puntiniCAZpuntini

At the time I wrote that comment, the second ASVA had not yet been released; in the first album, the credits are written only by surname, and since it's a Drone album, since I read Dahlquist who is the bassist of Goatsnake, and since the artwork (including the second one) is credited to O'Malley, I naturally assumed it was Greg when reading Anderson. Then in the second album, they included full names, and it turns out it’s the one from Dale Crover's Porn, meaning Billy and not Greg. It’s a bit of a mess to navigate between these few guys who are in 10 bands a year if they don’t put their names; when you read Anderson, you think Greg, it’s only natural.

And the symbol of American music, damn it, is Bob Dylan, and if it's not him then it's Jimi Hendrix. Do you realize the nonsense you're spouting?

Yes, the symbol of American music for the masses. Whole paychecks spent on records played on the radio, and Black Merda were the first group to combine Funk, Psychedelia, and Distortions... and the discussion was centered around seminality. The fact that you ignore half a million bands is evident in how you talk about Born To Run, because saying that Born To Run is seminal is like saying that The Strokes are, following an already formed wave that has been widely explored by so many bands in '75; doing it in 2001 is the same thing, you’re still following things already done by others. For me, there’s nothing wrong with this; for you, there is, and since for you it’s a crime but you don’t place Bruce among the guilty, I deduce that you ignore the fact that he is guilty, and you ignore it because you are unaware of who did those things before him.

I actually didn't mind the first three, they were keyboard-heavy but heavy. Maybe I was more into metal a few years ago :D

And since I'm here, JJ Cale doesn't really say much to me. :D

I didn't understand that about the 5 groups.

I approve of your speech, it's just that you know very little about the '60s and '70s, and it shows in how you talk about Born To Run, which has nothing seminal about it. In 1975, millions of albums like Born To Run were released; Bruce arrived late, Bruce is derivative, plain and simple. It may please you, but it’s derivative, and all the talk you made just ends up throwing dirt on Bruce. The fact of redoing, whether you redo after 1 year or after 10, is the same; Bruce was redoing after just a few years, but he still did redo. You talk about assimilating, but it’s not that you haven’t assimilated, you completely ignore a ton of bands; otherwise, you wouldn’t say that ridiculous phrase, that insult to our intelligence, which is "And you can’t come and tell me that albums like Born to Run (1975) weren’t 'seminal'." What irritates me about you is that you are the most ignorant (in the sense that you ignore half a million bands) and at the same time you put yourself up on a pedestal playing the doctor. Listen to some of these bands, and see that Born To Run is just a wave album and has less than zero seminal quality, absolutely less than zero: Iron Claw - Immortale - Sitting Bull - Yesterday's Children - Orang-Utan - Arzachel - Zior - Killing Floor - ID - May Blitz - Bakerloo - Toe Fat - Black Merda - Pentagram - American Blues - Andromeda - Wicked Lady - Crow - Pinnacle... and there are seven million more, all bands active from around '66 until the mid-'70s. Instead of going to the record store, check out the websites of the labels that reissue old albums, and avoid shooting huge bullshit like Springsteen being seminal. I can even understand that you might like him, I think you have hearing problems but I can still understand it; but the bullshit that Bruce was seminal is really immense.

In my opinion, Silverblasco perfectly represents the Vasco fan. Right on point, he is an icon of the segment of the Italian market that Rossi dominates. Well done, Silver; you are too iconic, the more I read you, the more iconic you become.

But I really don’t understand you, Massimof. You talk about people who rely on records from 30 years ago, calling them "LITTLE BANDS," but at the same time you glorify Bruce Springsteen, who has nothing original to his name. Without even getting into the "good-bad" or "pretty-ugly" debate (because I don't mind revival at all, actually), you contradict yourself completely. There’s nothing more revival than Bruce Springsteen, come on. You’ve filled our heads with Bruce here and there, and then you say that those who do revival are a "little band"? Every now and then you make these mythological statements that really don’t make sense: "everest of rock n roll," "the history of rock n roll passed through here and got enriched," "avoid praising little bands that re-make records from thirty or more years ago"... huh.

I recovered them not long ago but I thought Better, they disappointed me: too Garage for my tastes.