1. I don't like track-by-track reviews; I think it's absurd to quote the lyrics so extensively. 2. It seems you've repeated "Joe Jackson" 11 times (I counted quickly), not to mention other simple "Jacksons" and at least one isolated "Joe," in a review that, aside from the quotes, isn't even that long. 3. I don't like the tone of an obsessed fan at all. 4. I actually like some of the images they use, and if they were mixed better and synthesized with short quotes and brief descriptions of the sound, I would definitely appreciate it. For now, though, we're not there at all, and to say he's unimpeachable for me, at least until Body And Soul.
To me, it seems absurd not to "extensively" quote the lyrics. You might be right about the repetitions, but I wasn't interested in creating a "nice review"; I just wanted to write something that would delve into the album, into its meaning. I believe that often, at least in the best albums, the meaning of the album is even more important than the beauty of the music itself. I don't mention the sound much because the album is very homogeneous in style and atmosphere, and I couldn't repeat the same thing for every song, even though you are right that I could have included a few more details. Perhaps I'll make some adjustments to such details in the future. The lyrics of some songs are so interesting that it's impossible not to include them in the review. I find Joe Jackson to be very underrated in this regard as well. I read in a review of Elvis Costello (ironically written by a rag like "Rolling Stones") that Joe Jackson doesn't have the writing quality of Costello... well, I would actually say the opposite. Jackson's writing is simpler than Elvis Costello's, but simplicity also means "clarity," making it easy to understand what is being talked about, evoking emotions, and creating poetry, which I think Costello struggles with.
1. I couldn't care less about Elvis Costello, and those who compare him are making a mistake in my opinion. 2. The usability of a review also depends on how it "flows" in reading. When do you ever see formal reviews (yours certainly doesn't have an informal character, although your fandom is all too obvious) that include full texts of the songs?! In newspapers or websites (this one included). On Debaser at most there are people who quote ONE full text at the beginning or end of a review. If you want to quote many, you could describe more generally, but with shorter quotes. 3. You arrive at a fundamental point on your own: "I mention the sound little because the album is very homogeneous in style and atmospheres, and I couldn’t repeat the same thing for every song" ABSOLUTELY TRUE. But in my opinion, this consideration should lead you to say: it's better to describe the sound and convey how it sounds instead of describing every damn track. Instead, you come to the opposite conclusion, which ties back to point 2: Is it really so delightful for someone to read how every track sounds?! At this point, next time, in addition to the full texts, you might as well attach Jackson's sheet music too ;-) 4. I don't want to be a pain in the ass: everyone does what they think is best, but I’m telling you that FOR ME it just doesn’t work that way, and I’m saying this in response to what you just wrote.
1. I couldn't care less about Elvis Costello, and those who compare him are making a mistake in my opinion. 2. The usability of a review also depends on how it "flows" in reading. When do you ever see formal reviews (yours certainly doesn't have an informal character, although your fandom is all too obvious) that include full texts of the songs?! In newspapers or websites (this one included). On Debaser at most there are people who quote ONE full text at the beginning or end of a review. If you want to quote many, you could describe more generally, but with shorter quotes. 3. You arrive at a fundamental point on your own: "I mention the sound little because the album is very homogeneous in style and atmospheres, and I couldn’t repeat the same thing for every song" ABSOLUTELY TRUE. But in my opinion, this consideration should lead you to say: it's better to describe the sound and convey how it sounds instead of describing every damn track. Instead, you come to the opposite conclusion, which ties back to point 2: Is it really so delightful for someone to read how every track sounds?! At this point, next time, in addition to the full texts, you might as well attach Jackson's sheet music too ;-) 4. I don't want to be a pain in the ass: everyone does what they think is best, but I’m telling you that FOR ME it just doesn’t work that way, and I’m saying this in response to what you just wrote.
Hi Carlos, don't worry, I’m not upset about your "consideration" of my review. Apart from the "fuck" you could have spared me, but it's fine, I’m not offended by something so trivial :) :). Now let me tell you something... FIRST POINT. I’m not interested in being a "critic" and I don’t care how "reviews are usually written." SECOND POINT. I’ve read quite a few reviews in my life. I know how they’re written, but I’M NOT INTERESTED IN FOLLOWING THAT SCHEME. THIRD POINT. I write because I enjoy writing, and if when I reread the review it seems nice to me and works for me, that’s okay. I thought this review was nice, so I published it. If you don’t like it, I'm sorry, but I won't take it to heart. FOURTH POINT: I haven’t included the entire texts (not even the last one, from which I quoted a nice part because it was too beautiful). FIFTH POINT: if I seem TOO MUCH OF A FAN to you, it’s because I am, and I don’t give a shit (sorry for borrowing your term) if it annoys you that I seem TOO MUCH OF A FAN. SIXTH POINT: I described the sound, and I believe it’s clear "how the album sounds" (although I could have gone into more specifics about the genres covered, which is your only valid point). SEVENTH POINT: I still thank you for the "criticism," it can always be helpful! :):) Take care and have a great evening!
