puntiniCAZpuntini

DeRank : 14,42 • DeAge™ : 7927 days

  • Contact
  • Here since 21 october 2003
Voto:
It's not a Live, it's two mixed together. One in Paris, and the other is incredibly in Lisbon (and who would have ever expected that?) Mister Sfascia, I would still give it a 4, but only because it sounds bad; it’s still worth the 10¤ but it sounds bad, the only one that sounds right is Demetrio. The live performance by Area worthy of that name is Area(a)zione, beautiful songs that can be heard. I didn’t understand the usefulness of the review.
Voto:
Boh Giov, I have no idea what the rest of the album is like: I only bought the single (there's this and two live tracks of old songs) and the whole album didn’t seem worth it. It would have been on the shelf right in between Can and Carcass, and it just stood out awkwardly. :D Thanks to everyone and especially to Kosmo for even voting, that's something big oh.
Voto:
Compared to the fact that others had meticulously prepared their setlists because it was the biggest event in the history of rock, yes, he was unprepared. But for him, that was normal. Jimi at his first live gig opened for The Who. After two concerts, Pete Townshend got fed up with looking bad, and insisted on having him play last. After some back and forth, Jimi agreed, played second, completely revolutionizing the setlist, and played like a god. From that day on, he decided he would never prepare anything again, because he believed that way you lost the uniqueness of a live performance.
Voto:
Anyway, that I was totally upset is obvious, just look at it: it shows clearly. That he was awkward is quite normal, given that he was a timid guy. That he hadn’t prepared for the concert is also a given, since he never did: many times the setlist was decided by Mitchell and then Jimi would lose it and change it, like that one time Bob Dylan's grandmother was at one of his Live shows (really), he freaked out and dedicated "like a rolling stone" to her. The fact remains that reviewing Jimi at Woodstock and talking about how awkward he was seems like a galactic bullshit to me. With everything one could discuss about Woodstock, you focus on saying that Jimi was awkward. It’s like discussing Italy's final in '82 and centering the conversation on the stain on Scirea's shorts. Then again, maybe the reviewer was under the influence of half a Campari with lemon and just let himself go.
Voto:
I never said anything like that, find me the post where I wrote it.
Voto:
If that's the case, he never prepared any concert. Words from Mitch Mitchell. Then again, maybe Mitch is talking nonsense, you never know, maybe he had a chinotto before the interview and was out of it like a streetlamp.
Voto:
It depends, if your grandmother has a Jefferson Airplane t-shirt and you’re under the influence of a beer, then yes. Everything works based on the Sex Drugs Rock N Roll equation; if one piece is missing, the mosaic falls apart.
Voto:
In the music scene, there's a rumor that packages of aspirin and crates of Coca-Cola were circulating at Woodstock, but all of this has been covered up by Paolo Limiti and Luzzato Fegiz. The truth is locked away in the archives of Area 51.
Voto:
<<<Yeah, but I don't agree with the idea that he was that shaken up either; he didn't prepare for the concert and that makes him nervous, he nervously chuckles and apologizes to the audience. Then that he smoked a joint, well...>>> Jimi Hendrix, I mean, Jimi Hendrix... at Woodstock, I mean, at Woodstock, he smoked a joint. In my opinion, he smoked at least two joints and he also drank a beer. If he was really too out of it, he must have smoked two joints and had a Cuba libre (crazy), and then he kissed a chick on the cheek. Truly sex drugs & Rock N Roll.
Voto:
I don't follow you, you're using too many terms for a single meaning.