puntiniCAZpuntini

One of the most esteemed groups by John Zorn.

Antmo, do you have any idea how long it would take to select? We receive an average of 13 reviews a day; if we have to consult on the publishing for each review, they would be published a month later, and there would be a backlog of 800 reviews in the queue. But you know how tedious it is to consult for every rec? I would dare to say: minchia che due coglioni. The selection happens jungle-style; if it's crap, just put one or don't comment, and sooner or later the guy will leave. If you like it, you say it’s beautiful and the guy is encouraged to continue. It doesn’t matter if you are Leona or Gazzella, just put one and move on.

I'm not the investigator of the site, try asking "Pietro Minchiadura," he chose to uncover double identities as a second occupation. I can only tell you that there's Strangler, not Stinger, who has been in love with me for a long time and we always kiss with so much love. But maybe he's a fake too, I don't know. Yeah, this is definitely a job for Pietro Minchiadura.

I believe so, Alex: they are truly some heavy bricks. If you go to the official website, I think there are some Samples. I’m not very sure, but if I remember correctly, you can listen to something from the first album. Otherwise, search for "Maudlin Of The Well" on De-Baser; that's the old lineup, and there are some Samples there.

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.