JimMorrison

ngw are you there or are you just playing? Maybe you need to come to terms with yourself a bit...

Velvet U. = acid with the little flower - tough. B.B. King = acid with the Mona Lisa - tough. Dream = acid with the Mona Lisa - flaccid. Nirvana = acid with the little flower - limp. This is MY rating scale (on flaccid or tough because it's subjective, whether there’s the flower or the Mona Lisa is objective). What do you think I should choose?

Yeah, but if you've tried both acids, there's no way you're getting hooked on the one with the Mona Lisa... You see, you keep talking nonsense.

If you want, I can draw you something...

This means: Technique = objective data (can you tell me who plays better between B.B. King and Cobain?). Result / Evaluation = subjective data (you like Nirvana, I like B.B. King). Cumpré?

I believe it's the namesake. The tracklist is: 1. Herd / 2. Soul Machine / 3. Short Sharp Left / 4. Undo / 5. Big Bore / 6. Vein / 7. 66 / 8. Powertruth / 9. Locker / 10. Zero 21. Ngw, I think that the "idiot test" works for you every time. Always an idiot. Let's recap a bit: We're talking about Nirvana. Someone says: they are among the best musicians in history (talented, you know). I say you don't understand a thing about music (to Sanj). Sanj replies that TECHNIQUE is not everything in music, but also what is conveyed. I say OK, that's true, but even those with technique convey something, achieving the same result as those without it (not to mention preferences) precisely because what you convey is not an objective fact (the Nirvana don’t convey anything to me). Then you jump in saying <<<No, technique is not an objective fact. Technical incompetence has been used since the '60s as an artistic advantage by so many bands (some of which are quite important) that it’s absurd to keep coming back to these concepts. The Velvet Underground couldn't hold their instruments, nor could the Beatles, just to mention two "rather important" ones. Lou Reed after 40 years still hasn’t learned, just to mention one who is still around.>>> We tell you: look, technique is an objective, measurable fact that makes a musician talented or not. Then you come up with nonsense like <<<listen to the Dream, etc. etc.>>> We tell you that you haven't understood a thing. In short: Caz and Jim say: 1) technique IS a measurable objective fact. 2) For the purposes of what comes out of it, it doesn't matter at all. But you, what do you say?

Of the Velvet, I also have the original discography, while of the Dream I don’t even own a single burned CD, so your argument still doesn’t hold because it’s based on things that haven’t been said but merely hypothesized by you because you can't read. I continue to emphasize, along with Caz, that technique is an objective fact. Period. That Nirvana doesn’t excite me is a different matter, which adds to the lack of technique, so I would give a maximum of 2 stars. @Caz: I haven't read the album title yet because I took it and threw it into the Sony XPlod without even looking at it. However, on the cover, there’s a huge suppository and in the tracks a singer...

Off Topic: What a cool thing the 35007 is. Your little disc has made a stop at home while spinning around...

Since Chuck Norris's gun doesn't have a drum but the drummer from Pantera, do the math...

Now I am curious about the answer.