easycure

There's plenty of info, no doubt about it! ;-)

Yes, but just because one finds the album terrible doesn't mean they should necessarily disparage the review or even more so the reviewer.

Always fascinating and convincing, Mr. Sfascia... has convinced me about a group that had never managed to catch my attention. Best regards. your Easycure

Thank you Jimmone ;-)

I say you can't play the Cure with a Charleston on accents (that is, one strong hit and one soft), but what's the point? The Charleston of the Cure as Tolhurst and Williams played it was straight and regular, as befits new wave... there's Forest, which is a true abomination played like that! And those drums need to be darker, that snare needs to be hit harder, and it needs to be faster! Thompson played with Page and Plant in '95, when Page and Plant made that album together (which I can't remember the name of at all)... they also played the cover of Lullaby during that time.

;-) .. feel free to listen to the Feelies again so you'll have the complete equation, especially regarding the Bloc Party.

Allow me to doubt it... I haven't been there (because I didn't want to go), but it’s been a while since the Cure have been able to move me live... too slow, bland, with that damned click everywhere standardizing the speed of the tracks to that of the records, losing their drive and power.. and then those interpretations so questionable, with that drumming so un-Cure-like, those keyboards with the wrong sounds, Bamonte's guitar, that truly couldn't compare to Thompson who also played with Page and Plant (and that must mean something).. if all this is combined with the choice to reduce the lineup to 4 members, the game of massacring the Cure live (which already feels so outdated) is already done (despite the reassuring presence of Thompson, who certainly can’t play two instruments at the same time alone).. I doubt, I doubt..

I accept! :-D ..ok, I better understand your point of view and I will take it to heart, it’s an interesting perspective! (sorry for the unintentional quote from Pulp Fiction) ..no, I study in Florence, the most disorganized Psychology faculty in Italy ;-)

Well, as much as they have entertained me these past two years... let's just say that I certainly like them as people.. :-D heheh

We are close, then... I study Social Psychology... we agree that beautiful and ugly do not exist at an absolute level; I had no intention of asserting that... Nevertheless, I consider the idea that "moderation is the measure of the objectivity of an analysis" to be overall misleading. Moreover, it’s a tad contradictory... if absolute beauty and ugliness do not exist, it’s also difficult to talk about "analysis," a term that certainly implies scientific rigor... in any case, in purely phenomenological terms, moderation is often misunderstood as a bland and anti-informative sloppiness and ignorance, much like what most music information channels today offer, forced to celebrate the prevailing mediocrity in certain environments/genres precisely because of their "moderation" (a term that in this case assumes, as it can and sometimes does, negative connotations)... from a logical standpoint, however, if we consider beauty and ugliness as two extremes of a continuum (which is likely the most widespread and "reliable" framework for these two concepts/elements), discussing beauty and ugliness only with moderation would mean focusing exclusively on the central part of this continuum, effectively eliminating a wide range of phenomena that subjectively (the only possible knowledge in the realm of "beautiful"-"ugly," as we agreed) exist, and would ultimately mean nullifying the very concepts of Beauty and Ugliness, at least in their univocal sense.