ngw

Don't worry, everyone contradicts themselves in the same post sometimes. Well, almost everyone. Caz, for instance, who is a straight shooter, does it between posts; he usually manages to hold the same thesis throughout entire posts. But make an effort, and you too will become like him.

<<< look, technique is an objective, measurable fact that makes a musician talented or not. >>> I think it’s time for you to come to an agreement among yourselves first. I don’t expect to laugh that much; a few chuckles from time to time are enough for me.

P.S. Come on, don’t whine because I treat you like a prog fan; after all, you treat me as if I only listen to punk, and this isn’t the first time. Yet, 90% of my comments are about bands that have nothing to do with punk. Don’t confuse the fact that I, unlike you, know what I’m talking about with particular preferences.

Yes, but allow me to respond. Imagine you go to Montagnola in Bologna and you have to choose between two acids, one has a stupid little flower drawn on it, while the other has... the Mona Lisa! You’re going to choose the one with the Mona Lisa, I’m sure of it, but what if it doesn’t take effect or maybe only lasts 4 hours? Maybe the one with the stylized flower would have been better, maybe it would allow you to have 18 hours of bliss. Yet your evaluation, your choice was influenced by something that had nothing to do with the product itself. Look at the snake god up there, he doesn’t like Nirvana, also they can’t play.

And please, show a generic understanding of the text; there are evening schools that can help you. The correct phrase is: "For someone who at most listens to Cannibal Corpse from Coltrane, what are Pantera? Just regurgitated Black Sabbath and Venom."
This means that _for you_, the reason why all '77 punk records are the same as the Stooges can only be otherwise, as you are utterly incapable of distinguishing more subtle differences. The alternative would be an intellectual dishonesty at ridiculous levels; do you prefer that?

Ouch, ouch, ouch Caz, back to shooting insults without rhyme or reason. What can I say other than "hit and sunk from here, hit and sunk from there"? *Do you really* want me to correct the various gaps you show with every single post, the parts of what I write that you don't understand (whether it’s because you’re not particularly bright, or because you ignore about 70% of rock music, or because you’re constantly acting in bad faith)? In short, do you want to add another "blunder that ngw made me commit" to your collection? Just a question for you, connoisseur of the Italian language without a middle school diploma: if you truly maintain what you’re putting in my mouth, what sense would it make to talk about "technical incompetence" a line down? Enlighten me. Here we are at "idiot-proof", a test that so far you have failed (along with your buddy who gives you pats on the back). Bring out all 8 of your neurons and surprise me. Alternatively, you can always drop some acid and watch your hands change for a solid 15 hours, since you like clichés so much.

"Wash your hands"? My son, are you still sulking because I turned your "little punk corner" into the "little proggy corner"? For someone who at most digs Cannibal Corpse more than Coltrane, what are Pantera? Just regurgitated Black Sabbath and Venom. Or do you really want to have a conversation about the group's "attitude"? Come on, I can't believe you're so foolish as to bring up such things, making it obvious that you're using double standards, and in such a stupid way that it comes off as a caricature. You already lack credibility; is it too much to ask you to tone it down a bit? :)
Technique isn't an objective value in evaluating a band; I think that argument is simple enough even for you. The idea that it can be "calculated" is laughable. Brian Eno had an orchestra that deliberately played badly for comedic/cartoonesque purposes: I can only imagine you geniuses would have attempted to "calculate" Brian Eno's technique (making quite an ass of yourselves, of course).
And I didn't start the debates about the "best band"; I merely echoed them. Put away the straw man, thanks, because this year I haven't been good enough to get a punching bag for free for everything I write.
For me, it's not a problem anyway; feel free to carry on with your noble discussions on "technique" even when they don't mean a damn thing, good Dream Theater to you, good Velvet Underground to me.

No, technique is not an objective fact. Technical incompetence has been used as an artistic advantage by so many bands (some of which are quite important) since the '60s that it's absurd to revisit these concepts. The Velvet Underground couldn't hold their instruments, and neither could the Beatles, to name a couple of "rather important" examples. Lou Reed still hasn't learned after 40 years, just to mention one who's still around.

Plagiarism of? ... If you don't know the Jesus Lizard, you really should reconsider things, even if I don't see what the hell they have to do with Nirvana. But it's already come out that the "Deftones" and Rage "signing for Virgin" Against The Machine are the best bands of the '90s, so we're already making progress.

Indeed, Nine Inch Nails, Pantera (!!!) and Rage Against The Machine, the cream of the '90s. And the Deftones, how could we forget the Deftones.