odradek

Damn, Socrates, I bought this record after reading your review. And I didn't even comment. Can I give it a 4? You're almost at the top, I think...

Kosmo: perhaps here we continue to avoid the issue I raised, reducing it to a ranking matter (thus endorsing the Seuymandi boy). But this is not the point: the issue is that the whole thing was done with such evident clumsy pettiness, and with the idea of "getting away with it," that in my opinion needed to be highlighted. And another thing, this even more concrete, regarding the Mozart/Celine/JoP matter: I would like to point out that this has already happened, and right on the same review. An "unauthenticated" user mistakenly voted, they admitted it, but the review disappeared from the favorites. Shortly after (perhaps the same day, I don't remember), the vote was deleted, and the review returned to its place. So: 1) there is a precedent 2) the same intent expressed by that user is now expressed by Paolo. If it is a matter of principle, it has already been disregarded then; I find it absurd to insist now, given that Paolo's intent is even more manifest and states that he did not know that his vote would have resulted in that. It seems much more logical to me to admit the possibility of a mistake than to take into account the precedent. Then you can see for yourselves.

Then: you yourself say that I appreciated your reviews: you may have noticed that they were about albums or musicians I knew. Now, I'm quite exhausted by this matter because, taking responsibility under my nickname, with precise indications and without fear of encountering cheap irony, to say what I thought, I knew it would be easy for anyone to deny or accuse me of paranoid delusions. But having had, until now, in many cases, a lot of patience and control, I no longer felt like it nor had any reason to; the small-mindedness is simply too unbearable. And it's draining to deal with. Anyway, it's fine as it is; Seymandi's was nice, you even came out with a certain tone of superiority; after all, it's a pleasure when everything wraps up with a nice framing. Let's say it ended there. Nice wrap-up; I'll pick it up: I hope at least Maurizio Seymandi sends us a Telegatto when we get back in the rankings. with esteem

Well, I imagined that all the coincidences you've noticed (?) would lead to this unique funny consideration (your "team," however clumsy, might have managed to put together some decent camouflage, why deny them this possibility? And I see you're mentioning Polkstreet, evidently you've noticed some oddities. You forget other names, but that's fine, we understand each other, right?) The others remain, but I've said enough. If you prefer to approach it with a bit of "irony" that would try to transform it from a simple observation of the petty squalor of certain behaviors into my concern about "ranking," go ahead. I have the impression that your position is a bit of a balancing act. Be careful not to fall - As for the fact that I listen to music different from what you do, I think you're getting confused again: it was precisely the fact that I pointed out some inconsistencies (in my opinion, if I can express it) on a record by a musician I appreciate that caused one of the fake nicknames to appear, which also clumsily revealed their other identity without even realizing it. Shortly after that episode, the efforts of the little mischievous ones intensified. Naturally, this too is a result of coincidences, all concentrated. But just think...

I confirm, however, all the considerations expressed in the previous posts, whoever the recipient may be. Risaluti

Donjinio, as you may have noticed, I didn’t say it was you. Now, I don’t want to insist, but if you want a detailed and chronological account of the recent activities of the nicks we’ve dealt with (also to establish the meaning of certain harmless and late votes after I raised the issue), I’ll make an effort and show you that there’s a certain oddity, let’s say a concurrence of very strange coincidences too closely related and too focused on your name. Perhaps you have a secret admirer (or admireress, because one of the nicks hides another which claimed to be female) who dislikes both me and Socrates, maybe the same one who uses multiple nicks, and who has already shown up on other recent occasions (and in one of those, he was so careless as to quote an old comment of his under another nick; if you know him, point it out to him) - Mozart: There’s a significant difference: the user to whom I pointed out that 4 on JoP’s page has written to the Staff to have it deleted. That user has written dozens of reviews, all under the same name. That user did not come to mine, or to Hal’s, or to Socrates’ “sinking” them, and then to yours, with the same nicks and with other unauthenticated ones, to give 5. Obviously, I’m sorry for a couple of mine, and I’ve told you why. For others, less so; they were votes that were even too generous, and it's not about authors like Moondog or Partch. In the end, it’s not the vote itself, but the petty practice. Which, of course, there’s no way to “prove,” but it’s too blatant (and clumsy) not to be noticed. Let’s say that, not being the clumsy “trickster,” if you happen to hear it, let him know. Regards.

It seemed strange to me the coincidence with other votes (recent and deliberately placed for this purpose) that almost simultaneously wiped out many reviews from that "ranking." In particular, among several of mine, two dedicated to rather "unknown" musicians, and I was happy they had that little space of visibility, in addition to others by Hal, Socrates, etc. But the one I regretted the most is J.o.P.'s review of Mozart, which had been sitting at the top for a long time, unreachable. For me, it was a kind of emblem; if you arrive in DeB and look for the most appreciated review, you open a page that condenses writing, references, and descriptions of music of excellent quality, written evidently with great involvement. The elements that should characterize all the best pages, in my opinion. I may have had an exaggerated reaction, and the fact that you have addressed it so promptly is commendable, and I must apologize for the tone I used. But today, having dealt with some elements, I was, shall we say, quite sensitive. Sorry.

If that's the case, so do I, Socrates. But I have made the mistake of criticizing a few passages from a few pages. But let's give it another shot, a 5, let's show a real commitment that doesn't bend to the adversities of fate. Even when fate wears certain clothes.

Sorry, Morning, why deaf? What does it matter? It's not like they listen to the records. It's trivial to judge after listening to them. The genius lies in the vote in the dark. On the other hand, the way he describes them is often indicative of this practice. This site is populated by geniuses, creative rebels, musical knowledge extremists, radical subverters of the order, people who will change the world. Listening to records, comparing opinions, avoiding hasty judgments, being curious and seeking out, these are outdated practices. We're stuck in the past, Morning. Bourgeois bigots, moldy stuff. Get used to it.

When I had my shop, it was perhaps the best-selling label in our den. And I was already wondering back then, over 13 years ago, how they managed to produce so much, distribute it so well, stay within costs... I thought they couldn’t keep up that pace. Yet... it would drive anyone mad trying to keep up with them. For now, I'll catch up on the three titles you mentioned. It had been a while since I last explored them; you've rekindled my appetite.