easycure

Yes, but a framework, when taught, is simply assimilated, as you yourself said; if it is "constructed" in a personal way, it is also "accommodated" according to one's own approach. Furthermore, you continue to frame the issue in a way that is antithetical to my point of view. I did not say that technique NECESSARILY means rigidity; I said that it CAN do so. Just as I did not deny that there can be great works in Rock that are ALSO technical, I pointed out that many masterpieces do not at all stem from a polished or knowledgeable approach to what they play: the Velvet Underground had a completely A-technical approach, as did most Garage bands and prior to them, Skiffle and Rock'n'roll bands. Their assimilated frameworks were few and elementary, probably a result of listening more than schooling; for the rest, it was a matter of instinct and immediate personal approach and interpretation of these elementary canons. Just like later with punk and the American New Wave, and later still with most of Indie (which consciously bases its aesthetic on the lack of technique). I repeat, all this does not exist in itself as a DENIAL of technique (except perhaps for punk and, as already mentioned, certain Indie), which can therefore coexist peacefully but certainly transcends it, rendering it superfluous, non-essential.

The more or less evolved use of technique does not necessarily invalidate the final result, but it CAN indeed do so, because technique means a scheme, which is, or rather can be, a prior rigidity. Apart from this, of course, a bit of technique is necessary to express oneself, but here we probably have two different concepts of technique (in this regard, I had distinguished between technique and culture earlier); think of the self-taught: their technique is primarily based on listening and is not mediated by any prior knowledge that imposes a certain type of interpretation. Of course, this is the most extreme example, I am not a proponent of "do it yourself," clearly there are various middle paths. What matters, however, is that the self-taught, as happens in any form of learning based on adherence and sharing of a culture, actively constructs their knowledge, filtering what they learn through their own sensitivity, taste, and vision. They do not learn schemes and THEN build their presumed personality from them. In a form of expression like rock, which is immediate and universal (on a social level), there is no need for extensive training because it is not an elitist form of art; the necessity for an a priori technique diminishes. And it is a fact that the greatest works in rock transcend a type of technique necessarily imparted "from above" and canonized.

Hello everyone! .-) ..It seems that you have already clarified, the meaning of my post was what Ashanti has already said: definitely no technical style is in itself a sign of greatness in artistic terms, and certainly no technical style should be considered fundamental for self-expression, this is what I meant. Aside from that, it's true Larrok that even 4 chords in a row are the result of technique, but there’s a difference between technique that is taught, imparted, transmitted through concepts and exercises. There’s another thing that is culture, which offers you schemes that can be continuously reworked, and there's a big difference. Bye :-)

oh no Larrok, don't do it! :-D Well, as a "key to understanding," you could consider Smith as one of the most diverse and obscure composers ever, and start with this or "kiss me.." (that is, two of the commonly less appreciated albums, which works in your favor).. for me, that’s the best key to understanding.. if you can't do it, well, it's fine.. the Cure aren't exactly the absolute non plus ultra to warrant "insane gestures" :-D

Great Lux! well, for the DTs.. everyone has their weaknesses.. :-)))))))

Hi Fidia! Thanks for the compliment (one of the most interesting reviews), first of all; I can understand very well that compared to the rest of The Cure's discography, this is one of the least accessible, precisely because it’s one of the least definable. Of course, it’s a matter of taste; I’ve gone through a "journey" where I moved from the more twilight albums to appreciate above all this one and "Kiss me..” :-)

For this album, the review is absolutely perfect.

Why should everything that isn't understood be considered "pseudo-intellectual"? :-) Answer this question and you'll have the answer to your very pseudo-snob-yeah-I'm-obviously-abov e-the-masses ehheh ;-)

Of course! Don't worry, everything is fine. :-)

X Ashanti, I totally agree with you: people often forget that bending etc. are nothing more than acquired stylistic devices that no one can claim to enforce the use of just because they characterize "knowledge." That would simply be foolish. Just because they make up technique and skill, should they be used? Used according to whom? For what purpose? They are merely shortcuts, preconceived schemes, and as such they represent nothing but the "already said." There are thousands of groups in the evolution of rock that have done without these pathetic and childish clichés of the instrument, typically aimed at tourism. Any musical "discourse" is a posteriori: expression comes first, and then a certain use of the instrument and its potential (which, by the way, are infinite regardless of any technical stylistic device), not the other way around. The guitar is used, it is not a slave to the usual dismal theatrical displays of rock grammar. This is simply useless in its amorphous a priori nature. Au revoir to August 20th :-)