geenoo Banned

I've never asked you what you listen to, you know (it would also take a lot to research your reviews, your favorite albums, where you've contributed, etc.)? I'm talking about those that I consider "shoots." Then, your "rock has said it all" is exactly equal to my "it's stopped," meaning no more innovation, just like you mean it. Now, I absolutely don't believe that's the case; on the contrary. Music transforms, shifts its horizons; rock will be called something else. But it will always be music by rebellious kids who want to have fun, get drunk, chase girls, and play great music. Everything changes, and one cannot remain still. It's quite clear that rock from the 60s/70s has said it all. Thank you very much. That era is over, and it couldn't historically have been any other way. Then there was the 80s/90s, there will be the 00s/10s, and so on. You should be more honest by saying: as of today, there are no more tough rock'n'roll bands like there used to be. The discussion would then be different. But even that would be a "historical" nonsense.

If you don't want to talk about all modern music... at least admit that you fired a blank cannon saying that rock (whatever you mean, even restricted to just guitar-bass-drums with rolls-chorus and solo) stopped in the 60s/70s (Then again, some innovative bands come to mind, right????). This is called an objective nonsense.

In Back in Black... the discourse has been taken further compared to previous works. Little, but taken further.

Yes, of course, everyone understands it except me. Aside from this presumption, you CANNOT write that in 26 years (I mean 26!) there hasn’t been any innovation in rock!!!!!!!!! I have a broad concept of rock, as it should be. And even records that aren’t exactly innovative, like Ten by Pearl Jam, have carried the discourse forward, and to some extent, have shifted it. Think about how many clone bands are still around. The same goes for many records on the list. But these are few, let’s say about 30/40% of those that deserve a mention.

Great and unforgettable disco.

BECK-Mellow Gold (1994); BUTTHOLE SURFERS-Psychic Powerless (1985); NICK CAVE & THE BAD SEEDS -The Good Son (1990); DIRTY THREE-Ocean Songs (1998); TOM WAITS-Swordfishtrombones (1983); ULTRAVOX-Vienna (1980); TUXEDOMOON-Half-Mute (1980); TORTOISE-Millions Now Living Will Never Die (1996); TALKING HEADS-Remain In Light (1980); DAVID SYLVIAN-Secrets Of The Beehive (1987); STEREOLAB-Transient-Random Noise Bursts With Announcements (1993); SONIC YOUTH-Daydream Nation (1988); SMASHING PUMPKINS-Siamese Dream (1993); RED HOUSE PAINTERS-Down Colorful Hill (1992); RADIOHEAD-Ok Computer (1997)-Kid A (2000); PORTISHEAD-Dummy (1994); BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN-Nebraska (1982); U2-Under A Blood Red Sky (1983)-The Joshua Tree (1987); STAN RIDGWAY-The Big Heat (1986); PRINCE-Purple Rain (1984); REM-Murmur (1983)-Automatic For The People (1992); POGUES-Rum, Sodomy And The Lash (1985); PIXIES-Surfer Rosa (1988); NIRVANA-Nevermind (1991); NINE INCH NAILS-The Downward Spiral (1994); MERCURY REV-Deserter's Songs (1998); KYUSS-Blues For The Red Sun (1992); JESUS AND MARY CHAIN-Psychocandy (1985); DREAM SYNDICATE-The Medicine Show (1984); RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE-Rage Against The Machine (1992); AC/DC-Back In Black (1980); PETER GABRIEL-So (1986); PEARL JAM-Ten (1992)......... etcetera etcetera etcetera........... but so much etcetera.

Since the '80s, has there been no more innovative rock music?

Sure, sure. So, music is an important thing, and if you send a review, I will read it and critique it. You’ve made some bold statements. Have you ever read any essays? Any interviews with great authors? Reviews by critics? Yours is YOUR idea, that’s true. And as such, I critique it. I'm not laughing. "Objective" in the sense of decades of music. "Objective" in the sense of decades of reviews, articles, ideas, concepts, albums, and books that discuss rock and its surroundings, which you dismiss with ease. You have pontificated. Period. It’s already hard to tolerate a pope who pontificates; we certainly don’t need a reviewer making assertions as they please. This sentence: "Rock from the 60s and 70s has already said everything it could in terms of innovation; that’s logical and obvious for quite a while now." And especially your corollary of posts, here’s one: "...I believe all the simple and humble ways to say something have already been used in rock. If you want to make simple and humble rock, it's almost impossible not to fall back on what's already been heard. If you don't want to fall back on what's already been heard, there aren't many options. Either you don't do rock and turn to genres still to be squeezed like rap, similar metal crossovers, or electronic music, or you complicate rock. Like in this case, very, very complicated. In my opinion, rock has said it all..."

"I count more people who liked this writing than those who were rolling on the floor laughing": Writing? Come on. Get real. I didn't roll on the floor; I gave you a critique. That's quite different, and it's you who turns it into a joke. If you have more praise than criticism here, I see it another way: only those who can tolerate you are coming in. Those who enjoy your pontificating. Objectively, it's funny because, excluding this small club of pro-Caz, if we let 100 music enthusiasts read this review, what do you think the response would be? (Well, I can imagine your answer: all one hundred would praise me!)

The discourse is overall, not just for individual posts. Starting from the rating of the album, from the content of the review and gradually down to the posts below. This is all in light of your other reviews and contributions. Undisputable is the "meaning" you give to your responses and your statements. Fly down.