bowie&barrett

I liked this album. Period. I'm not going to debate the supposed bullshit and the alleged revealed truths. It doesn’t deserve 5 stars; let’s give it 3. To both.

acc... I didn't vote!

Hello Scaruffi!! Are you with us tonight too? I forgot to mention that you are also a mathematical genius! :-)

Hi Massimorf, what are you doing in the forum of a review about Enya? Running away from ...Caz..., huh? :-))))))))))))))))

Wow, Carillon, we completely forgot about the album!! The review is on Sherinian and the forum has developed around Dreams. But that's typical of Debaser, don't mind it... I totally agree with what you say about Kevin Moore!

Hi cece65, I think it's important for me to explain why I consider Scaruffi a jerk; you'll notice that my reasons are different from what you might expect. You see, I don’t attack Scaruffi for downplaying David Bowie, Iggy Pop, or the Beatles. This is simply because everyone, from George Gordon to Scaruffi, has the sacred right to have personal opinions. A critic does this; they express personal comments: they appear “critical” not because they are objective (we're talking about art, not technology, and objectivity doesn’t really apply here!) but because they are expressed by an intellectual deemed particularly knowledgeable and capable of articulating thoughts that are more elaborate than the average person's. Besides, this taliban-like dogma alone would make me dislike any music critic; what drives me against him is something else, something very specific, namely the "canon," the criterion he uses to judge the music he listens to. Fundamentally, it is the fact that a musician writes music that is completely original compared to the past. Let's take an example. In his eyes (or rather his ears), a band like Devo appears more important than Depeche Mode. And this could be true: the problem is that the music of Devo becomes, according to his strict and rigorous reasoning, more beautiful than that of Depeche Mode. And here, in my opinion, a nice short circuit occurs. The beauty of a melody, in my view, cannot be based on logical reasoning, but rather on an inner impulse, a dialogue between the author's spark of inspiration and the listener's soul. Scaruffi zealously applies the criterion of originality, making a glaring error, a dramatic misunderstanding of the world around him. It is not possible to create a clear division between original artists and “copying” artists, between Kraftwerk and Philip Glass, between Zappa and Prince. Every human being, whether a musician or not, will be inspired by what has come before them, by the experiences they have had, and will inevitably influence anyone who encounters, listens to, or watches them. Returning to music, then, EVERY musician, EVERY band is in some way DERIVATIVE of some other artist. Scaruffi can cleverly highlight the heavy influences that Black Sabbath had on Soundgarden, but he cannot diminish the Seattle group just because of that fact. It’s this crazy use of the "original/derivative" criterion that he ties every evaluation to that makes me laugh at him. That he downplays David Bowie means little to me: it irritates me that he denies his importance in the history of popular music, the beauty of his compositions, and his voice. That he claims the Beatles are pop songs chasing catchy choruses means little to me: it irritates me that he fails to highlight the absolute and disarming genius of those choruses! One can criticize the fact that a musician only chases money and seeks clever ways to access the charts rather than selling their skin and soul to make good music: but the degree of originality of what they do is and must remain just one of the elements guiding a judgment. I’ll conclude with one last jab at him: to claim that Iggy Pop is more of an icon than a musician is really to discover hot water. Scaruffi may be a great critic, but when it comes to what glam rock is, I believe he is the last person on Earth to have not yet understood it! To diminish Iggy Pop for being “an icon” is exactly like complaining about the Beatles' songs because "Yesterday" lacks a solid riff! I don’t think I need to add anything else to comment on his wisdom...

Hi Armando, I'm stepping in because I see that no one cares at all. So I'll take this opportunity to chat a bit :-). I haven't listened to the album, but I don't mind the genre. I think it definitely doesn't deserve a 5, since they've probably just taken (maybe very well!) the sound of RATM. As a debut band, they'll still be heavily influenced by the great reference groups in the genre they fit into. Anyway, dismissing a poor independent band recording in a warehouse goes against every moral and ethical principle I have. Lastly, and I don't know what makes me think this... but I have a slight suspicion that these guys are a step above Linea 77... heh heh. I'll give them my trust vote.

I don't want to be cruel. Anyway, you always write like a God.

Your S.C. of (dis)trust, I think you and I could become the new legends of Debaser (I’m just kidding)

...I believe he meant in that "historical moment" there. But don't forget the Diaframma, Aniel (or maybe you don't know them?).