lux

Therefore, the comparison between me and DaveJon is, to put it mildly, far-fetched.

No way, Davejon thinks the Ubu totally suck. And he expects to be right too. I said that I'm not convinced by a track from the SM, and I don't expect to be right in front of anyone. It's simply what I think.

But do you have problems? Which of my ideas? Wow, I’ve been talking to the wind. Let me repeat myself; it’s become a pastime by now. So, regarding the jazz albums I’ve listened to, BB is the one that communicated the least to me. According to my sense of things, it tends to be cerebral (don’t start with the groove argument, please), so it didn’t convince me. I don’t dispute its historical importance, but I was disappointed because it’s considered a masterpiece, and it said little or nothing to me. Do I need to apologize to someone for this? Do you like it? I’m really happy for you, though; I’m not going to say, “How can you like it, etc., etc." End of discussion.

"The Soft Machine are expressive and the Ubu are mind games, for you they're the exact opposite." Another bucolic nonsense. I allowed myself to say that I am not convinced by a single track of the Soft Machine, not the entire body of work of the Soft Machine. In fact, the first two albums by the Soft Machine are ones I like and are my favorites from the band (at least from what I remember, since it’s been a while since I listened to them).

And you keep offending me, evidently hitting my pride. And you don't respect my idea, also because you, let's be honest, can afford to come to me and base the discussion on your so-called fucking objectivity (Based on what, then? Who are you?), I can't even afford to say "personally, jazz seems to me.... etc etc". Ajeje, just go fuck yourself.

"One doesn't think 'I don't understand, maybe it's my limit', maybe I need to feel more, one thinks 'I don't understand, it must be a trick'-----I had missed the final pearl. I must have repeated (just to change things up) at least 7 billion times that I have left my judgment on jazz hanging because the hypothesis that I don't understand it remains, close to the other hypothesis that tends to see it simply as not very communicative. More than this, I don't know what to tell you."

Well, at least you don't pay any attention to what I'm saying. You see, if I write it in uppercase, it sticks in your mind?

Thank you, Conte... But has anyone of you understood where Ajeje wants to go? I'm starting to seriously get a headache. "So I ask you for your favorite instrumentals in rock, and among others, you mention facelift." Listen, Ajeje, either read my posts with a minimum of attention, or just stop, I'm tired of repeating things to you. I DID NOT MENTION THOSE INSTRUMENTALS BECAUSE THEY ARE MY FAVORITES, I MENTIONED THEM BECAUSE I PREFER THEM TO BB’S TRACKS, I CHOSE THOSE 3 ALBUMS TO PUT UP A HOMOGENEOUS COMPARISON, BETWEEN "BRICKS", SO TO SPEAK. I SAID THAT FACELIFT IS ONE OF MY FAVORITES, NOT (PAY CLOSE ATTENTION) ABSOLUTELY, BUT MY FAVORITE (ALONG WITH MOON IN JUNE) FROM THE ALBUM ENTERED INTO HISTORY UNDER THE TITLE "THIRD". DO WE UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER? OR IS YOUR GOAL TO DRIVE ME INSANE? And on morphine, oh boy, it reaches its peak. Would you classify the piece under a generic "jazz" label? Say yes and the discussion ends immediately. DaveJon is someone who considers '77 the end of music; I care for him a lot for the few times I’ve talked to him, but someone who thinks like that I believe (I believe, okay) doesn't hold much weight in judging certain music. Finally, let’s take Laughing by Pere Ubu. Even granting that the track, in the first part, leans towards a free jazz style (and it’s true), you don’t need bionic ears to understand the MESSAGE of that free-jazz section. It has an amazing expressiveness, communicates paranoia, alienation, discomfort (because it’s free jazz played with an original ROCK style, thus immediate and visceral). The cultured free jazz that the PU use is merely a pretext, a simple means to narrate SOMETHING ELSE. And it doesn’t sound AT ALL like a "free jazz album" could sound. It’s "jazz according to Pere Ubu", not simply jazz. I focus on the final sound to decide whether an album speaks to me or not, not on the individual influences that make up the final sound taken from here and there. For this reason, even starting from theoretically "cultured" and elitist premises, the final sound of the UBU ends up being "down to earth," vital, blood-like. Because their music communicates. And it’s Rock, but so, so much rock. Not to mention that their music primarily derives from deconstructed garage. This should be the proof that I don’t start off saying that jazz doesn’t appeal to me out of bias, but it depends on how it sounds.

Come on, let's not joke around. First of all, "Probably because you obviously have doubts," you got there quickly, didn't you? Of course I have doubts; otherwise, I wouldn't have used phrases like "objectively," would I? "Intellectual Slightly All The Time? No, look: tomorrow I'll send you a sample from Third that has the main sax solo, and you tell me if that’s intellectual or self-referential"—there's no need, I've already expressed my thoughts on this, and I've answered you. FACELIFT, even while navigating the cerebral waters (we're still talking about a rock album, at least formally, intellectual, because that's what progressive is), I find it not only more interesting but also better able to communicate discomfort than Slightly All The Time, which at times uses a more "classic" means of communication: the sax and other instruments played in "freedom." "And Whisper by Morphine," what courage you have... but don't you see that it's a PRETTILY rock piece, absolutely rock in spirit (despite the band's jazzy influences)? What’s intellectual about that masterpiece? Can't you see its essence? "The Modern Dance." Oh my. And you want to compare it to BB for cerebral qualities? But it’s pure expressionism, visceral to the max... what do the little noises have to do with it? Just because "noise" doesn't mean cerebral. I'm talking about attitude, which in Pere Ubu is, apart from being highly recognizable, also extremely visceral. Do Thomas's laments seem cerebral to you??? Help. Besides, it’s pointless that you pick the track that suits you best to support your thesis (Sentimental Journey), because I could say "let’s talk about the rest of the album," and it's all a question of approach. I'm not saying I can't like "complex" albums. But within that complexity, I need to discern a sense. Sentimental Journey is, roughly speaking, 5,000,000 times more "rock" than a BB song. As for the Residents and VR, I could agree with you more, but even within their intellectual vision of rock, there emerges an attempt to say something that is, for me, much more comprehensible (especially concerning VR). In VR, for example, the cerebral aspect consists in mixing, for instance, metal, classical, and avant-garde. But having created their own collage style that doesn’t come off as gaudy or "heavy" (at least not always), the narratives of emotions flow in a way that is still quite "rock." I like and am fascinated by deconstruction (and I'm not attracted to too "classic" rock), as long as everything is then reconstructed with a new and comprehensible sense.

I don't complain about objectivity, but about the people who impose THEIR objectivity on me post after post. I asked for your opinion on BB, more or less explicitly, but I didn't say that I would adopt and make all your opinions my own. I listened to you, but for now I still stick to my own view.