Saputello

Many things said in this review interested me, and I didn't know them, but I won't rate it because it's not really a music review. I would say that when talking about graffiti artists, we need to distinguish the serious ones from the idiots. It's a bit like what happens in music too.

Everyone stop!
He put the sample down. Paloz, I want to meet you; from this extreme act of yours, I've understood that there is commitment and dedication. Even though I was being ironic. A 5 for your tenacity.

And I, like a fool, started reading it. More than saying "fantastic," "what were they smoking?" and "how original!" it doesn’t do much. But we can forgive it. After all, it’s just the tenth.

Yes, but you could have included some samples to give an idea of the album.

"a record that is a little classic, even more beautiful because it's hidden in the underbrush, or rather, in the meticulously maintained flowerbed (here) of a peripheral label"-----> this is the only thing that bothered me and with which I disagree. I don't understand why a beautiful album is even more so if no one knows about it. I think differently, namely that everyone should know it.

I vote for the nutcracker piece. Sublime.

5 to this review because it highlights this magnificent album. 5 for the album and for Bach, but it's a different kind of 5, because Bach was, in my opinion, the greatest, the initiator, the precursor of everything.
And John was pathetic, just like one of my favorite symphonies, Tchaikovsky's sixth. While Sabatino was pathetic like a frustrated retired professor struggling with boredom and lack of engagements. There's a difference.

So is it true that you take them in bunches of ten? Doesn't it hurt?

For example, the music that you consider pseudo-adolescent, I don’t even consider music, so I don’t talk about it. I didn’t divide it into age groups, but I said that certain music is usually listened to earlier. Then there are exceptions. This is my point of view, stemming from the fact that some have said that the Guns are adolescent, so crap. This is something I disagree with.

What a load of nonsense these comments are that keep attributing false meanings to my words. When I said adolescent music, I meant that it can be easily absorbed even by young people. I haven't even mentioned technical discussions, so take those to your sister. I've never evaluated an album based on the technical skill of the band performing. I simply pointed out that calling something "adolescent" is not a reason for mockery. Then if you cite Metanoia as an album to listen to by the Porcupine, it's obvious that you're trying at all costs to stir controversy. Too bad you're doing it with the usual banal arguments and incorrect examples. I absorb albums like Signify or Stupid Dream right away. They're not difficult listens, which is why they are often appreciated even by younger audiences, something that rarely happens with other, more inaccessible works that you might learn to appreciate later on. But they are not better just because they are less accessible (I never said that). Now let's hear the same tired argument, which will be something like "you only listen to niche music," completely disregarding what I've said.