ajejebrazorf

no, for you! the clarification was meant to establish what the original spirit was FOR YOU! it feels like talking to Mr. venerable.

Ah, so the original spirit would be that of the three dirty chords. Did it take long?

"The attempt to bring rock back to its original essence is, in my opinion, useless and unsuccessful" — this you wrote, not Donjunio. I want to understand what YOU mean, not with the phrase, but with "original essence." You included it in a sentence, so either you’re using random words, or you have a clear idea of what you mean. Donjunio has nothing to do with it. So?

You're getting sidetracked. "Donjunio talked about it" is still open to misinterpretation. Clarify.

No, I want to avoid phrases like the second thought that disputes the fourth due to the third bis comma two. I didn't ask for your preferences, which I already know; I asked to clarify without misunderstandings something from the above discussion, where you spoke about the original spirit of rock (and prog isn't original). What do you mean by that expression? Don't divert.

"Do you have a punk spirit instead?" Is this a quiz from Donna Moderna? Anyway, the original Porcupine Tree or the Inn of the Fairies is a mess, huh. Don't sidestep the question; we haven't talked about the original spirits of rock, but about the spirit itself, and prog isn't "original" at all.

I would like to understand first of all if the original spirit of rock for you is that of the three dirty chords, or that of the progressive played perfectly clean. Let’s clear up any misunderstandings.

"No mistake: I never said that technique is everything. The attempt to bring rock back to its original essence is, in my opinion, pointless and poorly executed. There are only a few rare cases that stand out (the Xtc, the Husker Du, the Replacement, and a few others that I can remember), but the genre is weak in my view." Dave, this is a quote from you. The discussion started from your claim that TODAY the best music is the technical and polished kind, and the only argument you presented was that this approach is the best because most modern bands would sound bad (including new wave bands, and the technique of Xtc is certainly not an exception in that context). And I replied that no, there are not just a few bands that sound good, so the "argument" (the rarity) that would make "clean" music preferable, however unoriginal, falls apart. It’s logic, you know. Now, just to have the last word, you say that I didn’t understand because your second thought was misinterpreted, while the first connects to the third (a somewhat hazy connection, I agree, and sorry if I lost the ticket with the numbering of thoughts). I respond that for me, the seventh connects to my first thought minus the fifth, so I am right (harsh words). Keep going, we’re having fun.

"and you say you never mentioned that there were few" (in the last post), if there were a possibility to edit messages...

I don't think I'm clever; I'm making a logical argument and having fun deconstructing your theses. You started by saying that punk and new wave suck because they can't play, only to then say that XTC were good NEW WAVE because they revived the spirit of rock done well (two minutes before, it was the chaotic Velvet), because in a world full of people who can't play, they can. So I challenged you on the fact that they were few, proving that in the '80s, as in every other decade, there were plenty of virtuous bands, and you say you never claimed that (and what about the merits of XTC as white flies?). Dave, I'm not twisting myself; I'm following your reasoning and demonstrating falsehoods one by one. :) Well, now you're tired, I can tell.