Best Ever Albums

Re: Pierro Scaruffi

nibbles — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:51:51 GMT

Author: nibbles

Posted: 02/21/2009 00:51

I agree with his high scoring reviews but I disagree with even more of his low scoring reviews.

Re: Pierro Scaruffi

Elston — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 11:37:55 GMT

Author: Elston

Posted: 12/28/2008 16:37

Is the History of Rock book different from what you can access on his website?

Re: Pierro Scaruffi

JohnnyRocketFingers — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 10:50:46 GMT

Author: JohnnyRocketFingers

Posted: 12/25/2008 15:50

I got Scaruffi's History of Rock Music. I've read 2 chapters and it's very interesting. Although i don't agree with his political views and music reviews all of the time, i highly recommend this book from what i've read so far.

Re: Pierro Scaruffi

JohnnyRocketFingers — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 07:34:09 GMT

Author: JohnnyRocketFingers

Posted: 12/20/2008 12:34

I agree with you 100% bc1991. And i'm glad to see that i'm not the only one that cannot believe the discrimination against gays. Sometimes it does feel as though there are very few people who think giving gays their rights is the right thing to do

Re: Pierro Scaruffi

bc1991 — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:45:21 GMT

Author: bc1991

Posted: 12/19/2008 23:45

I have never been a fan of his reviews, ratings and anything else coming from him. His notes concerned on how he sees jazz are really really poor (how can live albums be usually bad albums??). If he doesn't know, someone can claim that all jazz is recorded live, since the most part of it is improvised.

His Beatles essays on how they suck, and how he tries to put them down is just ridiculous, he just turns the truth for his own convenience.

"Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for a good reason."
That just sounds absurd!! A lot of contemporary musicians spoke highly of the Beatles!! Jimi Hendrix played Sgt.Pepper live in concert only 2 days after it was released!! Bob Dylan said that some of their songs were outrageous,and that they were doing things nobody had done before!!

But what is the most pathetic is what I'm reading right now about his issues with gays, which I don't even want to talk about because you can't imagine how pissed I am right now.

Re: Pierro Scaruffi

Elston — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:22:48 GMT

Author: Elston

Posted: 12/19/2008 23:22

Unfortunately there's not many studies done, however, the ones that have been done show the children of gay parents show no social incompetence, actually showing signs of being more socially competent. Gay marriages are promoted by the American Psychological Association, as well as many other major associations in the United States. So at this point, it would appear that there's not much of a case against gay marriage.

Re: Pierro Scaruffi

Elston — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:14:50 GMT

Author: Elston

Posted: 12/19/2008 23:14

I was reading the exceptional excerpts on his website from the book The Nature of Consciousness (which is absolutely fascinating). Anyways, I made my way over to the Politics section and read his Nov. article on why he opposed gay marriage.

He makes an interesting point: there's not enough studies to show how a child's brain develops when parents are the same sex. The mother plays a huge role in how a child develops, so would this change at all for a homosexual couple?

The rest is basically conservative ideology. I don't see why gay people can't get married and have the same benefits of heterosexual couple. That's assuming they aren't having kids. It seems cruel to deny them the same rights. What is the point?

In any case, this point ha me scratching my head:

"In fact, for the first time in my life, i am worried about the fact that children might be "brainwashed" in schools throughout the country to 'tolerate' homosexuality..."

He obviously does not view gays as being equal, nor does he think it's "proper" behaviour.

I'll have to ask around and do some research to see if children turn out differently if they are raised by gay parents.

Re: Pierro Scaruffi

JohnnyRocketFingers — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:12:46 GMT

Author: JohnnyRocketFingers

Posted: 12/11/2008 23:12

Also White Light/White Heat and Psychic...Powerless...Another Man's Sac are both fantastic.Try listening Psychic again because it may take a few times, even for someone who is into very experimental music like yourself. But i definitely agree Twin Infinitives and VU & Nico deserve higher than a 9. Both fantastic albums that i doubt another album like it will ever be released. Twin Infinitives is indescribable. It has so many layers that every time i listen to it again i hear new things. Royal Trux are seriously taken apart music brick by brick to make a totally new sound. VU & Nico made everything good about rock music. The Velvets are the Godfathers of almost all music.

Re: Pierro Scaruffi

JohnnyRocketFingers — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:05:52 GMT

Author: JohnnyRocketFingers

Posted: 12/11/2008 23:05

What don't you like about The River? The fact that it's mainstream? It's an incredible album filled with heart felt lyrics, brilliant musicianship and fantastic production. The River is not just a snapshot but almost a photo album of American life of the time. The good, the bad, and the ugly. The River is what every pop rock album should aim to be. Springsteen is phenomenal.

