puntiniCAZpuntini

DeRank : 14,44 • DeAge™ : 8097 days

  • Contact
  • Here since 21 october 2003
Voto:
Beautiful Pollack... American Vasco, you are absolutely right, I had never thought of that. I fully support your brilliant observation.
Voto:
Maybe they were wild... they are just a pain in the ass, boring, flat, and bland, never a spark, never anything that makes you go "wow, that's cool"... total flatness. In fact, their members are completely unknown, four idiots who can only hit a couple of notes just right to put together some pop-rock, very, very pop, Britney Spears... I love rock n roll.
Voto:
Ah Grass, I'll say it again for the umpteenth time, I hate Bruce even for his shameless recycling of Bob Dylan. It strikes me as really strange that you like this ranx-xerox, especially since you like Bob Dylan. I like serious pizza, not the poor imitations of Pizza-Hut.
Voto:
Tell me what’s musically interesting about this album, let’s hear it. Let’s reason based on the Zingarelli, the sound... where is it? eh?
Voto:
Massimof, Since it's a site that talks about music, those who make shitty music should be treated as such, right? If it were a site about humanities, I would have said well done, but since we're talking about music, reading "the Everest of rock n roll" on this album just makes you laugh out loud, and I’m telling you, we’re here to discuss, aren’t we?
Voto:
Moreover, Grass, first you tell me that music is and must remain as the definition in the Zingarelli... then you praise me, you fool, who INSTRUMENTALLY IS WORTH ZERO. There is an inconsistency in your reasoning; these are just words, there is no sound, so following your reasoning about Björk's review, this is NOT MUSIC.
Voto:
I don't consider the Velvet "ROCK"; they're on a very different level. They're labeled as rock because they emerged at a time when either you played blues, or jazz, or you were "rock," music for the youth. If they had come out in 2000, we would have all put them under alternative. But the Velvet were technically skilled; they did a thousand different things with a taste and an attitude that was unique, and that is technique, mastery of their instrument... while this album is a poor imitation of what was born under the Cream, under Jimi, the Zeppas, Black Sabbath, and DP. This is popular crap. If "I Love Rock N Roll" was sung by him instead of Spears, you would have said it was great; breaking down the two characters, they are identical; he’s just a gay guy showing off his ass, just like Britney.
Voto:
and don't come telling me that rock doesn't require technique because that's bullshit; rock is technical, otherwise it’s not rock. A good rock guitarist must be able to play the guitar beautifully just like the drummer, and here I can’t hear any drums or guitar, just a hoarse voice from a hysterical fag complaining about being two weeks without his anal vibrator.
Voto:
He took the simplicity of Punk (which is its worst side), combined it with the voice of rock (which is the most negligible side), and produced the biggest pile of crap of an album on the planet. How can you make a rock album without a guitarist? You can't, pure shit, uselessness and commercialism, imitation, Briutney Spears, fucking POP.
Voto:
Note this, everyone who speaks well of the Boss in his "ROCK" version is only talking about his voice, while in rock music, the voice is just an "extra" thing; of course, if it’s there, it’s even better (See Robert Plant), but just as an example... Jimi was Rock, his voice was quite rough, but it was GUITAR BASS DRUMS, notes upon notes upon notes and power, not just four random shouts. It might please some, okay, but don’t come and tell me it’s ROCK because it’s just a very poor imitation, poorly executed to boot, a shameless commercial operation, I repeat, the Britney Spears of the 80s.