EIGHTH POINT: if you compare Elvis Costello with Joe Jackson, there’s a reason for it. I also think they are very different, but since they are always compared, it crossed my mind to bring it up :) :). Anyway, if you want, this is the second point in your favor :)
This is not a points game, DavidWillpower. Your arguments are nothing but a series of personal opinions. The only thing that matters to me is that you've indirectly validated my perspective on how reviews are generally written, and that's enough for me (it was a topic), because your disinterest in "following that pattern" strikes me as self-defeating if the result is this (personal opinion). I couldn't care less about the points you offer in your favor ( :D ) because they were not real points challenged by what I wrote, but just simple considerations. And I don't understand why someone should be offended if the other uses the word "cazzo." It would be ridiculous for you to take offense. One last thing to tell you: you could have saved all the points because in each of them you basically state, "okay, this is your opinion, I think differently." But it's fine anyway, don't worry. Until next time.
Until next time :). Anyway, yes, of course, I agree with you because if you didn't like the review, I acknowledge your point of view. That said, I stand by my opinion. I wrote it with my heart and I believe it shows. But not with the heart of a fan, rather with the heart of a person who was struck by the depth of a musical work. And I think you should reassess the "power" of the lyrics in an album. Because you say that I don't describe the "sound". But really, do you enter into an album if the reviewer "describes" the sound and style of the song? Really?... For me, the lyrics are often much more important, at least if they are good lyrics (as is the case with "Night Music," where they are very important because it is through them that you enter the soul and heart of the record. Trust me). With this, I don't want to convince you that mine is a beautiful review, just to make you understand that your "point of view" is just a "your point of view." Best regards, see you next time.
My point of view is my point of view, okay, but it also applies to you. I’ll only respond to two things you still have on the table: "And I think you should reassess the 'power' of lyrics in an album." Huh?! Did I say that lyrics have no "power" or value?! I'm saying it's pointless to quote them in full in the middle of a review; that seems quite different to me. If I thought such nonsense, I wouldn’t even listen to Joe Jackson, don't you think?! And to answer your direct question: No. I dive into the album by listening to it, not by reading a review, no matter how good it may be. Reviews don’t help you get into an album. Ears do. Bye Bye.
eheh :), yes indeed, I fully agree with you :)! ...I usually read reviews just to know if the album is good or not and I might not even read the whole review, I first go listen to the album and then if I like it, I finish reading the review. Anyway, I’ll repeat it because I’ve already written it, the lyrics are not quoted IN FULL, as you say, they are extracts, sometimes a bit long but they are still extracts :) :) :). Peace and love brother :)!!
The fact that you think the citation of texts "sucks" is your personal opinion. I like it, and in fact, I find that reviews done this way would be more interesting. Again, peace and love!! See you soon!
To me, it seems absurd not to "extensively" quote the lyrics. You might be right about the repetition, but I wasn’t interested in creating a "pretty review," but rather in writing something that would allow the reader to dive into the album, into its meaning. I believe that often, at least in the best albums, the meaning of the album is even more important than the beauty of the music itself. I quoted the sound sparingly because the album is very homogeneous in its style and atmospheres, and I couldn't repeat the same thing for every song, even though perhaps I could have added a few more details, you’re right. I might consider changing some of those details soon. The lyrics of certain songs are so interesting that it’s impossible not to include them in the review. I find that Joe Jackson is greatly undervalued in this respect as well. I read in a review of Elvis Costello (coincidentally written by a hack from a music magazine like "Rolling Stone") that Joe Jackson lacks Costello’s quality of songwriting... well, I would argue the opposite. Jackson’s writing is simpler than Elvis Costello’s, but simplicity also means "clarity," making it understood what is being talked about, conveying emotions and creating poetry—something that Costello seems to struggle with significantly.
The most inspired Joe Jackson, let's say from '79 to '89, is significantly better than Elvis Costello; there's simply no comparison in terms of originality, diversity, but also solely because of the quality of the songs—he's a giant by comparison. Not to mention the voice; aside from "Punch The Clock" (wonderful), Costello has never truly convinced me. Just listen to the albums from that period; Joe Jackson's compositional quality manifested almost immediately. He was more oriented towards the world, towards America, while Costello was too "English."
