puntiniCAZpuntini

eeehhh... the same components, no. Blues For was almost entirely written by Bjork with an Oliveri who just followed along, and here Bjork isn't present. And I believe Bjork is infinitely superior even to the guest - although very talented - Grohl. Welcome, perhaps their masterpiece, is indeed a masterpiece because on bass there’s not that guy but Scott Reeder, and here Reeder isn’t around. Instead of a gentleman singer like Garcia, there’s Homme, who in Kyuss was never even allowed to throw out a "buh" on the mic. This is the band of Kyuss's guitarist (not leader, nor anything else, just the guitarist), who has then resurrected a fool like many others. Homme has a lot of bread and salami to eat before he can be taken as the sole composer of Kyuss, tons of it. The spicy kind. /// Beyond that, a beautiful Rock N Roll album.

It's Stephen O'Malley, not Steve. They are Burning Witch, not Whitch, and they are not active at all; they practically broke up before the release years ago, it was the final fight of a dispute that started with Thorr's Hammer (from whose ashes Burning Witch emerged). Aside from these trivialities, it's a nice review, especially since it's written by someone who isn't completely immersed in drone (people who think every album is a 5, even if you can't tell one from the other). But that stuff about Earth, I don’t know, it’s half heresy. On this album, there’s a song called Dylan Carson, come on. For me, the best are the White, I see this one as very much "let's give it a try, come on, let’s make it extreme and then see how it turns out." Going back to Earth: Hex & Hibernacolum, or 2 or Pentastar are way better than any Sunn album. I must say, though, that no one reaches the absolute perfection of the Sunn SOUND.

<<< shitty group >>> ah ahahahaha... blessed ignorant youth...

Why, what should I have said to make you believe that I read it? Should I have written in capital letters, like you do when you're frothing at the mouth with repressed anger? Should I have added so many exclamation marks, maybe following a “I READ IT” in capital letters, like you do when you're so nervous that you start headbutting the case and putting your fingers in the cooling fan? Should I have quoted you a passage, or given you a review, like you do copying bits here and there from the internet? But explain one thing to me (if you can): how long would it take for me to penetrate so deeply into your brain? After having to repeat a concept at least 10 times that is much, much simpler and verifiable on the pages of this site, try (even though you know better than I do that it will take you some time) to do the math. Take the abacus I made you buy a little while ago (since we know that you buy everything I recommend, it's proven), put it on the table and count. So: if it takes you 10 posts to understand that you are in blatant error verifiable everywhere, how many would it take to convince you of something unconfirmable? Or are you convinced that I’m so messed up that, like you, I start taking pictures of the book and posting them here? And above all, what do I care? It’s fun to point out that you spout nonsense every second, that you don’t follow a logical thread even if you shoot yourself, that you always contradict yourself, that you change the subject and create hypotheses completely out of thin air. That, yes, is fun. It’s not equally fun to prove what I read or don’t read, nor do I care to do so. From my perspective, you're my clown under pressure, my little lab mouse. The umpteenth forty-year-old with relationship issues on de-b (see HappyPippo, Flinstone, Enrybaxx). I don’t feel obliged to prove anything, I just enjoy laughing at you.

<<< I am kind to those who deserve it; I don't give pearls to pigs. >>> Look, look at how you contradict yourself! First, you said, "I see that with you common sense and good manners have little effect," which implies that you tried to be polite. Yet you didn’t; as you then confirm. You can’t maintain a logical thread for more than three words; you need to put in more effort, damn it, you need to put in more effort. I'm trying to help you, but in a desperate case like yours, the "patient" must put in some soul. << I DON'T BELIEVE at all that you have read this book. >> Well, believe what you want. After all, the opinion of a mentally impaired person isn’t that important. More effort, more effort.

"I see that common sense and good manners have little effect on you." Because, have you ever been kind? Try reading this discussion again. You have never been kind, neither here nor elsewhere. Not that I care, but it's just to point out yet another of your meaningless statements, thrown out randomly and without any real basis. You dream up things. It’s proven. "The fact that you REALLY READ this book lowers your credibility by 70%." Who knows what intrinsic meaning this statement hides... I can only imagine something Oscar-worthy...

<< Come on, everyone has seen that photo (now you've just changed it!). >> I've never changed a photo in my life: you, your brain is mush. Trust me, the photo has been the same for the past three years. << instead of "staying on point" and talking ABOUT the movie. >>> I'm not here to talk about movies. I don't care about them, and I've already written that above... you always need me to repeat things at least twice. But I’m being nice, I feel sorry for you, so I'm trying to help. For example, let's take these last meaningless sentences. << GIVING 1 STAR without even justifying it >> No, no. I justified it, you need to read carefully, say it out loud, and you might see that after ten times one thing at a time you can absorb it. I wrote that it ruined a great book. I really like the book, not the movie, so: one. <<< Critical ability = 0.01%, capacity for unfounded chaos = 90% >>> Come on, come on... you can't even count. 0.01%, added to the remaining 90%, makes 90.01%. And where did you leave the other 9.9%? Buy yourself an abacus, try it at home, and when you get there... come back to the board. Come on, come on.

Wow, you really are a desperate case. But I trust in that little bit of neurons that, somewhere remote, perhaps still function. So: I'll explain it to you again. No, there is no hypothetical condition. There is no "if," there is no oversight. I am not Vic Sorriso, without ifs. And you, it’s not that you have oversights, but rather you lack the bare minimum of analytical sense to make conjectures about "who is who." You can't do it, it’s too much for you. You just dream things up. For example, where does this toothpick... come from? I've never had a toothpick in my mouth in my life; I hold the toothpick between my fingers after eating, I use it, then I throw it away. I've never kept it in my mouth, let alone in a photo. Realize this: your brain is not functioning well. Accept it. Come on.

I (like anyone else) go where I want without needing you to invite me, I don't whine, I don't want appointments with you, no. And it’s not "an excuse" that you got me involved here, no. It’s a fact: you got me involved here. Yes. And you insist on this bullshit of Vic Sorriso/Zigghio. There’s no "if you’re not," no, there’s no "I must have messed up," no, there’s no hypothetical time, no. There’s only "I am not," followed by "you’re spouting idiotic nonsense." And the blah blah blah blah that you sprinkle throughout, from the little boy to the appointments to the spoiled one, are just a way to dodge a single issue: you always spout nonsense because your brain simply can’t reason anything of better quality. It’s a fact that proves itself every single time. Mine isn’t "breaking your balls," but testing facts. Without blah blah blah blah blah...

<< Music is a matter of subjective judgment. >> But, in fact, I specifically wrote << It could also be a fantastic sax solo, but for it to be the best of all is a giant load of crap. Also because "the best" doesn't exist. >> So it seems we agree, right? If you can't read, it's not my fault. <<< many people who think Chopin is musical Art and King Crimson is a silly band? >>> It's quite normal for a classical fanatic not to appreciate the attempt to incorporate it - very diluted - into rock. Maybe they see it as an attempt to belittle it (classical music). If you can't make that simple connection and believe it's all "de gustibus," well, that's not my fault. Try with a Fiesta, and you'll be back on track.