puntiniCAZpuntini

DeRank : 14,44 • DeAge™ : 7992 days

  • Contact
  • Here since 21 october 2003
Voto:
Oh, when Geldof falls asleep at the piano with a thirty-gram piece of pollen? Magnificent. There's no comparison, The Wall is amazing, it has nothing to do with the old Floyd and cannot be compared to the old Floyd, but in its genre of "Rock Opera," it has very few rivals. And Tommy, do you like Bogus?
Voto:
No Bogus, you too talk without having seen Pompeii... look at Pompeii and you’ll find four DRUGGED IDIOTS who are annoying and throw food at each other, the bourgeoisification happened during and after Dark Side. Then on The Wall, I don’t give a damn if it’s just Waters, it’s a magnificent composition, the apotheosis of Melodic Floyd. Not to mention how cool the movie is, I bought it after Zurk’s suggestion! and I’ve watched it 50 times in a few months, the cartoon scene of "Goodbye Blue Skye" is something too magnificent. You can’t judge The Wall as an album, watch the movie which is a whole other thing.
Voto:
Have you seen Pompeii? When One Of These Days plays, aside from the fact that it completely changes everything, so if you haven't seen it, run to buy it, he puts on a particular T-shirt with a butterfly of various colors on the Blue. That little butterfly was in England back in the day, printed where? On acid sheets. Later, they even made Blue pills with that specific butterfly. Don't worry, Enè, there are too many things against you, if you don't watch the DVDs, you can't understand. Want another one? The director of Pompeii asks Gilmour, "And what do you say to those who accuse you of using and glorifying drugs too much?" Gilmour flashes a 46-tooth smile and says, "We have never used drugs"... he doesn't even finish the sentence before he’s already laughing, and you can hear the hearty laughter of the others in the background. Enè, watch all the DVDs, then we can talk about it again, but you will agree that the Floyd did throw some punches.
Voto:
"And in 'Meddle' the PF certainly weren't glorifying drugs, right...? :)" Oh really? And what about Cutti in to little pieces, grandma's cake, or a sheet of acid? And how do you feel the Echoes, from all that beer or with acid? ... It's you who doesn't use drugs and doesn't understand the allusions. Even 'Bike' stands for Hoffmann, and Hoffmann stands for acid. Ha, you’re just too naive ;))
Voto:
How do I get out of this? THEY'VE MADE ALBUMS WORTH HALF OF HALF OF HALF OF HALF OF HALF OF HALF OF A NAIL OF SYD. The Floyd stop at Meddle, return in The Wall, and disappear forever.
Voto:
Ah, anyway, I'm not saying that "they wouldn't have done it without drugs," I have no idea and no desire to think about "what if the opposite had happened." I'm just saying "they were high as kites and they did those things," period, no reasoning behind it, what they did, they did as junkies. And I've never been good at the game of "what if." Plus, it's pointless.
Voto:
Okay, fuck, on the talent issue, we’re on the same page, but it’s not necessarily true that in the '60s you could only write through drugs: drug use was in vogue, but maybe the composition had some clarity... Maybe not for you, maybe yes for me. I think they were all getting high, from the lyrics to the faces in the photos, I see nothing but scary stoners. Every time I watch a DVD of various Cream, The Who, Jimi, Floyd, Beatles, Jefferson Airplane, Woodstock, Wight Island, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath... I always see and only see scary stoners, who talk about drugs, make drug music, and encourage drug use. Then I don’t know, if for you they went wild live and not while composing, those are just assumptions; I assume otherwise, but my assumption is worth as much as yours :). As for objective facts, we have recordings from the time that show people high to the tips of their hair, then what they did at home is unknown, but it’s reasonable to think they might have done worse at home. The worst hits I’ve taken, I took at home, just like a lot of people, so I don’t believe that. :)
Voto:
He didn't look ahead as much as Syd did. We're talking about a clash of Titans; no one calls Lennon a fool, that's for sure.
Voto:
Okay, then I’ll change it: Barrett, being a drug addict like all musicians, including Lennon, wrote only one album that caused a hell of a stir. If he hadn’t exaggerated and become completely idiotic, who knows what kind of mess he would have made. Lennon, as a drug addict, wrote a lot of beautiful things; he never became an idiot and even had time to do whatever he wanted, but he never reached the mental avant-garde level that Syd had, and Lennon got high just as much as Syd did before and during Piper. So, in a comparison of drug addicts, I choose Barrett. But excuse me, in the sixties who made music and didn’t do drugs? NO ONE, but Syd did it with Piper, and the others did not. Did he have a special pusher with a special drug? No, he used everyone else's drugs; however, he had extra talent.
Voto:
Pure LSD is awesome, don't worry, even today's youth can find the good stuff. Anyway, and I’ll repeat it for the third time for clarity: I mean someone who can tie their shoes, who doesn't piss themselves, who speaks in coherent sentences. I used the wrong term because it can be misleading, but yes, he was getting high long before that, and he was getting really high, but he was healthy at first, then he went overboard and it took him down, said by someone who was with him back then, not something I read in Rolling Stones: Roger says it. If his best friend says it, I believe it, but of course, I wasn’t there and can’t guarantee it :)