I'm not a fan of Joe Jackson, but my collection is not indifferent to the must "Night and Day." It gives the right weight to the damn illness that plagued him. I appreciate the lyrics presented.
Anyway, if you appreciate "Night and Day," I believe you'll like this. Although the style is very different, there are elements that reference that album, such as Joe Jackson's magnificent piano playing, which is highlighted here even more than in "Night and Day."
:) great!! Yes, it’s an album that grows slowly. At least that’s the effect I remember it had on me back in 1994. It’s especially beautiful to listen to with headphones, where you can hear all the nuances of the sound and the arrangements, which are really incredible in this album. Try it to believe it :):)
The album is very beautiful. I enjoy meeting a true Joe Jackson fan. I understand everything you've written because it's very introspective and at the same time genuine. Night Music is a delicate work. I realize that the critics have somewhat overlooked it or that it didn't reach the top of the charts. In reality, it's a joy to listen to music meant for a few.
Hi :)! ....Yes, "Night Music" is indeed a great album. Some critics have snubbed it, but many others have praised it. The commercial success was poor, but I still remember seeing the "Night Music" tour in Florence, at the Teatro Verdi, and it was sold out, as always. In the end, he’s always had a loyal fanbase (not so small) that followed him through all his most extreme experiments :) :). That's no small feat!
Beautiful David, beautiful Joe... I admit I turned my nose up after the purchase, and I also admit that this remarkable album has become one of my favorites. By the way, I even had the honor of seeing the following tour live, Night Music. Great review, the lyrics are spot on, explaining his particular period. A musician who couldn't be more chameleonic, but always at the highest levels. Soon, a week of Joe Jackson, and I hope you'll join.
ahah :) :) ! What is "the Joe Jackson week" about? :) :)!! Anyway, whatever it's about, I'm in :) :) ! I'm happy to find fans of "Night Music." A superb and sought-after album.
In turn, only numbered JJ pieces will be posted, indicating the year of release and the album from which they are taken. For a week, the admirers will thank us, while the detractors will hate us.
but what do you care if it was wanted or not.....thanks to certain little characters that roam around here and hammer on certain groups, I've come across stuff I wouldn't have even glanced at......
ever put on a headset?....go on YouTube, choose what to play, click on the share arrow, copy...go to debaser top right LISTEN, paste next to DID YOU KNOW and click, but not before commenting....
DavidWillpower
19 feb 18Carlos
19 feb 18For now, though, we're not there at all, and to say he's unimpeachable for me, at least until Body And Soul.
Carlos
19 feb 18DavidWillpower
19 feb 18DavidWillpower
19 feb 18Carlos
19 feb 18Carlos
19 feb 18Carlos
19 feb 18DavidWillpower
19 feb 18THIRD POINT. I write because I enjoy writing, and if when I reread the review it seems nice to me and works for me, that’s okay. I thought this review was nice, so I published it. If you don’t like it, I'm sorry, but I won't take it to heart.
FOURTH POINT: I haven’t included the entire texts (not even the last one, from which I quoted a nice part because it was too beautiful).
FIFTH POINT: if I seem TOO MUCH OF A FAN to you, it’s because I am, and I don’t give a shit (sorry for borrowing your term) if it annoys you that I seem TOO MUCH OF A FAN.
SIXTH POINT: I described the sound, and I believe it’s clear "how the album sounds" (although I could have gone into more specifics about the genres covered, which is your only valid point).
SEVENTH POINT: I still thank you for the "criticism," it can always be helpful! :):)
Take care and have a great evening!
DavidWillpower
19 feb 18Carlos
19 feb 18DavidWillpower
19 feb 18Carlos
19 feb 18And to answer your direct question: No. I dive into the album by listening to it, not by reading a review, no matter how good it may be. Reviews don’t help you get into an album. Ears do. Bye Bye.
DavidWillpower
19 feb 18DavidWillpower
19 feb 18DavidWillpower
19 feb 18DavidWillpower
19 feb 18Kism
3 sep 19Almotasim
19 feb 18DavidWillpower
19 feb 18DavidWillpower
19 feb 18Almotasim
19 feb 18DavidWillpower
19 feb 18DavidWillpower
19 feb 18Falloppio
19 feb 18DavidWillpower
19 feb 18dsalva
19 feb 18Falloppio
19 feb 18dsalva
19 feb 18DavidWillpower
19 feb 18dsalva
20 feb 18Falloppio
20 feb 18dsalva
20 feb 18DavidWillpower
20 feb 18dsalva
4 mar 18DavidWillpower
4 mar 18dsalva
4 mar 18DavidWillpower
4 sep 19DavidWillpower
7 sep 19