bjork68

Yes kosmo, I know, that was my irony. Let's call it self-dismissal :-D

Unfortunately, I won't be able to see you, too far away from me and my pockets are too empty :-/

The bread, that was a joke too, rather a vent for having been forced to listen to her, and the Punisher knows what I mean; he’s already reviewed it. I’m against curse words in reviews regardless of the artist for the sake of good taste. I admit that a fuck can fit in, especially to underline a quality of the reviewed album. But to tear it apart is just vulgar, plain and simple.

who knows why the mysterious dissipatio went to crush Hal's review first before complimenting you, punisher; perhaps he already knew everything and even calls you Lesto. For having signed up here only at the end of May, the kid is sharp!! :-DD you’re full of thoughtful friends here popping up like mushrooms :-DDD

ilpanes, the question about the staff was obviously a joke, but you see, tearing apart an album is more difficult than praising it. You have to justify your claims doubly, and it's not enough to say that the arrangements are crap, the execution is low-level, or that it's a sleazy commercial operation, not even if it sold like Vasco or Britney!! I repeat, I don't contest the rating given to the album, the fact that you don't like it and find it lacking in bite, or that you disagree with the stylistic choices or the tracklist. I contest the fact that there is practically nothing in this review that is based on solid arguments. And then, pi is right, it’s vulgar; what’s the need to be vulgar? You’re not reviewing Laura Pausini, you know? Go review that wretched cover album by her, that’s truly a scandal; unfortunately, I heard it at the hairdresser!! grrrrr. They tell you these things, punisher, for your own good, you know? Vulgarity, mediocrity, and approximation don’t pay off. There are negative reviews here of albums or movies I love or have loved, to which I’ve given even a 5. Because the arguments for the negative review, from the reviewer, were valid and, above all, plausible. Reread your review and see if there is one, just one valid argument concerning the technical and artistic quality of the album. You only limit yourself to swearing and saying it’s boring; you don’t even mention some songs. No one is asking you to be scaruffi or to do X-rays on all the tracks, but at least a minimal analysis. And if that’s asking too much, then I give up. And if in your response you still talk about everything except the album in question, the musicians in question, then I will raise the white flag and understand once and for all that it’s impossible to talk about music with you as one does with other users.

my keyboard is not working well and I write terribly, the mistakes are unintentional.

Look, I also reviewed Patti Smith and I criticize her on some aspects, you know?? And I agree that after "Wave" there are some things that are not up to par, but the pathetic mediocrity that you want to impose on her is baseless, just to make an impact, of course, because I've never seen you talk seriously about music. The discussion about how instruments should be played, how Grinderman sounds, and how the musicians who play with Patti Smith sound — what does that have to do with it? They are different records, artists, and styles, but does it connect?? I had asked you to substantiate your criticism regarding the arrangements with technical terms, and I still don’t have an answer... Where exactly did "Twelve" sound bad? I understand you might not like the style, how it has been revisited; maybe you preferred it to be more explosive, to put it simply. So, are you capable of talking about music seriously? Can you read a staff?

I've already listened to Grinderman, I don’t need any advice from you, you’d be the last person I’d ask.

I would say that Hal has perfectly captured the core of the matter, in my opinion.
........"A beautiful, simple, and fascinating album for me, which is unlikely to please static and constipated critics. Easy to criticize because it doesn’t allow for flights of fancy, digressions, or deep analyses. There is indeed very little to say about its essence: twelve beautiful songs and a timeless voice. The end. There’s nothing more to say and nothing to understand."

As usual, you didn't understand a thing. It's not your opinion that I contest; you're free to be disgusted by this album and your style. It's how you wrote the review that is shameful and approximate. So tell me, what are the terrible arrangements you’re talking about? The only song worth ignoring here is "Everybody Wants to Rule the World." The others are perfectly respectable, without being exceptional, of course, that’s clear. And that's enough. If you understand it, great; if you still don’t get it, I'm tired of this. I’ve given you more than enough rope. Take the criticism like we all do!