Scanzi vs. Sal Da Vinci: When Criticism Becomes Just Noise

Audio Podcasts

Scanzi Versus Sal Da Vinci When Criticism Becomes Just Noise 2026 03 03

Listen to other Podcasts

There's a fine line between legitimate criticism and gratuitous attack. A line that, in recent days, Andrea Scanzi seems to have crossed in his social media posts dedicated—more or less explicitly—to Sal Da Vinci.

Let's be clear: criticism is part of the game. It's good for music, public debate, and even politics. But to be credible, it must be based on competence, restraint, and intellectual honesty. When, however, it takes on allusive, biting tones, systematically aimed at attacking not only the artist but an entire cultural landscape—that of Naples and the South—then the question arises: are we still talking about criticism or simply calculated polemics?

In recent interventions, gnawing—let's call it by its more popular name—is disguised as musical, social, and even political analysis. The problem is that to operate authoritatively in these areas requires specific expertise. Personal opinion amplified by Facebook isn't enough.

Scanzi is not a music critic.
He is not a sociologist.
He is not a political analyst in the technical sense of the term.

He's a journalist—and a good one, when he sticks to his field—but precisely for this reason he should know the weight of the responsibility of words, especially when speaking to large and already polarized audiences.

The suspicion of the algorithm

A legitimate yet uncomfortable doubt then arises: what if the goal was simply to get noticed?

In the new social media ecosystem, the most polarizing content is the one that travels the most. We all know it. Influencers know it, politicians know it, and even the most experienced communicators know it. The mechanism is well-known: you sting, you allude, you provoke. And the algorithm rewards you.

It is the logic of permanent tension, which someone in politics has already exploited with great skill - just think of the communication machine nicknamed “the Beast” built around Matteo Salvini.

If that's the goal, then many things make sense.

But the point is not Scanzi

This editorial isn't intended as a "response" to Scanzi. Frankly, it's not worth it—and, as mentioned, many of us don't even follow his posts unless they're reported by readers.

The point is another, much more serious: Judging is legitimate only when one has the tools to do so with credibility. Otherwise, the risk is not of hitting the target, but of making a bad public impression.

Sal Da Vinci may or may not be liked—that's the beauty of music. But to reduce his success to a caricature or a polemical target is to miss what he represents for a huge segment of the public. And, above all, it underestimates Naples and the South, which have always produced popular culture that speaks to millions.

The smartest answer

The truth is that controversial figures have always existed. And they will continue to exist. They are part of the background noise of public debate.

The wisest answer is often the simplest: ignore.

Because in the end—and the history of journalism teaches us this well—time is a gentleman. And it always separates what remains from what was merely momentary noise.

Sal Da Vinci will continue to sing.
The public will continue to choose.
And the rest, most likely, will be forgotten.