bowie&barrett

"Ignorantoni" I added myself, it wasn't a quote from Scaruffi, and I said it in an ironic sense :-)) I am one of the ignoranti ("I Will...")

x Mike76: contemporary groups of which the "ignorance" is culpably attributed to the ignorant ones who listen to the Beatles, guilty of not possessing his musical wisdom. A highly questionable and pretentious attitude, justified (and I’m the first to say so) by two things: 1) anyone reading a review by Scaruffi does so considering his perspective as more noble and knowledgeable than their own, thus Scaruffi is legitimized to consider himself superior and to blame the level of musical erudition of his audience; 2) Scaruffi has NEVER allowed the degree of fanaticism surrounding an artist to weigh on his critical judgment. I absolutely share this! If there is one thing he cannot and must not be accused of, it is being "politically" compromised (where I mean much more than just politically). But I stand firm on this: the degree of derivation/originality is used by Scaruffi in a reckless manner.

[Addressed to the anonymous user: as you can see, I have read Scaruffi and, without the presumption of being the genius of the moment, I have shared my interpretation of his thoughts. Anyone can copy and paste. What you think is still unclear: you're defending the critic, but why? By simply copying and pasting, it seems you want to demonstrate how cynical, ignorant, false, and bad-faith Bowie & Barrett are... IF you want to continue, go ahead, who cares. IF that's not the case, I would prefer that you express your thoughts on the critic and the Beatles. Once you have presented YOUR point of view, we will talk again. If you didn't want to discuss, I wouldn't connect to Debaser :-))]

Attention: according to Scaruffi, Guns and Roses, along with the Pixies, played a key role in the evolution of hard rock towards grunge. So they are indeed derivative, but in the sense that they were able to rework certain elements, contributing to the evolution of the genre. The Beatles, on the other hand, are accused of focusing on catchy tunes at a time when pop music was trying to look beyond. Through melodies and choruses that appear beautiful but, according to him, are not superior and sometimes not even equally worthy of the melodies and choruses created by contemporary artists and groups.

I swear I'll get back to you. But first, do me a small favor: REGISTER. I want to make sure you're not the idiot from last time. And I want to be able to catch you again, in case you do something questionable. Thanks.

"I do not criticize Scaruffi because he belittles (...) the Beatles. Everyone, from George Gordon to Scaruffi, has the sacred right to have personal opinions. A critic does this, expressing personal comments: they appear "critical" not because they are objective (we are talking about art, not technology, and objectivity hardly applies!) but because they are expressed by an intellectual deemed particularly knowledgeable, capable of articulating thoughts more elaborated than the average person's. Aside from the fact that this Taliban-like dogma would be enough to make me loathe any music critic, what drives me against him is something much more specific, namely the "canon," the yardstick he uses to judge music quality: the fact that a musician writes music that is completely original compared to the past. (...) The beauty of a melody, in my opinion, cannot be based on logical reasoning, but on an inner impulse, a dialogue between the author's spark of inspiration and the listener's soul. Scaruffi maniacally applies the criterion of originality, thereby making a blatant mistake, a dramatic misunderstanding of the world around him. It is impossible to create a distinct divide between original artists and artists who "copy," between Kraftwerk and Philip Glass, between Zappa and Prince. Every human being, 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, therefore, EVERY musician, EVERY band is in some way DERIVATIVE from some other artist. (...) It is this crazy use of the criterion "original/derivative" to which he ties every evaluation that makes me laugh at him. (...) That he states that the Beatles are catchy musicians chasing choruses matters little to me: it annoys 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 solutions to enter the charts rather than selling their skin and soul to make good music: but the degree of originality in what they do is and must remain only one of the elements guiding a judgment."

I have already expressed what I think about Scaruffi in the forum following a review of the Wings, chatting with cece65. The discussion was then interrupted by a flood of vulgarities and blasphemies from some anonymous jerk. I see that here there are some good Christians :-))) I’ll share part of my contribution here because I see that the discussion is lively, and I would like to know what you think about it.

Excerpt from Piero Scaruffi's knowledge base: "Station to Station is (...) merely an embarrassing attempt to present itself as an avant-garde composer (ten minutes of nursery-school ideas, ten years after rock music had invented the suite-collage) (...) Rather than a 'fusion' of genres, it is essentially a 'confusion.' The operation suggests an amateur musician preparing different demos of various styles, knowing nothing of the hundred musicians who have been doing the same things for years. Like many of his other albums, this was an embarrassing foray into a genre of which Bowie knew nothing but pretended to be one of the protagonists." I'll leave the massacre to you...

...health! (sniff)

(s)fiduZia you mean, not (s)fiducia. And no, eh! Don’t you dare abandon me your KO greeting! ;-))))) Hi SC, you’re the best.