puntiniCAZpuntini

DeRank : 14,44 • DeAge™ : 7967 days

  • Contact
  • Here since 21 october 2003
Voto:
The phrase makes perfect sense. In progressive rock, although it’s a broad genre with various "shades," there is still a central mood that makes you go "okay, this is prog." In Krautrock, it’s the same thing. Even though both are wide movements, there are kraut elements, prog elements, and borderline elements. Also, the phrase "between mayonnaise and lemon" makes sense as well. You don’t count the factors that include something; you just calculate the final product. Otherwise, we might as well call everything "music," and Ramazzotti would be the same as Jimi Hendrix since they both use the guitar. Cope exaggerates and takes a stance beforehand, but he doesn’t spout nonsense. Besides, the albums you’re talking about, you’ve only recently listened to and overdosed on them suddenly, while he has seen them come out one by one and had the time to really listen to all of them. You’ve got a lot of bread and synth to consume before you label Julian Cope as a bullshitter, no worries.
Voto:
In England, they didn't have the same huge spirit of overturning everything. Beautiful is the phrase from one of the commune Amon Duul: "our fathers were the foot soldiers of Hitler, we wanted to be something different."
Voto:
I got the edited reprint of Kraurock Sampler last week. There are some strange contradictions between Progressive and certain borderline groups between kraut and progressive, like Amon Duul (one), which in the end are very, very prog. It’s hard to read a work that tries to be serious if you first read "prog is good for propping up little tables" and then that Psychedelic Underground is a masterpiece. Although, just looking at a photo of him and you understand everything. Anyway, it’s a very useful book that I should have read earlier: it would have saved me a ton of reading to discover a lot of bands. One thing is really ugly though: the cover.
Voto:
<<< Gilmour (out of Pink Floyd... nice theory...) you detest him >>> Another lie. I never said I detest him. If you don't read the words without giving them your own meaning, you'll never understand. You're not dumb; it's just that you're using the wrong approach. Because, as you can see, you're a gaggio.
Voto:
<<My bullshit (which ones?)>> These -> <<< what should be a debate >>> Bullshit. What should be a debate is your preconception. It doesn’t have to be anything in particular, step outside the box. <<< He called everyone idiots >>> Bullshit. Only those who went to the concert, everyone means 3 billion people, count correctly. <<< We may be fools >>> Bullshit, I said you are just that, nothing more. <- There they are.
Voto:
No, I'm sorry, too many exclamation points. I don't enjoy these high-adrenaline discussions. I'll come back when you're ready for a challenge of semicolons.
Voto:
Indeed, I scold my subjects.
Voto:
...and pinocchio will reign supreme...
Voto:
Who says it's not a lie is not the son of Mary, is not the son of Jesus, special guest the yuppi flu!
Voto:
Gilmour, the guitarist of the Floyd: wow. Gilmour soloist: a fucking nobody. I’ve never contradicted myself; it’s you who weave meanings into it that, being wrong, disappoint your expectations. I repeat, if you want explanations, read the 9000 discussions about the Floyd. Anyway, the point is simple, I respect Gil's work with the Floyd, but I don’t respect Gil entirely. <<< what should be a debate >>> Nonsense. What should be a debate is your preconception. It doesn’t have to be anything particular, get out of the box. <<< He called everyone idiots >>> Nonsense. Only those who attended the concert; everyone means 3 billion people, count better. <<< We may be foolish >>> Nonsense, I said you are only that, nothing more. <<< he seems like a real idiot to me! >>> But at least I don’t tell all the lies you do. Liar.