easycure

What the hell is this? What does crappy production have to do with the quality of an album? This could be an argument applied to half of the albums released in the '80s (if not more), which undermines the idea that such production is so intentional and makes it debatable whether the anonymous person is even minimally capable of contextualizing.

Interesting advice. I'll search for them right away!

here, perfect! :-D

:-D I had sent you a private message; I thought it would be fine. Anyway, I've also sent an email to that address now. But, to cut to the chase: the venue is "bar monsta" at 18 Kentish Town Road; it opens at seven, the concerts start at half past seven, but there are two opening bands. Now, you can come directly for our concert, let's say around nine, but then we won’t have even one beer together. If you come for the second opening band, we can grab a beer together; if you come for the first opening band, we might even be able to have two or three. Do your math!

Nick email sent! But let me know if you received it as well..

I agree: simple things are often the most beautiful, but this really seems like a flat album to me, I mean in terms of compositional quality.

I only heard the first one, but I wasn’t that excited about it either... so I think I'll pass on this new one too. But I always enjoy reading your stuff, so that’s that. P.S. Don't forget the "concertone" on Saturday, since we’ll finally meet :-D

toh I hadn't seen this last comment. The review is, in fact, imperfect and presumptuous.. but the same could be said about any review.. and the same can be said about your judgment, which is therefore presumptuous, poorly argued, and thus imperfect. Nevertheless, I, the reviewer, ultimately agree with you; this, being among my first reviews, is absolutely insufficient; but your rather presumptuous and imperfect attitude still remains hehe.

I do not agree with the critic's definition of Alias. I also believe that a critic should have culture and aesthetic understanding, but they do not necessarily need to know the techniques of a particular art form. This is because art is expression, and technique serves that expression. A critic should be familiar with the devices, more for completeness than for anything else, but it is not necessary— and I repeat, often better that it is not necessary— for them to know how a certain device or rule is practically used. Moreover, art is a characteristic of the one who composes, writes, paints, etc., whereas culture, understood as the historical baggage of a particular art form, is precisely the prerogative of the critic, whose fundamental purpose is to discern (or rather, to try to discern) the beautiful from the ugly. Overall, the artist creates art, but culture, for better or worse, is shaped by the critic. Therefore, today’s rock criticism, by pitifully limiting itself to peddling trends, kills and denies rock as culture because it does not acknowledge the existence of a "beautiful" that goes beyond mere entertainment, that is, something that truly takes shape as art and can thus constitute a historical and cultural legacy.

I've read a bit of the discussion about Scaruffi... I will only respond to Alias's latest comment: you are not wrong, but be careful; he is much better than the vast majority (or perhaps the entirety) of contemporary Italian and international criticism, as he, with his systemic approach, avoids the bleak issues of hypocritical (and often rooted in ignorance) contingency. Because the risk, and unfortunately the reality, is to see hundreds of garage albums or "new new wave" reviewed as new masterpieces solely because there’s nothing better, that there is no avant-garde, that revivalism is rampant, and so whatever exists must be accepted as such. When I read reviews in various music magazines, it seems to me that I’m dealing with two categories of critics: the stupid and the dishonest (who are probably both). The former seem to possess a culture that doesn’t go back any further than 2001. The latter pretend to pass off groups with a tenth of the qualities of other so-called phenomena from previous times as new phenomena. It's sterile, useless criticism that doesn't evolve because it lacks the courage to address what it should address, which does not educate but enslaves, thus denying the very concept of criticism and nullifying its meaning. Much better to have a critic like Scaruffi... Furthermore, you say that many critics would like to be artists; I say, thank goodness they are not... they would reduce their analysis to the preconceived vision of the form of their mental approach... we would need more artists who have the awareness of a critic.