purpose of telling a bit of truth, even when it’s not pleasant. Regarding Luttazzi's "discovery," the defense based on identifying the charming entertainer as someone supposedly deserving of the status of an intellectual, and the contrast with the "comedians" across the ocean, free to wallow in the supposed democracy of a market cruelly dominated by the laws of business (the "media dictatorship" can manifest in various ways), to whom it is supposedly not granted the designation of intellectuals, seemed destined for interlocutors who are not informed about the young man's career; hence the point that someone, on the contrary, probably has known him for a long time and has appreciated him. Finally, there is another misunderstanding, this time on your part: the links I was referring to were those that I and other users had exchanged, which you seemed to grant us ("Feel free to discuss about Silverman, Hicks, and Carlin...") with a tone that could be read as ironic or sarcastic (with "your YouTub-..ic multilingualism," you say in your post). But oh well, who cares. That other misunderstanding you refer to, concerning "your reviews," is generated by the fact—and I had already mentioned this—that I believed your post was written by the author of the review: In short, I had read your post carefully, only the signature I did not catch. Your response, however, seems to confirm a bit of agitation and a hasty reply: Are you sure you read comment 221 correctly? Regards. And sorry, if necessary, to you as well.