azzo

Dear Casey, you've vented now. In the future, avoid reviewing the first albums of Stooges, Doors, or Zeppelin. Thank you.

I don't understand a damn thing. So, did this review get written by old Andrewramone or young Andrewramone? If it was the old one, good job, you're learning. If it was the young one, I'm adopting him. The line about the girls fogging up the TV with their breath is brilliant. In any case, 5. Just space out the reviews, one every now and then, and read it many times is better than many with mistakes.

But if I invite them to play at my niece's confirmation, can I then try my luck with Cadaveria on the benches in the little gardens?

@Oleinar: I was just pointing out that the production of the records from the Grunge era is essential. A point also supported by the Captain, with whom I had the chance to discuss it. "Ten" and "Temple of the Dog" are, paradoxically, more similar to each other than "Ten" is to the subsequent Pearl Jam productions. This is because Parashar has a very airy, spacious, and expansive sound compared to O'Brien, who is much drier, direct, and incisive. For me, Parashar's production remains unsurpassed, while O'Brien has never fully convinced me, even though everyone used him at the time. So it might be that I don't understand a thing. Maybe the reviewer is right, and I apologize for telling him he doesn’t understand anything; perhaps he just expressed himself poorly, and I didn’t get it when he said that O'Brien is closer to the real essence of Pearl Jam, who are famously huge fans of The Who. I’m free to think, and here I get closer to Tollani, that if Pearl Jam had tried to produce again with Parashar, they would have made records that were a bit different from those following "Ten," which all sound quite similar to each other. P.S. There’s also a shitty album by Litfiba produced by Parashar, which, however, has sometimes beautiful sounds.

Well, this time I’m not going to go down with the machete either. Sooner or later, someone had to say something sensible about this record. Aside from Joestrummer’s, this is the only one worth reading. On the fifth day, I’m still at 5 stars. Who cares, you might say. And I tell you: you’re right, you are.

You don’t have to apologize, on the contrary, harsh reviews are welcome, they help us save a bit of cash. But you’ve sparked a bit of curiosity in me; there are some bootlegs with Williamson on guitar that are really good. I mean, better a bad Stooges than...

Yeah, you’re right. By the way, Parashar is the same producer of the Temple of The Dog album. It’s clear he really didn’t like it. And anyway, that wasn’t the point I was trying to make. But the production, in those years, was never personal. You can feel O'Brien’s touch, just like Parashar's. It would be like saying that Albini’s production on "In Utero" isn't noticeable.

A bit skimpy for one of the greatest masterpieces of rock'n'roll of all time. More could have been said...

Dear goodwolf, I am compelled to inform you that you don't understand a damn thing and are talking nonsense. What the hell does it mean that the production of "Ten" is a bit impersonal? The sound of the early Pearl Jam records is given by the producer; just look at the difference between "Ten," one of the most beautiful productions of the '90s by Parashar, and the subsequent productions marked by 0'Brien. I request the intervention of comrade Epifani for your immediate expulsion from the union.

Of course, Supersoul, my argument was cultural and general, meaning that it seems to me that barbarians faced death better than we do. If I touched on a sore point, I’m sorry; it was absolutely not my intention. As for the film, I appreciated the final serenity (by the way, one of my favorite endings is that of "Dead Man"). I am absolutely in favor of euthanasia, just as the film is.