puntiniCAZpuntini

DeRank : 14,44 • DeAge™ : 8096 days

  • Contact
  • Here since 21 october 2003
Voto:
Aeneas, saying that Stratos was the most vocally gifted singer of all time is OBJECTIVELY right and sacred. You might prefer the voice of someone else, but one thing is the voice, another is knowing how to use it as an instrument. Stratos could do that, the others couldn't. He was OBJECTIVELY the best; find me someone who could replicate his feats, they don’t exist. So anyone who writes "always to be praised" doesn’t necessarily have to be me, they are just someone who can distinguish between a beautiful voice and vocal technique. A beautiful voice is something you come across, technique has to be learned, and Stratos taught it to everyone, without exception. Frank Sinatra could at most give him a pump action, or any other singer pales in comparison to the voice of Demetrio, things that normal people cannot do, while he could, the best, objectively unbeatable. It’s not a matter of taste; tastes take a back seat to obvious technical superiority. Sure, he might very well suck for millions of people, but he remains objectively the best.
Voto:
Oh well, if you call this crucifixion, I guess you don't quite understand where you are...
Voto:
All Envy.
Voto:
Latest disappointments from Patrizio, he’s not bad as a jazz musician but still doesn’t stand out from the crowd. Sure, he always makes good music, but it’s all quite aligned with classic jazz, and despite my immense respect for Patrizio, as a pure jazz artist he certainly doesn’t blow me away and doesn’t warrant a purchase: there are tons of pianists better than him. I must say that jazz piano does excite me, yes, but not enough for me to buy a hundred CDs of this specific genre; let’s just say about thirty would suffice... and in that thirty, I’d hardly include Patrizio. Or maybe I see him wasted on classical since he’s a damn genius with synths :D
Voto:
Smiles isss maaaagic... smiles for eeeveeerr...
Voto:
Come on Odra, it's nonsense: the drugs don't match the effects they cause, the doses, the faces, the characters' endurance. Too much of a fairy tale, nonsense galore... it seemed to me like a film comparable to Mike Patton's nonsense: exaggerated, senseless, and poorly produced but "beautiful for that reason." They don't bleach out, they don't drool, they have complete thoughts (without any sense but still complete), unbelievable hallucinations, zero shapeless color stains... it's made terribly. :)
Voto:
It's a load of crap, taken as a load of crap you say "nice load of crap," but "Film" seems like a big word.
Voto:
Eh? It's the story of a drug addict who finds redemption; the film ends with him speaking to himself, saying that he has finally decided to get out of the shit... and you're telling me that the moral of the film needs to be found? What should he have done, end it with a black screen and a moral in white text readable in the overlay?
Voto:
For this lack of respect, tonight I'm sending you down to the courtyard to play soccer without a snack, and after dinner, it's straight to bed without television.
Voto:
I don't have it.