odradek

With my nickname in uppercase? I don’t know, but it’s true that this isn’t the place: send me a message, it might be an opportunity to clarify a few things. Best regards.

You’re overreacting, it seems to me. In the description of the album and in the rating. After a while of listening, right after it came out, I even downgraded the rating (4) I would have given back then. A 3.5 seems more appropriate to me. But maybe, considering your page, one of these evenings I’ll give it another spin in the player…

@Supersoul: I saw, among the latest comments, that you mentioned me and that’s the only reason I’m among the comments on yet another review of this album by these guys, where I certainly wouldn’t have chimed in if I didn’t care ‘a damn. In fact, the first question is: what did you come here for? The second question is: are you sure you read the posts you’re referring to in their entirety? It doesn't seem to me that you understood what I was saying, since you keep bringing it up as if I had denied the obvious (which, by the way, I’ve known since I stumbled upon this place over a couple of years ago). For example, in the posts I mentioned (among other things) that I find it absurd to confuse things that are on different levels (Zappa and these guys). I don’t get either the sense or the purpose of this call. - To the charming sadist, who is not yet a reviewer since there are no pages in his name, I don’t know you and I’m not interested. If you expect a response in rhyme, I’m sorry to disappoint you, I won’t waste time with you. Enjoy yourself, however you can.

Yes, fun and quotable with a light touch, danceable but enjoyable even without shaking your hips. For Gabbox, a lively return.

Yes, the page is very stylish. But there's something not quite right: are we talking about a nerdy young man or am I mistaken? The two members of the Fugs are around 68 and 80 years old and had officially disbanded in '94 or thereabouts... I know they released an album in 2003, but I thought it was reissues of old stuff... Are you saying that the guy collaborated with them in their final phase?

The previous album was a dynamic, varied, and fun work: a ska/reggae rich in influences and solutions. It deserved a solid 7: if this lives up to it, I'm on the lookout for it.

I didn't know them either before this, and they don't seem to fit very well with the Comets on F. To me, this record seems nice, around 3.5 - Hi, Open

Yes, but this abuse of terms like "epochal" (an awful word), "genius" (devoid of meaning due to overuse), and "seminal" (which exclusively reminds me of liquid) is not new, neither here nor elsewhere (and I have criticized it from the very beginning, avoiding to practice it), and it refers back to the same pathology I was talking about. It is the overall approach to the subject that suffers from these childish forms. Probably because the subject itself has connotations that are, in certain ways, indelibly linked to its "youthful" nature. For this reason, your reasoning seems ineffective to me: because it plows, with seemingly different premises, the same ground, rather than shifting the discourse to other coordinates. The matter could be interesting only if thoroughly examined. It would require many words and too much time. However, I believe the essence of what I think is clear, just as I feel I have understood your argument. But one thing must be clarified: there is no musician, writer, or painter (I don’t use the term "artist" because I find it disgusting) for whom I have such “veneration” that I appreciate anything and do not allow myself critiques or doubts regarding their work. So even the hypothesis of what Zappa would do with covers or anything else does not intrigue me much.

Bah... the posts you mention (three out of about twenty) seem to me to demonstrate nothing but the appreciation of the page, which is perfectly understandable, and one of them (Paloz) is a sort of cheerleading for Zappa against Korn, which, frankly, while it can be shared, doesn’t seem to add much. Moreover, if we want to stick to the conversation, to what’s said and not to interpretations: I don’t think it’s about “defending” beauty or taking pride in some supposed “ugliness.” Rather, since often the difference is overlooked, it’s worth clarifying that the form of a page determines its effectiveness. The concept of beautiful or ugly for me also relates to this element. I don’t even think that the squabbling (which doesn’t involve me, but I acknowledge it) over Battles (whom I appreciate) and Korn (who I’m indifferent to) is a tragedy, not at all. It’s absurd, however, to mix things that have no relation to each other and then derive oppositions and factions from them. It’s part of an approach to music that suffers from a form of “infantilism” (sort of extremism as a childhood disease, paraphrasing an old man you might know) that seems closer to fandom than to a critical attitude. But even though I don’t share it and don’t practice it, I’m not scandalized or stigmatized by it; everyone chooses their own way. Obviously, by writing a post like a little page, I'm starting from my own. What strikes me, in truth, as not a tragic but certainly a sad issue, is the lack of respect for others' opinions and for the blessed practice of conversation. And when it manifests, it applies to the entire spectrum of users, from Korn fans to Zappa devotees.

Ah, the post about Columbia was by trickykid...