odradek

Holden, I had raised a few questions and hadn't even touched on processes. And they weren't just about this page, but about how to initiate and conduct the "conversation." All personal opinions, of course. Then again, you know, it's always interesting to understand the intentions. What we read, however, are the results... You even corrected your vote, admitting to an exaggeration, and that's no small thing.
You close the matter by quoting Totò, and that's fine. Perhaps you could also grant us the opportunity to express "ogniccosa" without using certain terms or attitudes, and without being considered cowards for it? Very kind, thank you.
Speaking of the visually impaired. I too detest neologisms and euphemisms (I'm blind and therefore visually impaired, think about it) when they serve to conceal. I find their use amusing at times, in different contexts and with different intentions. Matters of language, communication, style. In short, as my reference philosopher, Toni da Lavello, would say: all stuff to do in the ass.
Goodbye.

Clarification. My previous post was written before Holden's correction to the vote.

Can an author not interest or please someone? Can that be said? If the comments express doubts partly voiced in a review or add other concerns, is the solution to dismiss the review itself, which is at least written with care and attention, unlike many others? Is it permissible, or even necessary, to always insert some consideration about the state of intelligences or others' assertions ("...it seems foolish to me") to express or defend one's own? Or to decide, as I read elsewhere, "...anyone who knows this artist thinks like me" (quoted from memory, but the concept remains the same). Statements of this kind, attitudes of this kind, undermine the very sense of a conversation. Why does everything so often have to turn into something resembling a matter between fans? Yet there are opportunities to encounter different viewpoints, information, and suggestions almost in every review... I find myself increasingly encountering skirmishes and more rarely dialogue; in some cases, I leave to avoid getting drawn into certain logics, while other times I can’t help but repeat these things. And end up sounding boring. Well, regards.

A crank

Ritiè

Contribution to the average. There you go.

Well, I won't express my opinion on Capossela's album, which has never interested me and at times I find irritating. But it's really a matter of personal taste and not a judgment of quality. I heard him improvise on the piano during a strange evening among "friends," and he actually seemed quite good.... However, I wanted to share an opinion, one that is not exclusively personal, about the comparison between Conte and Waits. It seems rather natural, due to some similarities, especially in the vocal approach. And it's quite widespread. I've always found it misleading and less relevant. What matters, though, is that the lawyer thinks the same way, believing that his closest "relative" is Randy Newman, not recognizing significant similarities with T.W. That said, excellent review by Grasshopper, including Topo Gigio.

I don't know the album and I've heard conflicting opinions (which seem to be here as well). Nick, is it a real 1 or a "protest" vote?

No paranoia. You understood perfectly. I read it again and I confirm: I have nothing more to say to you, I renew my regards.

Yeah!