Franci!

From the duo Sfascia-Marco Carta, I would have expected something a bit more "sparkling." Here you go! :)

Editors, Bloc Party, Killers, Franz Ferdinand... I'll never understand why the word "indie" is associated with them. Infamous world.

Anyway, from a little trip on the Space, I prefer the Canidisara. Those Lametini...

Yes, I'm young. And those who talk about it are ignorant. Your speech makes perfect sense; my suspicions are only awakened by what I've happened to read and hear and by my character as a nitpicker. A' ri-ciao

For me, it’s still too simplistic, in the sense that I can buy thousands of different amplifiers, different pedals, and I can forget or tune the guitar in even more different ways. Your argument makes sense, but for that “sound,” hundreds of bands could be misclassified – and indeed you know how many I’ve seen. Well, I’m not against your argument, with which I would actually find myself agreeing, but I hate using hindsight. I could repeat the same things endlessly. I’ve already used too many characters in this exchange on a topic that, among other things, doesn’t really concern me. Bye.

I don't agree with almost anything. The album is an embarrassing pseudo-thrash, characterized by such a poverty of ideas and an overall emptiness that it feels like it was written by them along with the RoadRunner producer (and I mean that literally). You then put Slayer in the same sentence, which is the antithesis of this. "The initial one-two punch 'Ignition' - 'Detonation' may not reach the levels of the famous openers from the main founding fathers, but it's close." This, for me, is almost blasphemy. But isn't Detonation the one that ends with that annoying melodic whine? Well, if you want, I'll give this CD to anyone and I'll even pay for shipping. :)

Here the Cro-Mags are the most fitting example of my discourse. They take something that was almost a philosophy of life, a desire to get their hands dirty with the world, and transform it into something else where they play at self-ghettoizing and being tough and pure. Alright, this isn't music but the background. We can continue this elsewhere if you want, but I don't find it right to do so in this review.

Ah Bartle, are you at the MusicDrome then? The gist is this, then we veered off into other nonsense. He says that since the '60s there were bands defining their sound as "stoner sound," so people were talking about stoner 30 years before the '90s. And I disagree and tell him that that's a "case" (because there are hundreds of garage bands from that era playing even heavier than Sir Lord Baltimore) and that there wasn't a desire to institutionalize a specific genre. Stoner as a precise and well-defined genre of rock (not just that "stoner sound") started to be talked about in the '90s. So we don't agree from the get-go and we should have left it there and talked about the C(anal)is. He thinks I didn't understand a damn thing about the discussion, and I think the opposite. So all good and I return to my duties.

I admit whatever you want. But punk and hardcore between '75 and '83 were something else entirely. They should have called those groups punk and hardcore, and given ALL the others a DIFFERENT name. Because it’s a completely different story. Not for the quality of the records, not for the attitude on stage, not for the sound, not for this bullshit. It was all on another level. Alright, I'm going to get some fresh air. Bye Taurus.

You, however, want to persuade me of something, while I just wanted to express my opinion without wanting to deny anything to anyone (as I usually do). And right here, you put yourself on a different level compared to your charming interlocutor, and that's not okay. I'll tell you the last four pieces of nonsense, then at most we can talk about the games next Sunday, because it's an increasingly self-referential discussion that is impossible to have since I'll keep my opinion, you’ll keep yours, and that's that. A) You yourself said that it was the Sleep (I didn’t know, but I easily believe it) who said to do "stoner". Then you go on about history and say that some garage bands from the '60s defined themselves as "stoner". Great, I get what you're talking about, but yours is still retrospective analysis; you frame forty years of music with hindsight and distort everything. Sir Lord Baltimore defined their sound as "stoner," but they didn’t want to "institutionalize" (let's put it that way) a genre. The world, the serious sites you talk about, the "all" you talk about began to talk about Stoner as a specific genre in the '90s. But I already said that. B) I play, to my knowledge, you don’t. Don’t talk about sound if you’ve never plugged a Big Muff into a Stratocaster, at least. But I might be wrong here; let’s avoid making it a "cel’hodurologie". C) << How can you have an "idea" about a "term"? >> This is the best part of the whole discourse. You say that you shouldn’t reason about a term, but you should just use it, period. A convention must have some usefulness, otherwise, it wouldn’t be used, don’t you think? If the particulars have no points in common, you can't generalize and you can’t use a conventional term. If you still do, you’re a fool. Do they have the same sound in common? You’re right, I never said anything about that. But that term is used by everyone to indicate a certain scene, not to lump groups together with such a sound. If I go on some stoner webzine, I find reviews of some stoner-psych-doom bands, not of Sonic. You lump everything together with the story of sound in hindsight, and hindsight never works well. D) You have a certain tendency to "dominate" the interlocutor. Avoid the macho poses; I don't want to persuade you of anything, unlike you. It’s an exchange of opinions. Relax.