Larrok

What is sberto?

It was "intelligenti pauca."

So, excluding the first 10 lines which read like an introduction and are essentially a harsh critique of the excessive "lyricism" of the other reviews about the album, there are 7 lines left to describe the album (ZOT I'd say!) in which three things are mentioned: 1. "we are faced with a successful acoustic live episode, complete with a suggestive and emotional atmosphere." Wow! Really? It's an acoustic live performance with a suggestive and emotional atmosphere? Thanks, because this consideration had never surfaced in the other 5 reviews... 2. "Cobain had dirty hair," an interesting detail considering this is a review of an audio CD... 3. "Cobain doesn’t look at you, he's uncomfortable, embarrassed," no one had ever noticed this either; it's truly amazing how you've managed to grasp all of that. The last sentence is what saves it from a smoking 1, and it is also shareable, even though it could have simply been added as a comment to any of the other reviews.

If they were all at the level of "judgement day" or "poundcake," I would give them a solid 3 or maybe even a 4.

But is there a hall of fame for the month's nonsense? Maybe an archive... I would be curious to read it.

probably in jazz the recording date is more important compared to a rock record, although not always

Yes, certainly, but the point is that in that case you can't consider it a work from '74 even though the songs were composed that year, because it was recorded in '92, but you also can't fully consider it an album from '92 since the musical result is a product of the historical period of the '70s... but maybe the whole discussion doesn't apply to jazz.

I hadn't said it lasted more than a year, anyway my doubt is in comment 48.

If your criterion is the completion of the work, then consider the case of an artist composing 10 songs in '74 and recording them only in '92; what year do we consider it to be?

So, the editing is not part of the work?