odradek

It should be added that many "new" users pay little attention to whether the albums they decide to write about are already present, to the detriment of thousands of other unreviewed ones. I believe that on seventy or eighty pages I have never written a duplicate, except for a coincidence of simultaneous publication: if this criterion were always adopted when writing a "review" (unless the existing one is terrible), the archive and its users would definitely benefit.

Vortex, I mention this especially because you really uncover a lot of material if you dive into the "retrobottega." I've been hanging around this place for about a couple of years now, and even now, from time to time, I come across little pages that lead me to discover or rediscover rather unusual things...

For me, this is a really great album, better than the previous one, with tracks that are anything but predictable, perfect production and sounds, and an excellent vocal interpretation. The clear references to the past are neither a flaw nor "copying;" rather, they are, for once, a demonstration of the path this young lady is following. The recent affairs concerning her are matters for gossip lovers, and it's obvious that if "novelty" is the only or predominant criterion for evaluating an album, it's best to look elsewhere. But here, the music exists, and it is of high quality. I hope she gets out of her various troubles because the next album could be even better, considering her age and potential.

And of course I agree with OleEinar: without a doubt, Contemplazione is a great "purchase."

Festwca, if you don't already know it, perhaps the most suitable album for "contact" is Amassed by Spring Heel Jack, a project he was involved in, also reviewed in DeB. If I can, I'll upload it one of these days and then post the link here... maybe along with those of other albums by Matthew Shipp.

One is not my favorite, but it's still a great album. You took me out of the embarrassment of choice; it was about time I thought there should be a dedicated page for him on DeBaser... I recommend all of his (heterogeneous) discography, including the work with Spring Heel Jack.

I read you (almost) always and it's always pleasant. In some cases, it is more so than in others. This is one of the +. I don't know if I'll have the chance to get my hands on some incorporeal format of the record; it will be an opportunity to compare the tasty images you evoke (first and foremost, the underwater flame) with what I will hear...

Surely, this is a typical case of damage from "iconization." His figure and his production lend themselves perfectly to the game. If one approaches music, like any other discipline, with an attitude free from this contagious perversion typical of our times, one can separate the shell, even the iconographic one, from the substance. In the opposite case, one permeates and spreads into the other, producing an alteration that, in my opinion, harms the iconized subject first and foremost. Hence, statements like those from Vortex, which I obviously do not share at all, or the recurrence of the same terms and stylistic features related to these "mythical figures" of "rock history" or however one might call it, every time one comes across some page dedicated to them. And it is clearly a consequence of the fact that certain music condenses codes of a "collective imaginary" that increasingly permeates its consumers. The discourse of under-evaluation or over-evaluation, then, is naturally relegated to the context to which it refers: who is making such evaluations? Is it among the audience of its admirers? Well, that makes no sense: those who adore it do not evaluate it (evaluation requiring a different attitude). The "rock criticism"? Well, that must somehow guarantee its survival, and it has always done so by adhering to already occurred iconizations or generating new ones (a worn-out mechanism but still functioning today, inextricably linked to the context of "youth" music, since the birth of "rock"). Within these perimeters, it then chooses which segment of the audience to fascinate, based on a mechanism of parceling the "market," including the (pseudo) cultural one it addresses. It’s an attempt at reasoning that I have, at times, tried to initiate with some users, but it seems not to be very welcome, because it is read as sacrilegious intent or "intellectual" pretentiousness that would like to deprive listening of an emotional component and its relationship with the subjectivity of experiences. Naturally, the opposite is true, but the matter complicates as one proceeds, and I believe I have already rambled on about it sufficiently. However, it seems to me, reading this page (yet another regarding the lady), that I am not too far from one of the aspects of reality...

Forget what I said, I found it.

No, Ghemison, I don't even know what it is. A little link, please?