puntiniCAZpuntini

These sound hyper-progressive, hipster, highly technical, melodic Zorn style. Like a Masada but with 800 instruments, plus technological inserts in the mixing. Exactly super fancy and complicated.

<<< I have a broad concept of rock, as it should be >>> Good, but I was making a different point. I have a broad concept of MUSIC. Not everything that is modern music is Rock; how can you say that Portishead is Rock? I call it Modern Music, or simply music. There’s rock and all its sub-genres, there’s electronic music and all its derivations, there’s Jazz and all its derivations. These are things I've already written about, no need to repeat, just read again. You may have every reason in the world, but you’re making a completely different argument from mine. I’m the first to say that modern music is alive and kicking, but if you want to call everything "rock," good for you. However, if you want to have a discussion, let’s first try to understand the point of the conversation and then we can talk. Talking about all modern music doesn’t appeal to me; it’s too much of a galactic ramble, too long, a discussion that has been done 800 times.

Ah, I almost forgot: Back In Black... innovative? Back In Black definitely falls into the category I have in mind, absolutely. But come on, calling Back In Black innovative seems like a galactic stretch to me. What could possibly be innovative about Back In Black compared to the early AC/DC? They even hired a replacement singer trying to find the voice that was closest to the previous one... recycling doesn't get more extreme than that. It's beautiful, eh, a masterpiece, but innovative? Not at all, come on.

You’ve completely misunderstood the whole discussion and the entire review. Perhaps the point isn’t clear to you; when I say "all we can do is cry," I'm actually saying the opposite. Anyway, aside from all the electronic albums you mentioned, from Nine Inch Nails to Kid A to Portishead, which have absolutely nothing to do with what I mean, aside from all the psychedelia you've included, which also has nothing to do with what I mean, apart from the crossover of the RATM that I brought up as an example to define one of the exits (that is, the mixings), there are a few albums in the mix that fit my point. Take Kyuss, I gave you the example as well: Kyuss = remix of old sounds. Personally, I revere the band and it's my favorite genre, but claiming that they innovated seems exaggerated to me. They remixed. As for Pearl Jam: no discussion, as beautiful as they might be, but innovative not even close, not even a remix, it's quite obvious. Bruce Springsteen: come on, as beautiful as Nebraska is, but innovative? Not even close. All the other albums don’t seem to fit at all in the category I'm referring to. Read it all carefully because from the albums you included I see that you really haven’t understood what I mean. You might have all the reasons in the world, but we are having two completely different discussions. And I repeat, taking everything and more, from Portishead to Kyuss, results in a lengthy rant that’s too long to carry on. Reread, I believe I explained the point well. Everyone understood what I wanted to say; evidently, you read it in a hurry.

Go Babbà, show us!

Everything I find new from the '80s onwards is all "complicated" and/or pretentious stuff. It all starts from the use of electronics by Pink Floyd and the overlapping times of the various Prog instruments. I can't find bands that are able to innovate while remaining simple, direct, easy on the ear, and understandable from the very first piece. Everything that fits those criteria seems to me like revival. Great revival, but that's what it is. I go crazy for Fu-Manchu; to my ear, they sound like the quintessence of Hard Rock, my favorite Hard Rock is played by them. However, that doesn't mean they have innovated anything. Big riffs, straight bass, and drums at a thousand, distorted solos = as predictable as can be on the face of the earth. I like it a lot, but it remains predictable.

First of all, you need to make me understand what you mean by "Rock". If for you Rock equates to both "A Saucerful of Secrets" and "Fun House", then yes, there have been many innovations. The point is that I want to narrow the focus strictly to "Fun House" and "Kick Out The Jams" in terms of style. My discussion is based solely on that Rock. Not because the rest isn't worth it or because it's bad or anything like that, but purely because by narrowing the field, it can be discussed in just a few posts. If we talk about a thousand styles and sub-genres, we'll never get anywhere. So, starting from this premise (which doesn't mean it's right or objective, it's just a premise), from the 80s onwards, everything I've heard seems to me like a blend of old styles with new sounds and/or techniques that weren't possible in the past due to technical issues. If you think otherwise, bring examples and let's discuss it. The last (chronologically speaking) thing in the purely rock field of the 60-70 style (see the premise) that I've heard are Kyuss and Sleep and all their derivatives. And they do nothing but mix old things together to create something new. It doesn't seem like innovation to me. It seems like a remix. Beautiful, stunning, and fabulous for pure cult... but a remix. If you have any names that have innovated the genre in recent years while remaining in the so-called "classic" style, let us know.

Yes, yes, I wanted to try to convey the effect of blah blah blah.

Moreover, you keep using unproven words: "Pontificare"... where am I supposedly pontificating? Sorry, if someone writes a review or a comment, it’s obvious they want to express their opinion; otherwise, they wouldn’t write a review or a comment at all. All reviews and comments are a kind of "pontifical action," even yours. So what sense does your "pontifical action" make in trying to prove my "pontifical action"? It’s like you’re going to preach peace with a gun in hand. Besides, earlier you expressly told me: "argue," and then below you tell me not to pontificate, which is equivalent to responding by arguing, right? Or not? You trip yourself up from one post to another and throw the discussion back and forth. I enjoy discussing certain topics; I write reviews for that. So, decide on a coherent line of thought, and then we can talk. In your discourse, I only see senseless shifts in position and no evidence of the reality you claim to have, so excuse me, but I stand by what I said at the beginning: you’ve got a big problem, brother.

Geenoo geenoo geenoo... you keep turning into what you criticize. If you want to discuss objectively, stick to the verifiable facts in reality. First, you said it makes you "objectively laugh," so if it makes you objectively laugh as you say, you should be rolling on the floor. Maybe you don't quite grasp the immense weight of the word "objective"; it's not a trivial term, you didn’t say “carrot juice,” objective is a big word that entails so much. I have objectively written and sent this to De-Baser, well aware of the audience of de-b, and well knowing who (more or less) would read it. I sent a discussion point; I wasn't trying to show off, I just wanted to chat as usual. How do you want me to calculate the opinion of 100 - phantom and not objectively verifiable - music enthusiasts? I don’t know how to calculate that, nor have I ever claimed I could, and you talk so much about objectivity, then you drag the conversation into assumption. Why? First, you say, "let's talk about A," I say, "okay, let's talk about A," and you reply with "but if we talk about B"... what sense does it make to veer the discussion from the (presumed) objective to pure assumption? And above all, you don’t know me, you don’t know how old I am, you don’t know who I am, what I listen to, and what I like, and you even have the certainty of how I will respond to your question? And then you call me Fly Down? Geenoo geenoo geenoo... you keep turning into what you criticize.