Re: Pierro Scaruffi

Elston — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:34:12 GMT

Author: Elston

Posted: 12/10/2008 23:34

There's several of his 9's that I would drop down to 8.5 (The River!, Repeater, Psychic Powerless, White Light/White Heat); while a handful of 9's should be 9.5 (Twin Infinitives, VU & Nico & perhaps a couple more). There's even some 8.5's that I think should go up and down, but I still have a lot of listening to do. I can safely say that it's the best list I've ever stumbled upon.

Re: Pierro Scaruffi

JohnnyRocketFingers — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:17:44 GMT

Author: JohnnyRocketFingers

Posted: 12/10/2008 23:17

Most of Scaruffi's ratings are great and i end up really enjoying that album but here are that he rates highly that to me, are not so good.

Escalator Over the Hill
Slow, Deep, and Hard (to me, absolute crap)
A Picture of Nectar

What ones do you guys not like as much?

Re: Pierro Scaruffi

Elston — Wed, 3 Dec 2008 20:13:50 GMT

Author: Elston

Posted: 12/04/2008 01:13

I concur. I love Noam Chomsky : >

Re: Pierro Scaruffi

joannajewsom — Wed, 3 Dec 2008 20:03:08 GMT

Author: joannajewsom

Posted: 12/04/2008 01:03

Elston wrote:

As for anarchists, being an anarchist doesn't mean you blow shit up and listen to crappy music. Anarchy is simply the idea of abolishing hierarchies, so that everyone is equal. There is still punishment, enforcement, order, and social commitments, but power belongs to the people, rather than in the hands of a concentrated few.

Nicely put, Elston. I'm an anarchist (which may be confusing since I've been arguing for Israel on the other board- it's not as paradoxical as it may seem) and we always get stereotyped. Johnny, there are a lot of videos on youtube where Chomsky talks about anarchism, and I think gives a nice overview of it. You should check them out.

Re: Pierro Scaruffi

JohnnyRocketFingers — Wed, 3 Dec 2008 16:45:51 GMT

Author: JohnnyRocketFingers

Posted: 12/03/2008 21:45

Good point Elston and thank you for clearing some of that up. In my life though, all of the fundalmenatists that i've met are assholes and the anarchists are idiots, but the type that you described seem fine.

Re: Pierro Scaruffi

Elston — Wed, 3 Dec 2008 15:29:36 GMT

Author: Elston

Posted: 12/03/2008 20:29

JohnnyRocketFingers wrote:

Quote:

Maybe its all meant to be satirical and sarcastic, you know, the political stuff.
Maybe he's just really bored.

I doubt he's doing this as a joke (although i wish it were).

I'm perfectly fine with being having conservative views but denying gays marriage is just cruel. and i can't believe that some people actually think that others just choose to be gay. Who would choose to be ridiculed, denied rights, and looked down upon by society?

When it comes to politics there are a few things that i cannot stand. The first is, people who have been born into the middle and upper class and have never experienced living in a poor family that is just getting by and say that my money is mine and i shouldn't have to give any away. I am sure all of those people would want some money if they were put in a situation where life is rough.

Second, is people who say someone can't do a job because of race, religion, sex, etc. For example people who say Hilary or Palin are unqualified solely because they are women. Or McCain can't do anything because he's too old. Or Obama can't be our president because he's black.

Third, PEOPLE WHO SAY GLOBAL WARMING ISN'T REAL OR SAY WE SHOULDN'T DO ANYTING ABOUT IT. This is ridiculous and is just a one way ticket to very hot end of the human race. Solving global warming, to me, is the number one most important issue because if it isn't stopped we'll all screwed and the other issues won't matter.

Fourth, Extremists, Fundamentalists, Hypocrites, Radicals, Anarchists, and lastly, people who think they are 100% right and everyone else is wrong

[/quote]

I agree with most of your points Johnny and thought they were well made. I'm very glad that Obama is making climate change a central issue in his administration; this could help the U.S. mend relations with some European countries.

Fundamentalists and Anarchists get a bad rap because some of them are complete assholes. This is not true of all. I've met a fundamentalist Muslim who explained to me that being a fundamentalist is simply about being an expert about Islam. It does not mean converting people to it, just that you live, eat, sleep, & breathe it. As for anarchists, being an anarchist doesn't mean you blow shit up and listen to crappy music. Anarchy is simply the idea of abolishing hierarchies, so that everyone is equal. There is still punishment, enforcement, order, and social commitments, but power belongs to the people, rather than in the hands of a concentrated few.

