puntiniCAZpuntini

It's quite comical how in Italy, those who vote on the left can say "I don't vote left, but I vote anti-right," while for them, those who vote on the right must vote for Berlusconi. Not just any party, not even "on the right," but they vote specifically for Berlusconi, him and only him. It's rare to find someone who understands that among those millions of votes, there are still people voting right because they are right-leaning—without being in love with Silvio—and there are also people voting anti-left because they expect something more than just an anti-Silvio program. When the left understands this, and especially that many people couldn't care less about Silvio whether he's in charge or arrested, they could manage to take away at least 15-20% net from the PDL, if not more. But it seems they will never understand that only about 5% really votes for Silvio, him and only him.

No, you’re not there yet; in fact, you’re drifting off into the philosophical. There’s nothing to explain and no one who needs to understand anything. I’ll repeat it: if you don’t read the review of the broken bottles and the hair without a crest in its natural color, you’ll always be off track.

Ah, by the way, I also like Gun Club (a recommendation from ajejebrazorf), and especially Minutemen (those a lot more). Maybe I wrote otherwise above, I have no idea, but that's how it is.

Not everyone is here, the best was in some other review, I remember like 300 (without exaggerating) comments in a row between me, him, jimmorrison, and genoo. Here you can't understand why it worked in fits and starts between one and the other. The judgments are obviously confused and confusing because I don't give a damn about the topic, the discussion itself is fun, even if we were talking about the coppà malù. I'm here to chat while I work (like right now), not to dig up some great truth or some wonderful topic. If you find the other discussion, maybe you'll get a better vague idea, I remember a ton of laughter.

I don't know, ask him. It’s him who comes back here every year to tell me "you don't like punk because you don't know it," for me the discussion ended three years ago. I enjoy responding to him, and frankly, I don't base the nonsense I write here on whether "someone cares," I’m just talking to him for three years now, and you are just the umpteenth idiot who has read three posts out of 400 (they're not all here, and let's say that I'm adding mine and his together) and hasn't - rightly - understood a damn thing. But he feels the need to interrupt and to say the great phrase "who gives a shit." Clearly, he gives a shit, what do you want me to say, maybe he won’t write for another year, but sooner or later he will come back to repeat the same things, and I will always happily repeat mine. By the way, who the hell are you?

"You've picked the wrong person to have Punk Vs the Rest of the World with, basically." First of all, you’ve inserted yourself into a discussion that’s been going on for 3 years (with breaks of even a year), so you can’t possibly know a thing about why I talk to him the way I do. And above all, I don’t give a damn about talking about punk vs. the rest of the world, since it happens to be the only musical genre I couldn’t care less about. As usual, it’s him who comes here throwing around accusations of ignorance left and right, nitpicking useless details. Soon enough, he’ll bring up the old story of when he was in Washington with safety pins in his eyebrows, listening to straight edge stuff but smoking and fucking, and a thousand other bullshit stories that I already know by heart. I’m not mad at you, Franci; I was just informing you that - in here - I always know perfectly well who I'm calling an idiot and who I'm calling a great person. Not because I'm god, but simply because I’ve been around for 6 years (even a few months more than the registration date), and I’ve had plenty of time to form my opinions. And to wrap it up: to me, knowing a ton about punk is a con.

And then this is a review of an avant-garde Jazz group, and it's about 1978. It was obvious to mention punk because the musicians themselves mention it in the title, and I followed suit. I didn't write yet another review of the Dead Kennedys (who don’t make me shit, but they don’t excite me either, just to avoid you telling me the name of the drummer's aunt) saying "what crap," but I wrote about the Area saying "how beautiful," peppering it with nonsense for reasons I don’t quite recall that connected with the rest of the homepage that day. You're the one who wants to convince me of something, not the other way around. And this bullshit "In theory, the Wire are good, the Buzzcocks are not," keep it to yourself, I didn’t write that. And regarding the Wire, if I really had to pick a favorite, it would be Pink Flag, not 154. I have all their albums, but I even bought Pink Flag. A roommate of mine had the complete original discography of the Buzzcocks (except for that EP you mentioned, of which I was unaware), I've listened to it six million times, and I think it’s crap.

<< And how do you know that I'm ignorant about music in general? >> Your comments, and obviously your listening habits. Also, the fact that you focus so much on who came out a month before in the years, in that "wonderful '76 where everything began." I've never seen you on a Jazz review or any of its ten thousand derivations, I've never seen you on an electronic review or any of its ten thousand derivations, I've never seen you on a metal review or any of its ten thousand derivations, I've never seen you on a rap review or any of its ten thousand derivations, I've never seen you on a classical review or any of its ten thousand derivations, I've never seen you on a review of psychedelia or avant-garde or any of its ten thousand derivations. I've always seen you calling ignorant those who don't know that the Buzzcocks released an EP in '76, but you, stepping away from punk, post-punk, hc, post-hc, new wave or any of their ten thousand derivations, have a black hole. Like now, you insist with: << talking about things you don't know at all. >> I don't need to know the name of the first bassist of Rancid to say that I think they suck; it's enough for me to have heard their records. And I never said that I think every punk derivation sucks, I only think that the "purely genre" stuff, or however you want to call it, is awful. I don't understand why you're so sure that if someone doesn't like punk, it means they've never listened to it. I've probably listened to at least 300 punk records (some well, some casually) and many of them disgust me. I love Zen Arcade, but Nevermind The Bollocks is garbage. You're the one who's sick; I like everything except punk, you don't like anything except punk. So don't come to preach to me with your know-it-all attitude, because the last idiot who can talk about music here is you.

I didn't know the Buzzcocks' era. As for the rest, I repeat: no. You can say whatever you want, but you're too ignorant about music in general to understand what I’m saying. For you, "having broad views" means moving among four or five subgenres of rock n roll, and you're convinced you're talking about who knows what.

And then, if you really want to be nitpicky, it’s actually the Buzzcocks who copy from Wire, since they debuted several months later. But still, no, they are not similar at all. A Buzzcocks record has a sound (sound, not notes or anything else, just sound) that is poor, meager, and skinny. A Wire record is recorded six or seven million times better, and that’s no small feat, for me.