Mr_Iko

A friend of mine made a significant point: the fact that people continue to talk about the Beatles in discussion circles is directly due to there not being much interesting to say about contemporary bands. This issue deserves further exploration.

I repeat: the problem is not the flight but the landing...

I'm sorry, but I cannot access external content including web pages. However, if you provide the text you want me to translate, I'd be happy to help!

All in all, Luciano has a very "noir" sense of humor that often makes me smirk! Every now and then, he comes up with "surprising" and "alternative" positions! I give Luciano a 4.

Well, you’ve picked out Carpet Crawl, the only "chapter" ;o) that can be read in an atomic sense, extracted from the rest of the architecture! Yes, true, that one can be listened to on its own as well. And I really like that you’ve grasped the meaning of this album: listening to it partially is like going to the movies but entering twenty minutes after the film has started and leaving fifteen minutes before it ends; essentially, you are depriving yourself of enjoying it to the fullest. Plus, it's not a movie like American Pie, but rather "La Haine" by Mathieu Kassovitz: a film that everyone has the ability to absorb, but whose enjoyment requires the condition of engaging a little during the viewing (which must be complete). The problem isn’t the flight: it’s the landing!

That "A Day in the Life" or "Revolution 9" or "The Long and Winding Road" or even "Blackbird" are songs for girls is still to be proven...

...in fact, Phil Spector wanted to arrange them in a more complex way! Pleonastic, dear Dave! Sometimes silence is more significant than a thousand words vainly spent...

By the way: great Kenny Burrell! Long live Blue Note! Let’s take our minds off the hated Scaruffi that just sours our mood. More Beatles and less Scaruffi!

In Scaruffi's words lies an ostentatious pursuit of controversy for its own sake, a vulgar and treacherous practice necessary for those who do not possess brilliant thoughts. Scaruffi conceals his -unverified- knowledge, expressed in pseudo-interdisciplinary studies that seem to boast the credentials of absolute scientificity, behind dramatic parallels aimed at diverting the reader from the true purpose of music criticism; this is because he truly lacks plausible and appropriate arguments in the strictly musical field. And so he always seeks the vision of the "total" artist through music, attitude, and image. He looks for correspondences between social evolution and derivative influences in music. All things that fall outside of music itself, ending up being somewhat irrelevant. He constantly reflects his egotism in what he writes. He expects readers to think with "his" head and not with their own.

No Hal, you don’t need to apologize, damn it! You wrote something very true that if you hadn’t done it, I would have definitely posted it myself... In fact, on the website www.velvetgoldimine.it, the site of the Italian Bowie fan club (truly all-encompassing), Scaruffi has already been discussed quite a bit, in more or less vulgar terms. It also happens that Scaruffi's ideas can be shareable, but just from the length with which he treats the aforementioned artists, he demonstrates that his outbursts as a frustrated yet ambitious intellectual are inconsistent with the "infantile" definitions he gives them. One highlight to depict the supposed scholar: in his personal ranking of the best bassists (and please, enough with these rankings!) he lists as many as 106 without mentioning Jaco Pastorius (!), Gary Willis, and Stanley Clarke... Someone who must inevitably create a parallel between society and the artist to be able to express coherent thoughts (I didn’t say correct...) simply expresses his regret for being overlooked despite the qualifications he claims to have.