koopa

I know I'm heavy, but am I writing perhaps out of fear of being misunderstood? Maybe. I get into scuffles, I play tricks, I nitpick. Tired, I might be boring, irritating. I hope (un)consciously for witty, clever, and cheeky responses. But it’s not my fault: when I engage in serious discussions, I get misunderstood and mistreated (discussion rece csi-lineagotica), so I ask myself: cui prodest my intellectual honesty? And I throw myself away in sterile (these yes) chicken fights. A childish spoiled big kid that I am. Anyway, logic, strictly speaking, seems logical to me. For easy, a well-deserved extra point for his rece. And what’s seen is seen.
peace&love.

Oh wretched me! Oh miserable me! What have I done that is so grave to deserve such a tirade? Look, I'm telling you this because I care about you and I see that deep down you're a good girl: you're making a bad impression... don't throw out empty and baseless statements. Justify. Explain. What have I misunderstood? I swear on the heads of my five children that I still don't get it. What have I deduced, "who knows what"? And when would I have overstepped the bounds of good education?... I’m not the one who avoids confrontation; it's you who accuses me of misinterpreting but doesn’t explain where, when, how, and why. I don't want to be told that I'm right; I'd much prefer to be told "you're wrong because...".
Despondent regards.

we are serious but not solemn: the meaning of your words was clear but debatable, and in a place like this, nitpicking and sparring seems like a fun thing to do, so "I took the bait"... anyway, strictly speaking, if a statement is not always true, it is obviously false: the phrase "the sky is blue," which seems "true," does not take into account that the sky can sometimes be gray or reddish or pink, thus the statement is false. the phrase (taken out of context) "a song with distorted-raw-scratchy guitars has a more personal sound than one with clean acoustic guitars and ultra-melodic arpeggios" is therefore false. as for the fact that no review escapes (my?) a priori logic, I have my doubts. rather, my certainties. regards.

I too had read it very well before commenting on it, thank you. Defending one's work is admirable and worthy of respect, but a raw distortion is "personal" just like an ultra-melodic arpeggio... in general, 0. Let's say that your words are the (unacknowledged) offspring of a deep-rooted common prejudice whereby a dirty, distorted, raw sound is ipso facto "more artistically" valid and respectable than a "clear," pleasant, and clean sound. This, of course, is not always true, thus false. Seems logical to me.

Perhaps you should have read it a little more carefully before posting? Writing, for example, that the second piece starts better because of the distorted, raw, and grating guitars does not imply a (pre)judgment a priori?
coelum, your "animalistic" sense of smell does not deceive you...

Sterile controversy? I mean... in what sense? Did I perhaps write something gratuitous, irrelevant... sterile? And where did my hermeneutics fail? Where did I err in interpretation? I even responded point by point: on the why and how of the comparison, on Battiato and Ferretti as "men," on the digestibility of both their texts, on Battiato's "cultured" production... my response seems anything but sterile... sterile, for crying out loud, it's you, with those two half-hearted lines that make no sense, my online insights leap and bounce around lively and vigorous.

Beyond the considerations about the singer, whom you find to be derivative to the nth degree and okay, I’m struck by some of your certainties that emerge here and there... the acoustic guitars and melodic arpeggios seem to suck "regardless"; distorted, rough, and scratchy guitars are already a merit "in themselves". It seems to me a somewhat limited view of the issue. Pop doesn’t "stink" of singles; pop also smells of singles, of nice choruses, of clean melodies, of catchy little tunes, of "a bit of lightness and stupidity." The album, by the way, is not bad at all...

(continues)... anyway you answer me by yourself: verses unable to communicate anything other than to a receptor indoctrinated in Ferrettianism don’t seem top-notch to me. The quotation, the culture, in "light music," should be enjoyable on multiple levels... it’s beautiful to listen to "e ti vengo a cercare" thinking of your beloved, only to realize that we might already be abstracting, from the beloved to love "in itself," ultimately landing at God or whoever in His place, anyway One above good and evil, perhaps renouncing oneself. Then, of course, there’s also the archaic mass or Gilgamesh. as well. But there it’s enough to choose; Battiato offers this and that, dichotomizing his artistic production. I was saying today in chat what I think well captures the Ferrettian evolution/involution: from the sad erection of cccp (funny and "deep") we move to the man's member that rises and pushes of csi (more serious and pretentious) to the straight cock of pgr (forced attempt to return to the "original" immediacy but filtered by the subsequent heaviness of ciessei-ana). That's all.

ah, well, yesterday it didn't work. anyway, sorry for the farewells to your soft adagios, in vain, but you know, that's life. as for poor little koopa, know that your latest post is the final blow to his illusion of "expository clarity." but how. where did I imply that I prefer Battiato to Ferretti because he expresses the same concepts in a more "suitable" way? which same concepts? if anything, he expresses concepts that are, let's say, difficult, let's say, sectoral, let's say, high in a more "digestible" and accessible manner. let's say. but not the same. different. and in a different way. I don't have the (un)fortune of knowing Battiato the man or Ferretti the man, but only what emerges from interviews: the "public" Battiato seems banal and somewhat predictable. the Ferretti man is always "against," a forge ("of temporal power"?) of provocative statements... about the death penalty he said, "whoever kills deserves to be killed by popular fury, immediately, in the square." wow. he really is ahead. he really is beyond. and here I am, a fool thinking that the death penalty is wrong always and anyway...

Dear Solomon, I think by now it is clear why I compared Ferretti and Battiato; just reread a couple of my replies (vain? I realize that) to Vanamente with some effort to understand the why and the how of it: this comparison was not for its own sake but in order to refute a reckless statement made by Vanamente. The continuation of your post then raises dreadful doubts about my clarity of expression: I have never written that I seek more "sparkling" stuff nor that I simply abhor those who write "challenging and difficult to understand" texts. On the contrary. Ferretti himself, in the days of CCCP, with his caustic (and fiercely funny) slogan-are was, in his way, profound and “committed.” However, my impression is that of a gradual yet regressive heaviness in approach that has eventually led to a sterile pose and self-referential narcissism... I find the CSI-PGR too constructed and in their own way artificial, not too far conceptually from the pre-cooked anger of Metallica's St. Anger (note: I am not comparing the PGR to Metallica). But perhaps they are not for me, perhaps I am not among "those who can grasp the essence" and therefore spot the "sublime poetry." Perhaps. But perhaps not. Best regards.