puntiniCAZpuntini

Before bothering Zion, I would review the Rapadopa :D / Gio, I'm sending this to you very willingly / zzzzz, only fragrant things for you, can I be your Arbre Magic?

One of the best Hard Rock albums of the 80s without a doubt, I stick with the Fuzztones but this album is also amazing. Guns brought back the Hard Rock attitude to the charts, Europe, Bon Jovi... they really tarnished Hard Rock, spending more time at the hairdresser than at the bar, which is very un-rock 'n' roll, and quite gay. They brought rock back to the masses, which is a great merit in my opinion. Then they released a lot of useless little records, but never mind, this one is enough and more.

I still remember how shocked I was when I heard that Company Flow had split up; I still remember how stunned I was when I read on ughh.com the news that El-P was going solo. I still remember the impact it had on me when I heard this story. It’s perfect, there are the new way tracks and those old way ones (B-Boy Alpha has that mid-90s vibe... stunning). The only album comparable to the unbeatable Funcrusher Plus, it doesn’t surpass it just because when Funcrusher came out, people were saying “What the hell is this????” We were ready for that, considering Mister Producto was involved.

Well, Easy, you're right, okay, since 2000, only a few groups have emerged. But we still have 6 years left. Usually, the best comes towards the end; in '67, it was a mess, in '77, it was a mess, in '87, it was a mess (Rap & Crossover), around '97, Post-everything was born, the new rap was born, Napster was born. Let's see what happens in 2007 :)) / Kosmo, you're either with me or with my brother; he uses that phrase but ends it with "that's why it's a shit record." If you end it with "but the record is bomb," then there are system inconsistencies. You have my brother’s registry key, but the ".exe" is mine. Jokes aside, (which only PC addicts will understand :D) I also think it's true that remixing after 15 years is easy; however, some people know how to do it well, and they did it well, and it’s a nice CD. My brother, on the other hand, has already labeled it as "colossal crap aka pure shit," like the APC album, like EVERY cover album, like every remix album. For him, it's all garbage, a priori. I think he's wrong; it's too narrow-minded a way of thinking.

Another example, Depeche Mode, they've never thrilled me too much, but the latest remix album is awesome. My brother loves to tell me "everyone can do remixes after 15 years"... I prefer the new versions to the old ones, I don't care when it was released, I just need to listen to it, not marry it. Another example is NIN, the remixes are always better than the original versions; who cares if it's easier to improve something already made rather than creating something new?

If we talk about merits to grant to artists, then you go on a serious mental hyperventilation about who did it first and who didn’t, about who started and who followed; I’d be the first to check the release time of an album, not just the year. However, if we're talking about GOOD CDs, this argument doesn’t hold. A good CD is a good CD, whether it’s copied or made by the scoundrel who killed my grandmother, it remains a good CD. Then the artist can be a miserable fool, but the CD stays good. Take the Strokes... good CD, them a bunch of poor idiots who can’t do anything, can’t play, can’t hold the stage, just a nice bunch of crap, but they made a good CD, even if it’s shamelessly derivative.

Ah, another little thing, I say that a random band, let’s say Colour Haze, had released "Enwige Blumenkrapft" in the 70s, then we would all have Colour records at home, and not a single Floyd one. We overthink too much about the "derivative" "if it weren't for Gianni, Pinotto would have never been born" and things like that. If we listened to the CDs for what they are, without looking at the date, without considering who is who, in my opinion, our opinions would change a lot.

Hey, where are the old-timers of the site? We want the opinions of those who were there...

Oops... Heron, you're right... it indeed seemed strange to me :) / Grasshopper, I don't agree in the same way, the 90s and the current decade, compared to the 60s and the 70s, break them apart. Yes, okay, the Floyd, yes, okay, the Crimson, yes, okay, the Amon Düül, yes, okay, another 100-150 bands. To me, that seems too few, really too few, quite a few too few. Just in Psychedelia and Kraut Rock alone, we now have double the VALID groups, and moreover, we have other musical styles that they could only dream of in the 70s. I listen to the Floyd and I get pumped because I subconsciously realize it's primordial stuff, but if I found a One Of This Days in the next The Heads album (imagining the Floyd had never written it), I wouldn't say "WOW!" I’d say "nice." It's not that current years suck, we’re just too demanding, and we have the habit of the "Good Old Days." Every time I talk to people who lived through the 70s, they mention 100 serious bands and 9000 huge idiots. When it comes to numbers, how many truly amazing bands from the 70s are there? always the same ones, always those... and they’re few. Great, innovative, I bow to THEM, but I wouldn't trade the 70s for the 90s even if you talked to me about it. Now, 80 records come out a day (between good and garbage), what more do you want from life? Back in the 70s, if one or two came out, that was even too much.

Devon, make yourself a sandwich.