lux

Opeth are immense, but to be fair, MrMorte didn't speak badly of them. In fact, they are one of the few metal bands he appreciates, let's leave him alone, for once he's not talking nonsense, eh eh...

In fact, I try to seek out groups from the past... if you’re a fan, it’s obvious that you view Nirvana in a certain way; I recommend something more progressive anyway, like Pink Floyd, Yes, Camel, King Crimson, Rush. You’ll definitely know at least one of these.

Here are the Pixies... at a completely different level compared to Nirvana. What I meant to say is that when we want to talk about an artistic and musical product, it is essential to evaluate the work ALSO for what it is, beyond the passion that the band has poured into its creation. Passionate commitment does not always lead to great results, even though it often does.

"LUX YOU'RE AN IDIOT!!! that's all I can say..." can't you say anything else? No arguments? you comment on yourself.

On the human side, we agree, but here, after all, we are discussing music regardless of that (and of Kobain's sensitivity). I don't comment on the quality of their musical proposal (that's not for me to decide), but undoubtedly, in my own small way, I can say that they are not Punk-Rock, that's all. MrMorte gets really worked up for no reason. Anyway... can you tell me which other "rock" bands you've listened to besides Nirvana? There are genres far more elaborate and particular than Nirvana; just listen to something from the '70s, for example.

I personally think that good POP absolutely does not need either guitars or solos, that might be for rock/metal... :) You have a bit of a bone to pick with the songs written by Taylor, am I wrong? Anyway, the problem with Queen in the 80s is not whether they are Pop, rock, or Metal(!), it's that they composed songs that are really WAY too catchy and easy to grab. "Scandal" is a glaring example: It catches you right away, that's true, and it sticks in your head, but it's all damn Kitsch (or however you spell it). There's no artistic proposal behind it, no enlightening inspiration... just a thirst for money. (And even Mercury admits that, not too implicitly). The Queen of the 70s? A whole different story...

You say? Yet it emphasizes "Gay for its cheerfulness"... Well, anyway, the rating remains a 2, alas.

I apologize to all the visitors of this review, because if this pathetic discussion between me and that idiot MrMorte has taken shape, it is obviously also because of me, for stooping to his level of incompetence like a brain-dead person and giving him rope. I'm sorry.

But what should we say about Nirvana? I explained to you why they can't be defined as Punk-Rock in total, because that would be absolutely reductive. I don't give a damn that Nirvana is your favorite band. Just because you jerk off in front of a poster of Kurt Cobain doesn't make them Punk Rock. They are not punk-rock. PERIOD. You can't say anything else but "they are punk-rock," you don't argue anything, you throw out random phrases from Wikipedia and Ondarock (which, by the way, don't even support your point), clichéd lines just to copy and paste for something. You don’t explain a thing to me, because besides not knowing shit about rock-metal, you know absolutely nothing about Punk (which is still rock, after all). But do you actually enjoy carrying on a discussion like this? I’m fed up with it. If you have nothing to do during the day and need to spew abominable bullshit on this review to keep yourself going and not commit suicide out of boredom, try JERKING OFF ALL DAY: the ideal pastime for losers like you.

Guys, gay in English literally means first and foremost "happy, lively." It has nothing to do with homosexuality. But they deny it, you can't hear it, I'm sorry.