Re: Pierro Scaruffi

Elston — Wed, 3 Dec 2008 15:20:59 GMT

Author: Elston

Posted: 12/03/2008 20:20

JohnnyRocketFingers wrote:

His political views i agree with but they line up with the democratic party and liberals so much more than the republican party so he's screwing himself over by running because he takes away from the person who will best represent him and he isn't going to win. Because of this unprofessional approach to running for president i think that Nader is an idiot.

If Democratic policies lined up with Nader's view, he would run for them. Democrats are hardly considered a Leftist party among political science scholars. That's why you have people like Nader running for the independent ballot.

Re: Pierro Scaruffi

JohnnyRocketFingers — Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:49:43 GMT

Author: JohnnyRocketFingers

Posted: 12/02/2008 20:49

To me Ralph Nader did cost Al Gore the 2000 election along with a conservative supreme court. His political views i agree with but they line up with the democratic party and liberals so much more than the republican party so he's screwing himself over by running because he takes away from the person who will best represent him and he isn't going to win. Because of this unprofessional approach to running for president i think that Nader is an idiot.

Re: Pierro Scaruffi

maxxy — Mon, 1 Dec 2008 19:15:49 GMT

Author: maxxy

Posted: 12/02/2008 00:15

Elston wrote:

I would have voted Ralph Nader. That guy actually wants to represent the views of the citizens, not just big business. I certainly do not swallow this vague propaganda of Obama - Change, Unity, Progress. Whatever else, it's meaningless. The guy is more war hungry than Bush for Christ's sake, though he's not as bad as Hilary.

Mmm I respect that if you want to vote for Nader. He does fell strongly about what he stands for, and a lot of what he stands for is good. The problem is, again, that the United States has a two party system and an electoral college, which makes it impossible for third party candidates. But that's old news. Oh and a lot of people really hate Nader because they think he ruined the election for Gore in 2000. Personally, I do like him,.

I think you're right in the sense that many of Obama's statements are political gimmicks, but what I think he WILL do is inspire a lot of other people to really start working towards a better future. He himself doesn't have to be the perfect president. He just has to do what JFK did, and that is make people believe that change is possible.

As for Obama being war-hungry, I completely disagree. In the United States political environment, showing that you are reluctant to go to war will lose you a lot of support. He has to say stuff like "I will not hesitate to go to war if..." whatever happens because if he does not, I assure you he will be severely reprimanded by many of his opponents and even some of his supporters. I like to think of it as the kid at school who doesn't want to fight anyone but says he will just so he won't get beat up. The last thing Obama or anyone else in this country really wants is another war.

Re: Pierro Scaruffi

JohnnyRocketFingers — Mon, 1 Dec 2008 19:01:41 GMT

Author: JohnnyRocketFingers

Posted: 12/02/2008 00:01

Quote:

Maybe its all meant to be satirical and sarcastic, you know, the political stuff.
Maybe he's just really bored.

Re: Pierro Scaruffi

Elston — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 14:22:09 GMT

Author: Elston

Posted: 11/30/2008 19:22

From what you've posted it appears that he has conservative political views, though I'd be surprised if he neatly belongs to the Right or Left because the guy is an Individual.

By saying he prefers polygamous to homosexual marriages, he clearly prefers relationships where children are created. I strongly disagree because there's enough people in this world, and gay people have been greatly oppressed for too long. Many gay people adopt children that have been neglected by heterosexual couples and made exceptional parents. I think his opinion on gays is pitiful.

I do, however, share his sentiments about Democrats. If a democract is president, that doesn't automatically make the world a better place, even domestically. Republicans and Democrats are primarily interested in forming policies based on the views of the corporate world.

Take the Clinton administration for example. They bombed a pharmacy in Sudan killing hundreds of innoncent people. The pharmacy supplied medication for the citizens and thousands died as a result. That was a terrorist attack which generated more victims that Sept 11th, yet no action was taken after the bombing.

Granted, voting Democrat is generally viewed as the lesser of two evils. If I were American I would have voted Ralph Nader. That guy actually wants to represent the views of the citizens, not just big business. I certainly do not swallow this vague propaganda of Obama - Change, Unity, Progress. Whatever else, it's meaningless. The guy is more war hungry than Bush for Christ's sake, though he's not as bad as Hilary.