puntiniCAZpuntini

DeRank : 14,44 • DeAge™ : 7983 days

  • Contact
  • Here since 21 october 2003
Voto:
I ate a piece, I don't know how: "also because, like in Grunge and nu-metal, there are bands that have nothing to do with each other." Maybe I was thinking about Moon's little butt. It distracts my thoughts.
Voto:
I totally agree, but it's always fun to call you gay, I can't resist. In my opinion, the definition of Post-HC is the biggest bullshit of the '90s, alongside Grunge and Nu-Metal; how HC has anything to do with this stuff, I need them to explain that to me. Just because they scream a bit and are a bit sad, but musically speaking, they lean more towards metal than anything else. In fact, many portals don't even use that label, just like with grunge and Nu-Metal. Then, as soon as you venture into Hydrahead, you can even play Country, and they'll toss you into Post-HC. What nonsense. Isis are not overrated; it's just that the singer is ordinary and not galactic, the rest is galactic.
Voto:
Great rec, but the album is from '98. I was talking about it the other day with a metalhead friend; the one from '97 is Killing something, which I don't have, just like I don't have the first one. From this point on, I have all of them except the splits with various Agaropappappero-Brutal-Hell and other stuff. I'll get around to them sooner or later, but I'm not inspired by the bands they're playing with. The last & second-to-last, alongside Panopticon-Oceanic, are the top of the genre, forget about the Mastodon from that Gay Moonchild. They can shove it. Although I still need to listen to the latest Neurosis, but I think it's a bit different from this stuff. //PS Is the cover the one from the reissue? The first one was prettier; this one is too "The Wall" :D
Voto:
I'm looking for the one with the different cover, this one -> Ingrandisci questa immagine <- No booklet, printed page on cardstock, credits on the back, and that's it. You can find it used on Amazon for a few euros, money well spent.
Voto:
HELL YEAH. (maybe a little shorter would have been better :D)
Voto:
It was already there, it’s too long, you have the tastes of an accountant, you don’t even know half of the current Italian rock bands, otherwise you wouldn’t say immense nonsense like: “the most famous rocker, and perhaps the truest, of our Poor Country.” Turn off the radio, it’s better.
Voto:
Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, yes, but it’s from 1967, and it’s indeed a psychedelic vein in an album that isn’t completely so, and in 1967, quite a few fully psychedelic albums came out and had already been released, and they (the Beatles) merely approached the sounds of the time, they didn’t baptize/create it or similar. The discussion started by talking about "fathers & creators & revolutionaries," and 1967 is a bit late to "create-found-revolutionize" :). I can't define a single founder, but I don't include the Beatles among the group of fathers; they may have "pushed" the genre, but much less than many other groups and certainly much less than the Floyd. It's not that I'm comparing psychedelia to heavy sounds; I’m just saying that heavy sounds are still alive today, while the lighter stuff has been dead for a long time, and as of 2005, the genre is much more "Floyd-13th" and some of Zappa, compared to the Beatles sound. The Grateful Dead blow my mind, another group way ahead of its time, another group that debuted in 1967, another group that I rank before the Beatles as "psychedelic revolutionaries." The Beatles revolutionized other things; they have nothing to do with the psychedelic revolution, they just rode the wave.
Voto:
Well, if we want to go into soft psychedelia, before the Beatles comes Zappa & The Mothers. The Beatles revolutionized a ton of stuff, they are a cornerstone for 14,000 topics in music, but when it comes to psychedelia, they don’t fit in at all.
Voto:
Yes, but he was talking about Revolver and then brought up Penny Lane, which came a year and a half later; he wasn’t talking about Pepper. Pepper is fine, but it’s from ’67, the year when 187,000 psychedelic records were released. It's not that Pepper doesn’t have a psychedelic streak, but there’s a difference between “a streak” or “an ending” and Are You Experienced, Red Crayola, all that stuff. Revolver is from ’66, specifically August, released after the 13th Floor, and Revolver has a slight hint of "strong" psychedelia, it’s very soft, too soft to hold up against the others, psychedelia for my grandmother. Which doesn’t mean “crap,” it just means it’s different stuff: softer, things that today can’t be considered psychedelic; just because in ’66-’67 it was kind of strange, doesn’t mean it’s still viewed that way. Take Penny Lane as an example: Psychedelia for my grandmother—if Penny Lane is psychedelic in 2005, then I’m Gigi Sammarchi. Come on, nowadays Penny Lane is an ordinary song; the title track of this album was and remains psychedelic to the bone. That’s why I say this created a current that still lives on today; the psychedelia of the Beatles and "Bike" faded quickly, it can’t compete with 15-minute trips made up of 900 overdubbed sounds that shred your brain, with obsessive drum patterns, distorted bass lines, and guitar distortions galore.
Voto:
The cover and title are pretty Hendrix :D. I've never come across one of his albums, but he gets mentioned often; let's see if I can find something.