azzo

Hello dear, hello Alessio. Thank you. But do you really not know this album? Shame on you! :-)(But maybe it's not even to your taste). P.S. Maybe over the weekend I can send you some private messages with what I need to send you. But you see, I get carried away reviewing albums instead of focusing on my little friends...

I liked the review, except that I don't quite agree with Stipe's "sci-fi" range. I seriously doubt he ever reached three octaves. As for "il dico," I'm sorry, but I have no desire to listen to it, even though the review does tempt me a bit.

:-)! Overbearing, in many decades of my life, no one had ever told me this, so thank you. Perhaps because it doesn't fall among the thousand flaws I have, and they aren't. In fact, I find that it’s rather Mr. Caseyjones who is overbearing, as he has three reviews of three rock'n'roll classics in the mother house, written with passion but completely useless. I had already pointed this out, civilly, during the Velvet session, the first time not voting for him. It didn’t help at all. Then I lost my patience (here’s one of my flaws, I have no patience). And so here I am pointing it out in an unrefined manner, so maybe the message gets through. Just because we are free in posts to say whatever we want here, couldn't I? What does being the masters of Debaser have to do with it? I allowed myself to point out that a bit of humility would do good, that’s all. It's horrible to have to say "I", but I, who fear I know the Jeffersons a little more than the reviews, like everyone here from Byorky to Super, from Psycho to Arnold, have only allowed myself to review one review of a lesser compilation of the Jeffersons, which probably in Italy will have thirty people (maybe not even Arnold). I believe this is more useful to the cause of the site and to those who want to discover the Jeffersons. Sincerely.

Damn it, Casey, you've pissed me off! With your nonsensical prose, your grammatical mistakes, your epistemological inaccuracies, your housewife impressions from Voghera. Stop reviewing rock masterpieces. Hundreds of people have done it before you, and better. You're a pest! And don’t say anything! You asked for it, oh damn, you really asked for it.

I hadn't even read the review; the comments are way more interesting. Now I find out you're talking about psychedelia. Well, you can say anything in this world, even that Bellucci is an ugly chick, but this has been considered for forty years the manifesto of anti-psychedelia, New York vs California. What the hell! Now I have to give you 1. Damn it!

Well, alright Super, if you couldn't make it, why should I manage to... it's been twenty years since we had a beer together. I wonder what happened to that!

P.S.: sorry for being long-winded, I'll wrap it up. Albini is my favorite producer, but for instance, I believe Gil Norton was a better fit for the Pixies. Even though Surfer Rosa is the reference point for both PJ and Cobain when they called Albini... so it's just a big mess! :-)

No, I don’t think even Nirvana have much to complain about :-). The conversation, of course, can get complicated. In the sense: generally, it's normal for a band, especially in the early days, to "suffer" a bit from the producer's influence and never be completely happy with the outcome. In my opinion, if someone manages to shape your sound, leading you to sell millions of records, you have little to complain about, unless, I exaggerate, they turn you from Black Sabbath into Britney Spears. I mean, it completely distorts you. Moreover, sometimes we listeners are more objective than the bands themselves. The classic example I usually give is "Rid of Me" by PJ Harvey, the production by Albini has sparked rivers of ink. For me, it remains the best production of the '90s, with an incredible guitar sound. Or at least, it’s what I would want. PJ, however, didn't like it, had a fight with Albini and didn’t work with him again, opting for Flood, who for me is worth half of Albini. We are always, however, in the realm of de gustibus.

@Black: well! I don’t think the production can complain too much, considering the album sold ten million copies, and, I might be wrong, it remains their biggest success on which they’ve based their whole career. Then again, I repeat, the guitarists also used it for "Temple of the Dog," so that means, all things considered, they were fine with it. I don’t really see that "metal" vibe. It seems to me that the production of "Ten" is more hard rock; that's where Parashar comes in, while O'Brien has a dirtier/grunge/punk style. If I can make a comparison to clarify, it goes from a Zeppelin-like production to a Who-like one. Lastly, the big ballads of Ten, as Don points out, they haven’t been able to do anymore because they are not in O'Brien's wheelhouse.

I'll send you the address to ship the turntable via private message. Bye.