puntiniCAZpuntini

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.

<<< And I (out of necessity) "subjectively" tell you that "objectively" it’s funny >>> This sentence doesn’t make sense, that’s why I’m telling you there’s some issue, bro.

And finally, the standard of judgment: sorry, but the review is signed by me. It’s not signed on behalf of the "world collective of great truths." That is my thought, made with my own standard of judgment. How could I possibly write and use someone else’s standard of judgment? Don’t you realize that it’s a contradiction? Whose standard of judgment were you hoping for, that of the Holy Madonna special guest The Angels in Column? Please explain to me because my indisputable standard of judgment can’t grasp it. Besides the fact that, since I wrote something hoping it would be commented on, the word "indisputable" is complete nonsense. I stated my opinion precisely to discuss my point of view, so it is the exact opposite of "indisputable," right? If I wanted it to be "indisputable," I would have written it on a blog without the possibility of a reply, wouldn’t you agree? I look forward to your responses, I’m always keen on comedy.

Ah, the artists I included are just examples. You know, it's a bit difficult to fit all the deserving artists in music history into 30 lines. Besides, lists are pretty boring. If you want a list, go to the land registry; here, at most we throw out discussion prompts. If you find the prompt incomplete, then complete it yourself. It seems pretty obvious to say that we're missing artists: of course we are, but so what?