ajejebrazorf

what a sterile and pointless discussion this one about the vocal contest is (it's true, nerd talks are my co-pilot). I don't know about the range; I've never checked the lowest and highest notes hit by father and son, but listening to the records, Tim was comfortable even in the low register, especially on Happy Sad, Blue Afternoon, and Lorca. As for the high notes, we’re on the same page there. If there's a difference, it's in the control of the voice; Jeff was a highly talented rock singer but perhaps still somewhat immature in some respects, and this is more evident live, where he occasionally hit some rough notes. Tim, on the other hand, besides having a repertoire of jazz and avant-garde techniques that his son didn’t have (yodel, scat), was also a true machine live, almost incapable of making mistakes. In terms of interpretation, in my indisputable opinion :D Jeff, while great, still had something to learn from dad. My impression is that he could have improved even more after Grace (where we shouldn't underestimate Lucas's significant contribution, as the best tracks are co-written with the guitarist), but obviously, we’ll never know.

Oh, but never a sentence that talks about something specific, never a complete and reasoned concept, you’re a bureaucrat inside, you speak saying things like “what I contest is your second thought, because my third divided by the first is the truth.” But if something is bothering you, if there’s a specific thing you don’t like, why not just say it? Just vague turns of phrase. Damn, you’re way too much the embodiment of Mr. Veneranda.

Yes Dave, it's the usual conspiracy of the left. Should I also refer to your review? Should we recount the ballots? But what do you mean by "playing on the subtle"? How do you see me? There was a discussion and I was responding, but without offense, do you think I need to be subtle to dismantle your bullshit theories about music from the last 30 years? But then you see that you are the one capable only of nebulous wordplay, little phrases thrown out that are meant to imply something? A' Dave.

Lethe, don't worry, there's no problem, I was having a great time. Anyway, it's pretty funny to be called arrogant by someone who has decided that music from the last 30 years is basically crap, knowing very little about it, but it seems Dave has been enlightened by great truths that don’t need explanations, you just have to believe him, it's like that simply because he says so. The accusation of being fake is also wonderful, but fake in what sense? I don’t know you, I haven’t hinted at anything and I just said what I think; where the fakeness is, frankly, escapes me (please clarify). And that about having a prepared response is not bad either (EEEEEEHHH? WHAT?! But lol, which one? What does that even mean?).

You joke and laugh, but you can't (now I'll say "seriously" for a moment) start from the assumption that "you are sure" that it's like that. In my opinion, you're missing a lot of music to say something like that (there's nothing wrong with this). However, theories, especially if not supported by something concrete, can be bothersome. If you had listened to thousands of albums from the 80s and 90s and had the same impression, fine, but it's quite obvious that you've probably heard very little; your constant reference to punk and grunge (okay, also metal) suggests that for the last 25 years, only those genres existed (and you barely know a few names: by the way, my impression is that of the few punk/garage/hardcore bands I really like, you aren't even aware of their existence). But then, if you had said, "I hate punk because I don't like that way of playing," it would be a different story; no one would say anything to you, except maybe to recommend you some albums that are so good they could change your mind. But you want to make theories, and others (who have listened) challenge your theories.

But lol, are you stupid?! Here, in fifty different discussions, they've raised millions of objections to your belief! And your response is "How can you be sure?" Hey, Dave!!!

The fact that you are so sure about it is a great lesson; I believe I can actually see the light after such a profound argument. Even in court, as a lawyer saying to the judge, "Look, Your Honor, I’m certain of it," the judge would reply, "Ah well, if you are really certain, then you’ve won your case." But do you realize what you’re saying, Dave?

And then, you talk to me about giving the lesson when you make sweeping generalizations like "since '77 music has been terrible, and the little that survives is inferior," or "in punk and new wave they don't know how to play," "Husker Du are the best of all in punk, the rest disgusts me (implying you've listened to a mountain of stuff or at least all the main bands). And then it's me!

Haha! But why are you getting so worked up? Do you even understand what I've written to you? I replied to your last message, where you say "If you want to categorize all the '60s saying they were characterized by 3 dirty chords, that's up to you." Who accused you of anything in the last post! Seriously, you're so comedic.

Rock did not originate in the 60s; it was born earlier, stemming from country and blues. The spirit was therefore not that of complex, technical, and rigidly structured music; it had nothing to do with European classical music, which progressive later referenced. I'm not pretending anything.