Alexander77

But quit it, Cornell... Say that you like it, say that it’s a great piece of work (which is true), but go tell someone else the nonsense that this is the best album Staley ever worked on... Dirt and Jar of Flies piss all over this... And what does Cantrell have to do with it? I don't get the irony...

I didn't want to ruin your digestion, lunch is a bit later down here, I know! See, I'm worried about you! :)

Nes, I agree, I was talking about my tastes, I specified that...one thing: to entertain yes, to amuse depends. One can enjoy a movie that has a dramatic content. Just like with music, I usually talk about pleasure in listening, here I am talking about pleasure in entertainment (you used the right word, at least this is my opinion).

You see, everyone talking about new cult characters, about what could have been a cult character... I couldn't care less, the cult character of Eastwood was Inspector Callaghan and the Inspector Callaghan films made me sick... that of Gran Torino will never be a cult character, but it has a depth (as a character) that most of Tarantino's caricatures (or like Inspector Callaghan) can only dream of.

Gala, you’re probably right... there’s a lot of talk about this, Tarantino fans adore the dialogues in his films, but I've always found them a bit pretentious (and sometimes boring)... his cinema doesn't say much to me; I couldn't care less about the flashy scenes, the references to spaghetti westerns, or the Cambodian-Japanese martial arts b-movies, but I understand that others may enjoy it... it just seems to me like a nice wrapper but with little substance, so I prefer something less flashy that resonates more for its content.

Well, just my personal opinion, it's been a hassle for a while... It's entertaining, sure, but it's just a constant citing of himself citing others... I think it's also a matter of taste; I couldn't care less about his 20-30 minute dialogues, they bore me, I find them tedious, vaguely idiotic, and with an unbearable fake intellectual air. Then he always saves himself with his usual tricks, but just to put it out there, I'd take anything that comes to Eastwood's mind a thousand times over... Content, not a silly flashy container. Tastes.

Kim Thayl is one of the most underrated guitarists/composers of his time... he was a volcano of ideas and moreover absolutely unorthodox, completely outside the box!

@ Pixies: I don't think we'll ever take that risk... here we only have intellectual purposes to discuss! ;) And if you happen to be in that dump of Milan on December 2nd, Cantrell will entertain the audience with the mazurka of the outskirts! Not to be missed :)... always at his service!
@nev: let's agree on everything except for Grohl... my personal ranking (which takes the composition into account): first Cantrell, then Kim Thayl, and followed by everyone else!

So the conversation is much clearer... I'm happy to respond: 1) It might be true, but from my point of view, he has integrated quite well and discreetly. 2) I absolutely agree, and I add that it’s not just about grunge... BUT I think the rest is debatable... to me, the album sounds pretty intense; at most, I acknowledge there are some moments that feel a bit empty, the development of certain tracks could have been better. 3) An era has ended, true, but I find their sound still sounds very contemporary... tastes? 4) Artistic mediocrity seems excessive to me... in my opinion, this album gives a lead to a good chunk of the current releases. Layne brought that something extra to the band, but Cantrell remains 80% of AIC. 5) Here we disagree... I see pride and a desire to play. I can't say if Cantrell has failed; he’s certainly never been one for covers or other nonsense... the whole band has always avoided the spotlight, which is why they have always been known and appreciated... selling records like Cantrell’s solo ones without adequate commercial support must have been tough, but I don’t think he cared that much. Boggy Depot then is an album far from any commercial appeal.

Lexus, you still don't understand. 1) Cantrell (but also Kinney and Inez) have enough money to not give a damn about you, me, or anyone with an opinion. 2) In fact, here they are, an album with no commercial appeal not giving a damn about me, you, etc. 3) Logically, you don’t make sense: no one uses them, Kinney and Inez have been and continue to be AIC. 4) Why should they change? Are they an incredible rhythm section? I still haven’t figured that out. 5) I haven’t heard them live yet; when I do, I’ll judge... have you already seen them to say they’re bland? 6) Answer: it’s not a commercial operation because they don’t care (my opinion) about me or you or anyone else, they play for the sake of playing, they carry on the AIC name out of pride. 7) Okay, then radio is not decisive, TV is awful, and forget about them playing AIC, so? How should the album be advertised? With Happy Meals from McDonald's??? Maybe you spend your time listening to the Mahavishnu Orchestra, and congrats for that, but to say this album is accessible (but not for radio and TV, of course) is a stretch... 8) Look, he doesn’t sound anything like Layne, you must have your ears stuffed with ham... totally different voice... the fact that the vocal harmonies are similar is due to Cantrell's voice being front and center... Beautiful where? And who cares if it’s beautiful? Were they supposed to worry about what he looks like? Can you even grasp the expectations here??? They were supposed to worry about finding someone not good-looking? Do you feel the sense of nonsense? And then, what does a half-dreadlock guy have to do with a band like AIC??? Oh, and please, keep your opinion, but it would be better if you at least had some doubts; as you can see, there are a ton of arguments against your theses!