puntiniCAZpuntini

DeRank : 14,42 • DeAge™ : 7915 days

  • Contact
  • Here since 21 october 2003
Voto:
<<< Well, you also agree that (in the first case) if you mean Rock as "just that" Rock, then it can be said with reasonable accuracy that it's dead, right? >>> Yes, it can be said, and I say it, harshly. "A geenoo non va molto a geeneeo" (what a togo I am, right?) but this idea resonates with me. Maybe in 1000 posts we'll find a galactic consensus and finally Luke Skywalker will be able to share his thoughts.
Voto:
And today is Matteo Brutal's second birthday, so it must be emphasized that Cannibal Corpse don't play Brutal but Brutal-Grind in the early days and Brutal-Death in the later ones. The first one who says thrash without the H goes to the blackboard.
Voto:
Bon Josi_, the meaning is the first thing you said and with which (you say it, right? :D) you agree. Just know that I am an anti-scruffian, fussy, millimeter-delimiting person. Long live Brutal-Death-Ghotic-Non Wave-British-Metal... folk. A bit of thrash too, but never Doom.
Voto:
Amorinooo, you keep insisting on pinning everything on a damn name. You said it yourself <<< Music transforms, shifts its horizons, rock will be called by another name. >>> I’m one of those who, for convenience, calls it something else because it’s different from what came before. If you want to keep calling it the same way, good for you, but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong for using nicknames and/or derivations. For me, what you call Rock 80 is Glam, Shoegaze, Hardcore, Thrash Metal, Revival, Electronic, Synth Pop, Rap. What you call Rock 90 is Stoner, Trip Hop, Drill N Bass, Techno, Drum N Bass. Just because you group everything under rock because you like it that way doesn’t mean a damn thing. I’m not flipping any pancakes here; I’ve repeated the same things to you for 800 posts. Tell me where I’ve changed my line of thought, come on. You’re the attacker, not me. You’re the one who wants to prove something, not me. For 800 posts now, I’ve been saying the same things: you’re misunderstanding a damn name, call it whatever you want, but the reasoning doesn’t change. If you’re interested in continuing, let’s keep going; I find it entertaining too, oh.
Voto:
I remind you, however, that this is a review of an album. It is not a treatise on modern music. The point was to say that this is a well-made modern Rock album, not to claim "wow, rock is dead." I included the "discovery of hot water" as a joke. You always overlook this small but important detail in your critique.
Voto:
And I’ll say it again: if you admit that you haven't heard this record, you’ll look better.
Voto:
It's crystal clear that the 60s/70s rock has said it all. Grazialcaz. I find this phrase very similar to "60s/70s rock has already said everything it could say in the field of innovation; this is logical and evident for quite some time." Exactly the same. So, excuse me, since we’re saying the exact same thing precisely the same, where’s the outburst? Explain it to me because I really don’t get it; it seems exactly the same to me.
Voto:
Ah, one last thing: just say you haven't listened to this album. First you threw out the score but... allow me to doubt. It came out 22 days ago, you tell me it belongs to a "subculture"... so how come you've already listened to it and stored it away enough to rate it a solid and confident 3? Come on, nothing's going to happen, just say it: "hey, you've made me mad and I wanted to trash the album," that's understandable. If you have listened to it, let's talk about it, why do you give it a 3? What's wrong with it?
Voto:
No Amorinooo, you insist on misinterpreting my writing. I never wrote "it stopped," I wrote "it said everything," meaning 60/70 as a style, not a date. There's a big difference. In terms of rock records, real rock "hell yeah," I have as many from the 60s-70s as from the 90s-2000s and I keep buying them. Look at Sparzanza, look at Earthride, look at Hellacopters, etc. I understand that I didn't lay everything out plainly in the review, but the fact that it needs to be interpreted doesn't mean what's written is what you derive from it. Go ahead, you misunderstood. And there are no innovative bands of that kind; I can have a bust of Matt Pike in my room and an equestrian statue of Brant Bjork in my garden, but that doesn't make them innovative figures. Fabulous musicians, yes, but innovative, no. Since I've already written 70 reviews on de-baser, I don't think I need to explain what I listen to every time; I've written it millions of times, so I can take that for granted. In light of this, read everything again, and then we can go have a snack together, right?
Voto:
Fugazi, I'm in, that was a small revolution. They more or less reinterpreted old things, but there’s definitely a different approach to the instruments, with the rhythm section taking more of the spotlight than the guitar. But damn, 15 years ago. The conversation with Teesorinoo went beyond the guidelines I wanted to set; I wanted to talk more or less about now. I’m in and I'm not in with shoegazer; it's a revolution for sure, but come on, it's "sophisticated stuff." It's neither raw nor sweaty nor direct nor groovy, and it doesn't make you scream "Hell Yeah Rock N Roll!" I mean, Scaruffi likes it, and that says it all. I like it a lot too, damn if I do, but I feel it’s more of a direct descendant from Kraut & Floyd rather than from that angry 60s garage. It took something from that too, of course, but still, the final result is quite different. But Fugazi & co fits in perfectly. I like it little, but it fits.