voiceface

The reviewer is a bit full of themselves, at least as much as the editors who even recommend this review... I understand the desire to showcase one’s rich vocabulary and skill in crafting convoluted phrases, but there’s a limit to everything!... also, as the reviewer writes, to the maximum level of lyricism in rock achieved by Nirvana with this album, which is really quite a nonsense.

I actually agree with the reviewer; I believe that Taylor has written the best among the various solo activities of the band members. I have some doubts about Mercury, who has written too little on his own to be fully judged. Undoubtedly, I prefer Taylor's solo style to that of Mercury or May as solo artists: the former is indeed too kitschy, while the latter almost never reaches the level of even the worst songs written by Queen. Taylor is instead a truly versatile and talented artist; I believe he is capable of playing all the traditional rock instruments excellently, in addition to having a gritty voice, typical of true rockers. I do have some reservations about his musical composition, where he doesn't shine for inventiveness, and the levels achieved by Mercury in Queen are indeed light-years away.

Your speech is perfectly understandable, but I do not share it. First of all, because you demonstrate that debaser is conforming to the principles of commercial TV, where quantity counts over quality. I also believe that this site is growing and that the traffic is increasing, but in the meantime, the phenomena I pointed out before have grown exponentially. Secondly, you show that you underestimate the accessibility of information on a website; let me be clear, I think that technically debaser is a very well-made site, but I find that users searching for a review on Google often come across multiple reviews of the same album, of which perhaps only one is readable. In this case, the user who is looking for information and not a fight inevitably ends up distancing themselves, and this brings us back to the previous discussion. I also do not agree with this insistence on the quantity of published reviews; honestly, I believe that out of 10,000 reviews, no more than a thousand are readable. Finally, a small note on the act of highlighting phrases and words in reviews even when the content is of the lowest level: beyond everything, it is an act, if not ridiculous, at least grotesque. Regards.

Look, it's a speech I've made before; I believe that this site, besides being a source of enjoyment for those who see a review published online, is also a useful resource for anyone wanting to get an idea of an album and music in general. I think, therefore, that the policy of publishing anything is somewhat disrespectful to those who use Debaser for this second purpose, and among them is me too. The logical question is, then, how do we determine the line between what is publishable and what is not? There would be many solutions that could easily allow for the publication of everything... for example, prioritizing access on the site to only those reviews that meet certain criteria (excellent ratings, uniqueness, etc.). Duplicates and nonsense, in general, could be accessed through an alternative channel. As it is now, Debaser is just an indistinguishable hodgepodge of great and terrible writings, and as such, absolutely useless for the casual visitor. The fact that selected reviews appear on the homepage is a step towards better use of the site.

Judging by your profile picture, it also explains your comment.

I respond out of courtesy: 1) you put the bold and italic formatting in 99% of cases, which is roughly the complement of the percentage of those who know basic HTML 2) this review is a complete nonsense in its absolute superficiality and uselessness 3) vulgarities and nonsense abound in hundreds of other reviews, I won't give examples because I prefer that your mockery ends here.

When I can make people happy, I don’t hold back on explanations... my lack of doubts is just a way to emphasize the absurdity of publishing utter nonsense, even embellishing it with bold and italic fonts to better highlight the concepts... it seems to me like a mockery towards the reader, even greater than the person who wrote the same review... satisfied?

I have little doubt about who is more ridiculous between pinkoSpallino and the editors of Debaser, as pinkoSpallino is just playfully messing with all of us... and what do the editors do? They read the review, approve it, check that everything is formatted nicely, a bold here and an italic there. Here we put a line break and here a blank line... and what a wonderful show it is! I repeat... I have no doubts about who is more ridiculous...

Do not mind them but look and pass

a superb blend of personal opening and the impeccable and cold analysis that follows