puntiniCAZpuntini

But who told you that I distinguish Coltrane from Cannibal Corpse at the highest level? I wrote to you: For me, Coltrane and Cannibal Corpse are DIFFERENT. That doesn’t mean that's "the maximum." Read carefully, between one bottle and the next, you failed revolutionary piece of shit. "I was punk when it was still worth being one"... do you realize? "I was punk"... oh you idiot, find yourself a better purpose in life, you big baby.

Figures of shit? Hit and sunk? Break some more bottles, grow up a little. Here, no one gets hit and sunk, there are no figures of shit. These are exchanges of opinions. My opinion is that you are a galactic idiot who believes he is discussing debatable subjects about reality, when instead you are talking about sounds that create a different reaction in every brain. Maybe you’ve broken one bottle too many, you still haven't figured it out: technical incompetence exists... but it doesn’t make sense to talk about it in the group's evaluation. Let’s see, I’ll give you a Punk example: there are green bottles and blue bottles. You can objectively say: damn, this is a blue bottle. But when you go to break it to occupy the grocery store, whether it’s blue or green doesn’t matter, they’re all good for breaking. The discussion about technique is a separate matter; you can talk about technique and the value of a group, two different discussions, but I don’t find it sensible (and neither do you) to talk about non-value as if it lacks technique. You are convinced you’re talking to a technical progger, but I’m not a technical progger at all; I like 99.9% of genres in music. That is, all except punk. It’s not that punk is the only non-technical genre. I couldn’t care less about making a fool of myself; do you have any idea how little I care if my character makes a fool of themselves? The only one who takes themselves seriously on the pages of a server is you… idiot.

It's the second, homonymous or "In To The Void We Travelled." Pair track 4+5 = my goodness. Everything is fabulous, but 4+5, my goodness.

And finally, I wanted to make a strong point about what makes me laugh the most: <<< You’ve got no credibility, isn’t it time to limit yourself a bit? >>> Credibility? Do you really think you’re in the European Parliament? Do you think I use the nickname Caz and write reviews about sandcastles and boiled cod... for the sake of credibility? On a site where every album on earth gets 4 to 5 stars? I come here to share simple opinions, to say stupid things, and to have fun with idiots like you who believe they’re talking about music "objectively," with "credibility," with "unique weight"... come on, get yourself a sensible hobby. In music, everything is opinion and nothing is truth, except for sales which mean everything except something that affects quality. I have no credibility, I don’t want any, and it practically doesn’t exist. Everyone expresses their views believing it’s just an opinion, then there are idiots like you who are convinced they have Credibility. Grandpa rotten, give me a break... now the old punk is here to teach us what’s beautiful and what’s not, but just stop it.

PPS: you have at most turned my boring day into the corner of the angry punk because someone thinks the stuff he venerates is crap. I wrote that review for fun while reading angry people. You got angry, I had fun. Do you really think I wanted to praise Area by saying that Punk is shit? That "1978" in the title has nothing to do with punk, I just wanted to read some spits, I enjoy it that way too. Your spits from a disappointed old man really entertained me. If instead of breaking bottles you had turned on your brain, maybe you would have understood it too.

PS: I have the original discography of Velvet, Dream Theater make me VOMIT.

Technique is not an objective value in evaluating a group: sure. But it's quite different from saying technique is not an objective fact. Technique is an objective fact, even if it doesn't objectively influence evaluation. Learn Italian, you wrote two different things up and down. Then I'll repeat, as I wrote above: I don't give a fuck if someone is technical or not, so take your talk about Brian Eno to Basentini, not to me. That PanterA is just a rehash of Venom and Black Sabbath is a load of crap that shows how limited you are to one fucking genre and nothing else, and you know exactly which one I mean. That I use double standards: obviously, I use 175 different weights and measures, there is no objective weight like the one you think you have. My son, a couple of lies—as my father was thinking about creating a decent world when you were a bottle-smashing punk kid, not spitting on the ground like the jerk you are. Oh dude, go back to the retirement home for disappointed punks, the revolution has been over for a while now, and you have lost.

Which one? I don’t think I’ve given away the fifth one to anyone, but I’ve sent the first four far and wide. Instrumental or with a singer?

And then, on all the groups you mentioned above, if there are any (!!!) those are certainly not PanterA. They reigned supreme in their environment for years on end, producing one masterpiece after another, flipping the attitude from True to totally ridiculous when Deathster and Blackster were raging hard and pure. They are objectively a milestone of their movement. Then, whether they are the best band of the '90s, obviously, there is no best band of the '90s, but it is equally true that putting a (!!!) after PanterA is a serious load of bullshit. Wash your hands before typing the name of the Brothers Darrell, original, innovative, and imaginative like few, incredible stage animals that kept crowds of thousands of people jumping for two hours. PanterA in their field are not to be discussed.

Yes, but even though they are great bands, the fact remains that they can't handle their instruments. Technique is an objective fact. The "greatness/talent/quality/beauty" of a group is not objective because someone can technically suck but still be a great artist; but the fact that they suck technically is objective. I don't care if someone is super technical or not, but technique remains almost objectively measurable. But then, you're 40 years old and you’re still talking about the "best band"... aren’t you a bit too old for these kindergarten discussions? "Are the Led Zeppelin better or Charlie Parker"... on what basis do you evaluate such a comparison? It’s pointless and stupid.