Adriano Bernard

beautiful. The guns are worse anyway. Nirvana are overrated for me.

Among my favorites. Right away. I've never laughed so hard in my life, damn it :-) "I have thousands of fans, but none have turned 18 yet; I always have three cops on my tail to prevent me from making carnal gestures with my pupils. The other day I turned on the computer and entered the chat on my official site: a funeral. The oldest were DarkAngel93 - Iosonodark95 - KitKat92 and Califano91 "ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahaha AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAEHEHEHEAHAHA HA! AMAZING ahah:-))))))

"Genious with a lack of talent"---->>> Are you talking about genius that perhaps isn't technically skilled or "can't play"? For me, technique means little to nothing; what matters is what a piece of music wants to convey, the ideas and the originality. For example, the Ramones (but this is a looooooong discussion... better to leave it aside).

So if the Maids wanted to, they could improve themselves: it's also true that they play a very "classic and traditional" genre, but they could change the structure of their compositions, or at least stop trying to do things the same way all the time. I certainly don't expect them to start playing jazz; they are not that kind of band and they wouldn’t even engage in experimentation, but changing their style or the type of songs (which are always structured in the same monotonous way, one a photocopy of the other) is something I expect from any artist; otherwise, for me, they cannot be defined as such: an artist improves, puts themselves on the line, gets refined. At least, you know, it would be something if they had made an album that was the same as the previous one but better: instead, it's just a faded copy, a memory of what they once were, as I said before. I mean, if they’re not doing it to make money, then why are they doing it? At least they should have the dignity to say, “Okay, we’re old now; it’s time to retire, maybe we’ll do a concert every three years, singing our hits so as not to disappoint the fans.” But they don’t do that, so... Anyway, I prefer bands that make 2 or 3 really beautiful, fresh, and original albums and then give up their career. At least they have dignity: I don’t know, will the band still be around in 2020, churning out albums? At least, since they have this great passion for skeletons, they could put a photo of themselves on the cover. :-) Then I would like to know who these historical bands are... Anyway, I was a fan of the Maids... Regards :)

Here we are talking about what is truly an original novelty: take, for example, a group like Dire Straits... they haven’t changed their style or genre, but they’ve released album after album, each better than the last and always different. Sure, their sound is always that of a blues rock with languid guitar, but they have transitioned from almost jazz/blues songs with orgasmic saxophone to the most mind-bending psychedelia of "Private Investigations" (accompanied by a flamenco guitar, can you imagine?) to almost country-like ballads such as "Brothers in Arms." Or Porcupine Tree, which evolved from Pink Floyd-esque psychedelia to true masterpieces of electronic, ambient, progressive rock, pop, and prog metal. Moreover, the leader of Porcupine Tree, Steven Wilson (a true genius, in my opinion), has a bunch of side projects, including one in orchestral/psychedelic pop, one in ambient electronic experimentation, and one in jazz. Then there are Opeth (who, by the way, have collaborated with Steven Wilson): we’re still talking about death metal, but do you have any idea of the progress they’ve made from the beginning of their career to today? They have produced some albums that are almost (if not entirely) masterpieces, among which “Damnation” stands out for me. An album that has nothing to do with metal.

Look, this isn't about changing genre or style: Maiden could evolve while maintaining their style and genre. What I'm saying is that they're committed to making every album the same: the opener always lasts about 4 minutes and is always identical across all albums, just like "Wicker Man" for "Brave New World" is "Different World" here. They're not trying to improve; they're simply copying as much as possible from the previous album and so on. "Honestly, I’m wary of anyone trying to convince me that every novelty is beautiful and innovative by force" ---->> I'm wary too, especially because if I had met someone trying to do something like that, I would have already told them off. For me, if something is just the same but wants to pass itself off as an original novelty, I give it a score of 1 or 2, which is what it deserves.

kill, stop it here... you're becoming pathetic, please

damned appointment, even lucorro. for lucorro: "don't touch my manowar" ---->>> Don't worry, I won't touch the crap :)

But the group, objectively speaking, is a mess. They have nothing more than the groups that are circulating today on various MTV and the like (to which our Jon has managed to convert, with the horrifying "always" and "it's my life"). This is garbage, plain and simple. "3 great rock albums behind them": I hope you're ignorant and that you don't even know what rock is, otherwise it's serious. They have only the attitude when it comes to rock: instrumentally they're zero, musically too, with utterly bland melodies. Rock is something else entirely. By the way: if in your next post you need to be rude like in this last one, don't respond by spewing venom. Because you've just demonstrated that you have prejudices against me.

You’re a real rude person: I didn’t insult you, nor did I call you ignorant. Before you speak, learn some manners; we’re discussing music here in a civil way, and you cannot and must not address me like that. We don’t know each other, and consequently, you can’t act like a uncouth lout in this way. I haven’t forgotten the albums you mention; perhaps it’s you who haven’t read carefully: I said “with the subsequent ones they started to scrape it,” referring to the albums after Fahrenheit and before Bounce, etc., meaning precisely the albums you’re talking about. The albums you mention remain third-rate rock to me, like the rest of the discography (and anyone with a minimal knowledge of music culture can confirm this on Debaser, as you can see from the ratings these “records” by Jon Bon Jovi & co. received): songs like "Lay Your Hands on Me," "Bed of Roses," "Keep the Faith," or "Bad Medicine" exhibit a level of composition that borders on the ridiculous. Zero ideas, zero compositions, all a big zero I’d say: just the air of bad pretentiousness. And their tough-guy attitude is truly laughable, considering that from the music I’d say they are very much Bush-like (but let’s drop that, otherwise we’ll never finish if we get into politics :-)), in addition to the fact that they shamelessly rip off Guns N' Roses. If “you’re attached to this period of the band,” meaning you hold a sentimental connection because of good memories or whatever, then that’s a different story.