puntiniCAZpuntini

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.

Symbad, as a good bassist, what's your favorite from Jaco? And while you're at it, throw one out about Wooten, huh?

Geenoo, your responses don't seem exhaustive to me; you go around a concept without demonstrating it in reality. You are the one who brought up the word "objective," so respect it: objectively prove what you say. Let me give you another example: your "objectively makes me laugh" seems to fall flat. I count more people who liked this piece than those who were rolling on the floor laughing, so there's very little objective about it. Something is considered objective when there is real confirmation, and here, when looking at reality, those who, like you, were laughing are in the minority. So where is the objectivity? Enlighten me, oh great one.

Thank you Aniel, if you want more detailed information about the group and the sound, there's the review on wwwhatemoornet. I thought it was pretty pointless to repeat the spiel about who Toby Driver is and who the individuals in question are, so I just did a "update" on the new album, since everything that needed to be said about who they are now and who they have been was already mentioned. On my part, I can only confirm that even in 2006 they did not disappoint expectations, and they pulled out yet another great album, as they have been doing since the mid-90s with their various names.

Yes, but you keep changing the subject, Teesorinoo. I've asked you some questions above. Answer me. I'll repeat them for your convenience: since this is a writing meant for a reply, how can it be judged as "inviolable"? Besides the fact that, when I was asked questions about my thoughts even by those who think differently from me (see easy), it didn't seem to me that I replied with "hey, I'm right," but I simply explained my thoughts better regarding this topic. So, where is it "inviolable"? Explain it to me. Another question: where have I written what is rock and what isn't? I wrote, for example, that I "don't see Pink Floyd as rock"; I didn't say that they objectively aren't, adding that I BELIEVE Psychedelia is a word that fits better. So, where are the clear judgments you speak of? Where? To me, they all seem like opinions; if you read objective judgments, please highlight them for me.

No Love, it makes no sense. Anyone who believes they can give objective judgments is just a zealot. The only objective things in the world are the physical and mathematical laws that have practical verification. Your opinions are always subjective; there is no subjectively objective opinion: it's a contradiction. And I repeat that I'm not complaining about your critique because it doesn't affect me at all. You criticize those who complain, but I haven’t complained. You criticize those who make indisputable judgments, but I haven’t made any nor will I ever. So, you haven't critiqued anything about my writing... what should I respond to? I just don't get it.

I have already argued in reviews and comments, Amore. These are reviews on de-baser that do not deal with modern music. I have a limit of 30 lines to adhere to, so what I provided is a list of examples. The fact remains that you have given an objective judgment on this album, not me, you. And the fact remains that it is you who is complaining, not me. Therefore, I don’t see what I should defend myself against, since your accusations, being caused by a misunderstanding... do not affect me.