puntiniCAZpuntini

And say it, since it comes to you...

Ah, I definitely agree that "it's more lively this way, right?". Yes, that's the beauty of it, the discussion and the exchange, we call each other crazy and everyone is proud of what they believe, hopefully. I come here on purpose, to talk about music or to get advice, I go where everyone shares my taste (I think that's normal too), but this site is like an arena and I take it as such.

Exactly, the popularity talk is a matter for fools, purely pointless and of no significance. You reviewed Bruce and the Creedence, but you exalted Bruce more than the Creedence, and Bruce is really your idol, so I say Bruce is rightfully so. If you want to use my idols, then choose from: Jimi, Waters, Fripp, Zappa, M.Davis, Patton, Simon Price, Toni Iommi, Jus Oborn, Richard D.James, El-Producto, Oktopus, Robert Del Naja, Lemmy, Hackett, A.Jones, Zack De La Rocha; any one of these is fine.

Well, coming from someone who reviews U2, that's a compliment.

Listen to that new one from Dead Meadow... and dance, jerk.

You are of a monumental ignorance, someone who says that today there’s only good stuff to dance to is just a fool watching Top of the Pops.

Look, I'm super pissed off. And you really think you're ahead, huh... when you compare today’s scene to the Live 8 stage, you confirm once again that you're the king of idiots, even though we didn’t need any further proof. And then, idiot, why do you always bring up Necro? It seems like he's my idol listening to you, too bad I've done between 40 and 50 reviews, idiot, and I don't think they were all about Necro. How stereotypical can you be, oh my god, you really are the king of dumbasses, my god... the Live 8, spare me...

Well, the duplicate reviews will start then. The more reviews you do of a band, the more there will be in the future; these are traps for fans who go on Google looking for information about their favorite band. If Grasshopper didn't review Bruss sprinstiin, Massimof wouldn't have come, and without the first metalheads, the others wouldn't have arrived... and so on.

Then, I also reviewed albums from the first half of the 60s, so this isn't a matter of old records, you fool. And, above all, as I already told you, the good stuff is still around, oh yes it is, and there's plenty of it, it's you who's ignorant for not knowing it, fool.

But you really are the king of idiots. Of course I realize that I have a thousand filters; I have millions of both filters and prejudices today in 2005. But reviewing is equivalent to proposing, and you propose in 2005, and in 2005 we all have filters and prejudices. Why the hell should I calculate what I would have thought in '87? In this specific case, I heard the CD at Italia 90 for the first time and it sucked; I didn't understand a damn thing but it still sucked. In a thousand other shit cases released 20 years ago, I said they sucked after 20 years from their release, with filters and prejudices, but... so what? What happens, excuse me? Do I have to listen to the CD today or in '87? I listen to CDs today, and if I consider it crap today, I say so. I don't have to decide what to do with the life of Bono, or carry the fate of millions of Somali children on my shoulders... it's just a judgment: "£it sucks, it's useless music in 2005, crap like so much other stuff, listen to something else and don't review this shit that, by indexing on Google, fills the site with idiots like Massimof." It's music, background, entertainment, emotions... but it remains nonsense, it's nothing serious and I take it as such; imagine if I start calculating the social impact of the time now. If we take the social impact discussion, we can talk about it (if we want, but it’s better to kick ourselves in the balls) and okay there’s been a lot of that here and there and up and down... but here we are talking about a recommended album in 2005, and my answer is always the same: a useless album to review in 2005, crap.