MaTaCà

I hate Pete Doherty because it's also the fault of bastards like him that total ignorance about drugs reigns. Think about it, even alcohol is a drug. Scientifically and chemically. And yet if I walk around with a half beer I can pass for a chill guy, while if I light up a rebellious joint then everyone starts calling me druggie and all sorts of things. Why? Because alcohol brings money to the state, with its monopoly. Drugs, on the other hand, bring money to those shitty mafias. Then, of course, there's a whole discussion about hard and soft drugs, but I don't think it's the right time to elaborate. I truly appreciate that you understood what I was trying to say and that you didn't take it badly if I was a bit brusque. Unfortunately, every time I read or hear simplistic discussions based on false beliefs (on any topic), I get this polemical and angry urge. Hasta Luego, never lose the desire to review, beyond everything.

<<We can give credit (or blame, you decide) to Pete Doherty for bringing back a custom from the past: getting high while recording; of course, the results are evident afterwards.>> This is really a load of crap, sorry if I may! I doubt there has ever been a "well, now in Rock (or music in general) no one gets high while recording, hurray!" I pretty much agree with almost everything you said. However, I don't like it when you speak summarily about drugs. Getting high is wrong, stupid, pointless, illegal, and that’s as far as we go. If a jerk like Pete goes around acting like the stoned God of Rock, that’s his issue, not drugs’. This is a jerk both "with" and "without" drugs. Then, you can't read nonsense like <<and the clear belief that while the band members were playing, they also had needles injected into their arms>>... come on, even my grandma doesn't have such bland visions. It seems like drugs jump at your neck even if you leave them sitting on a table or anywhere else. Drugs are crap (I'm talking about hard drugs), but the real crap is the one who uses them, trust me. Review the music without too many moralizing comments. I strongly assume that most of the artists you admire and consider musically worthy have been, are, and will continue to be, good lovers of drugs. That it’s wrong is clear; there’s no denying that. But to blame it all on "her"... that's just wrong.

May the Stoner be with you, brother Jurix. Great review. I don’t know the band in question, and I regret it because I regularly feast on bread and stoner. I’ll make sure to check them out. Soon I will return the favor with (hopefully for everyone) another great band... Stay tuned.

I didn't like it. I have the whole album and I haven't even managed to listen to it all yet, can you believe that? I’m all for experimentation, but this is just distressing. Just to be clear, it's personal taste.

listened.

I can't take it... I tried listening to it but it's not for me. Then I hate lightheartedness. The cancer of the modern man. The same goes for "And it's an incredibly tasty album, filled with cotton candy and candy, colorful and carefree, that lives up to the promises made in the first album." Diabetic. I prefer tension, anger, and dark colors. For me, it remains Mi(n)ka.

Only you can think of the Clash while listening to these guys. They really piss me off. I consider them quite far from the likes of Franz Ferdinand, Kaiser Chiefs, Oasis, and so on (and I don’t love everything from that bunch either). A little MTV band. The review is horrendously long and not objective at all. Desculpe, hombre.

But have you reviewed the O.S.T. of the latest 007? Rubbish aside, your review seems, over everything, a bit biased. If I can, I'll listen.

So what "cacchiuz ti frega" about whether I decide to vote or not? ;-)

Alright, then I’ll have to focus directly on the discography... anyway, I'm working on the third one. I just need to find the time to listen to it carefully.