puntiniCAZpuntini

DeRank : 14,44 • DeAge™ : 8163 days

  • Contact
  • Here since 21 october 2003
Voto:
I can't do that for the Fugazi zzzzzzzzzzzzzz, otherwise they'll say I'm mean and that's not good. Anyway, it's not right to give a flat one to Kyuss even if you've listened to the album, I'll make you pay for it in some way. And it will be a cruel way.
Voto:
Yes Giubbo, you are absolutely right. Let's say it's a suspense effect.
Voto:
How to combine the lyrics of the best Italian singer-songwriters with the instrumentals of the best Italian progressive music. Real fuckin robbona abbomba, I even wrote an editorial with a text from this donodiddio.
Voto:
Well, there's definitely a boundary, that's for sure, but I see it more as a boundary of suggestion rather than of quality. The Cozza have made the only attempts at a Kyuss-like sound so far in this split, while the Kyuss have never done anything like Autopilot or In The Fade or Another Love Song, and since they’ve disbanded, I don't think they ever will. Both can appeal to listeners, either both or just one of the two, it's a matter of choice; there's no conflict between the two bands. It’s kind of like the Tool vs APC issue, more or less the points of difference balance out.
Voto:
No no, bullshit, a lot of bullshit. There is a limited difference.
Voto:
<<<to an infinite set of numbers you can remove as many numbers as you want: it always remains infinite>>> The fact that it is "an infinite set of numbers" was decided entirely by you; you keep reasoning and explaining the examples that should clarify the concept, resulting in explaining the examples, but you haven’t really explained the concept. The point is, as I said above, just one: are you truly convinced that art is not those things? And if so, why?
Voto:
No no, I really can’t stand the fact that you claim to apply discussions about the cardinality of numbers to art. I detest this phrase: <<< Art does not marry either with banality, or with fanaticism, or with the inappropriate use of grammar. >>> Because those words carry the presumption of attempting to canonize and box up what cannot be canonized and should never be, since closing off certain avenues would mean making it die. Then you can twist my words and apply them to any examples you want, but it’s just changing the subject; the real point is: do you really believe what you wrote above? If the answer is yes, I think you're seriously mistaken; if the answer is "no, I was just messing around," then that’s completely normal and understandable.
Voto:
Alright, let's go word by word: "Infinite except..." means nothing. Art is "everything," not "everything except" as you say. By adding an except, you’ve limited it. You were right when you said, "how can one limit the infinite?" Exactly, you can't, it’s impossible, and you really went overboard with that one.
Voto:
But there is no change, the discussion was only about the restricted canons of art that Aeneas wants to impose on us, which I don't consider real. That he doesn't like the review or the record is certainly neither a problem nor a reason for discussion to me.
Voto:
And then, you keep wanting to define your concepts about an abstract idea like art using physically contextualizable and limitable examples like the moon, QOTSA, punk. We’re not talking about how good a band is; just a moment ago, you had the audacity to impose fixed standards on art. You really went overboard; it's not your usual "Bennato is worth 4," today you really shot for the stars.