jack daniel's

fedezan, the ferrets are right, the badger is a recommended bastard

"everything fell within decency": the first to make a vulgar and outrageous statement was you in comment 22.

bla bla bla, instead of whimpering, why don't you explain that sentence?

yes it's true, just rude, but only with assholes

@ vitols: didn't you say you had withdrawn from the calm discussion? Then again, as our good fedezan (may God bless him) pointed out, the phrase "used to pay Jagger even when he was dead" is certainly not something I wrote. If you can't even remember the nonsense you write, what can I say, go fuck yourself.

But look, the fuck you is not offensive; around here it's the typical greeting. I can't go read what you wrote in that review, in another review, or somewhere else. I'm questioning what you wrote here << john paid him even after he was dead as a singer >> This is what I read here. That you say other things on different pages doesn't matter to me, and I don't think I've contested you on other pages, so, let's cut to the chase.

"ask him to sing T&S....". Sure, just like I would have liked to see Lennon suffering on Rip This Joint. They had different ranges, different timbres, different styles... but how the hell can you compare them? This is sci-fi. It sounds like those Yahoo answers like, "Who's better? Freddie Mercury or Nicola di Bari?", and then here come the idiots posting their brain-dead replies like "Well, let's see, in terms of range Freddie was better, but Nicola's baritone voice is off the charts." FUCK OFF.

@Polyrock: there would be a small difference, I never said that the Who pay the Beatles, the Stones, the Led Zeppelin, or anyone else. I praised the Who because they deserve the praise, only I can do it without putting down others. @Vitols: Jagger covers an octave and a half? And what does that prove? It proves absolutely nothing. Just listen to Celine Dion then and stop being a pain, because saying “he covers an octave and a half” and saying he was paid by Lennon are worlds apart; there’s an ocean between them. You are the opposite of Felo because you put down different groups, but in terms of attitude and way of seeing things, you are exactly identical; you’re as much of a snob as Felo, just like white68, you all have the same sick way of reasoning: DEMMERDA.

Great Claudio. The album is definitely one of the best by Led Zeppelin, with absolute peaks like Immigrant Song and Since I've Been Lovin' You, and excellent rock tracks like Celebration Day and Out On the Tiles. Not to mention That's The Way and the stunning Tangerine. << a stubborn declaration of growth >>, it's true, it’s a mature album, despite relatively little time having passed since their debut. The critics of the time were, as usual, divided: Lester Bangs in Rolling Stone wasn’t very enthusiastic, to say the least. However, he loved That's The Way. On the other hand, there were the positive reviews from Melody Maker. And this was somewhat of a constant back then, negative from Rolling Stone, positive from Melody Maker. Over time, the folks at Rolling Stone took quite a few steps back, reevaluating, and not insignificantly, the entire Led Zeppelin discography. The problem was that they started out with a lot of bias; some reviews were scandalously unfair, and then, overwhelmed by the fame that Led Zeppelin earned on stage, they had to gradually reassess quite a few things and listen to their records a bit more attentively. Now they revere them.

The point is that White68 in post 35 first says that by the '70s there were better groups and that the Who had already given their best, but then in post 39 states that they were great until Who's Next, which is later than this. So, it seems to me a fairly obvious contradiction; if they were great until Who's Next, they were also great here, it seems clear. Then, regarding the discussions about technique, I repeat that for me it's better to leave that aside; first, because technique is only one of many components and not even the most important in my opinion; second, because virtuosity and technique are not exactly the same thing; third, because the claim that the Who were technically inferior would need to be proven. Whether someone rates this album a 4, a 3, or a 2 doesn't bother me at all; Fedezan and Ligdjs had already given it a 4, but very intelligently without coming up with some elaborate justification. In the end, tastes are tastes, no one disputes them, nor do I. However, if someone tries to act all knowledgeable, it’s better they use convincing and clear arguments; otherwise, they just end up looking silly, like white68 does here.