bowie&barrett

Now, for a critic of his level not to understand this, and to have become over time a slave to his own logics, leads me to call him "coglione." With the same rage, mind you, that a fan criticizes their favorite artist when they release a much-anticipated album that misses the mark. I appreciate someone politically uninflated or compromised like Scaruffi on principle, but over time he has turned into an old nagging spinster! :-)))

Reevaluating the Aqua is a "fundamental component" of its vanity, dismantling the White Album is a "paradoxical effect" of its mannerism. Moreover, it is a true contradiction in terms. To appreciate to the point of adoration the imperfections of Dylan or the abstruse anarchy of Captain Beefheart and then belittle "The Beatles" means only one thing: aiming for something else. That is to say, not critical analysis, but the "downscaling" of the Beatles phenomenon. NOW, that the White Album is an LP far too mythologized is one thing; that it requires disparaging to induce penance among Beatles fans is another matter. Because the world of meanings derived from a work of art is not a "burden," even when it surpasses the original intentions of an artist. It is an essential component of that work, independent of the artist themselves. The excessive "logic" with which one reviews strips the works of that aura of magic that constitutes their true essence. The real beauty of "Cocaine" is not the structure of the opening riff (that matters to a guitarist, at most) but WHAT that riff communicates.

[Hey Ferdinando, we’ve taken over the forum. In my opinion, either they got scared by the "séance," or we simply scored more share than Carrà did during her infamous SanRemo.]

(follows and concludes) the "real" artists, I meant. I conclude by saying that Scaruffi's problem is not the use of the "original/derivative" meter but its excessive use. It’s OBVIOUS that anyone who intends to create an encyclopedic work like his must use a paradigm, a method, a canon. The point is that the same usage is often employed with excessive anger, which focuses NOT on finding the right key to interpreting a phenomenon (for example, the importance of a chorus in '64) but RATHER on drastically dismantling everything that is not "side effects" but rather an "essential component" of ROCK music: the style, the image, and the trend-driven fanaticism. An absolutely legitimate and important operation (see above what I wrote, point 2 of the response to Micky) but one that often skews his judgment into a "mannerism" that irritates me, considering the "visceral" approach I have toward listening to music. (STOP)

Very good. You have perfectly grasped the reason why I defined the Blur as "naive" and the Dream Theater as "erudite." Terms that hardly fit with true art [I work in the dubbing field, and I can assure you that artists and professionals in music and video are anything but "naive"]. (continues and ends)

(continues and ends) but above all we could not evaluate the work of groups like Dream Theater, who have made "erudite citation" a fundamental characteristic of their music. By using Scaruffi's criteria in too orthodox a way, we would be forced to define them as a useless, horrendous band that commits plagiarism and counter-plagiarism, and we could not instead be (banally) delighted by their musical endeavor. In practice, there cannot be exclusively a "logical" approach to listening to music (STOP).

(continues) Hello Fernando. In evaluating much of today's music, we are forced to abandon the original/derivative criterion: we couldn't even remotely express a positive judgment on an album like "The Great Escape" by Blur, a devoted (albeit naive) celebration of the glories of glam rock updated with (naive) experiments that wink at Bowie’s Berlin period. (continues and ends up passing the baton)

(continues) I was saying... one of the fundamental characteristics of much of contemporary music (not all of it, mind you!) but of most pop music (the good kind, I mean, not Kylie Minogue) is its DERIVATIVENESS. Not for lack of ideas, absolutely. It's a matter of style, that is to have not a "reactionary" attitude (in the sense used by Scaruffi: not "conservative," but "disruptive") but rather a "respectful devotion" to the past. (continues)

(continues) ok, go ahead :-)) one of the fundamental characteristics of much contemporary music, ... (what's your name? come on, register, it's free, and I can address you using a nickname, my little troubled soul, so it feels like a séance!!!) (continues)

acc... send the posts while I send mine!! this isn't a chat room and every now and then some mess will happen... alright, regarding the "reckless" use, let me explain it right away (continue...)