easycure

this is where you keep getting it wrong... I never said they make music just to sell. Is there a single line in my review that implies that? I said their approach is mediocre, and if you bring up obscene double meanings about homosexuality, that doesn't improve anything... maybe you need a justification that doesn't exist (the idea that they would make music to sell, which I never said) because it's too difficult to accept that they are simply mediocre and that's it? :)

Moreover, double entendre in itself can be sharp, but the obscene double entendre used to "disturb" is, I think, the most predictable, expected, and banal way that rock music can employ to provoke some kind of "disquiet." I mean... the songs of the '50s by Elvis Presley had "obscene double entendres" and shook the moral consciences of puritanical America; THAT was at least courageous. Talking today with double meanings about homosexuality, even if using sharp terms if you like, can only make one smile at the naivety.

the "vulgar double entendre" is just that, vulgar. there's a big difference between metaphor and double entendre, not to mention that Petronius was quite explicit, nothing but double meanings!

That the way is fundamental, we agree, that nothing new can be said, I refuse to believe it... And indeed, speaking of ways, THEIR way of provoking, based on obscene double meanings, is the most banal thing one can think of. This is a logical conclusion based on your description.

once again, you haven't understood me... I don't care about a person's tastes... Alex Kapranos can love and hate whatever he wants... it's honestly sad that he flaunts in his lyrics the fact that he hates women and loves men, whether in a more or less veiled way, I don't know : ) it’s still in line with "lyrics that seem immediate, yet are filled with double meanings and mostly obscene wordplay" ... that is, the most classic and banal of provocations.

response to the third installment, even though, with all due respect, it seems so outdated that it doesn’t really provoke much of a reaction from me : D ...I didn't compare them to a boy band, I’m saying they have the same quality standard as a boy band, no more, no less...the fact that they appeal to males and hate women is honestly sad, I don’t understand how you can seriously talk about this, you even dedicated several lines to it! : D ...well...

response to the second episode: and what does it mean that they "provoke a disturbance"? millions of things provoke a disturbance, but there is a big difference between provoking and communicating. The fact that a product provokes disturbance means absolutely nothing. Even Marilyn Manson provokes a disturbance, and by the way, not entirely in a condemnable way; with this he remains provocative, not communicative, meaning not constructive, he remains the same fodder for advertising or Reality, all elements programmed to create some form of "disturbance." Moreover, I never said they are false, certainly mediocre they are.

The Franz Ferdinand weren’t the first... imagine, they would love that! In the indie rock guide released in 2002 by Rumore and written by Rossanoi lo Mele, the emerging Rock scene identified itself with three bands: Strokes, White Stripes (who were already existing), Black Rebel Motorcycle Club. No one knew who the FF were, like dozens of other bands that would soon emerge. It was thanks to the success of the three mentioned above that everything else exploded; the FF just jumped on the bandwagon, they are a pure and simple product of fashion, indeed THE quintessential fashion product, more easily "explainable" than them...

Response to Episode 1: it is indeed possible. Just look at the trend in the media, and tragically, especially in the newspapers of recent years, generally speaking, this decade; newspapers that should be a bit more critical in their judgments compared to television. At the moment when, due to the same music magazines evidently much more focused on the "extra reader" rather than dedicated to educating them, the new wave of rock 'n roll became a trend, the magazines turned into a hunt for the new rock 'n roll/Wave revelation. This is all too visible; just take a look at the covers of Italian (or English) magazines from the year 2005. They've gone from Bloc Party to Babyshambles to Franz Ferdinand to Kaiser Chiefs to Maximo Park to the latest sensation: the Arctic Monkeys. all English, all part of the same "genre," all playing more or less the same type of music. Now, all of this is easily explainable. It’s a cat chasing its tail: the genre sets a trend, it's marketable (after all, it's all rehashed material, the effect is guaranteed) but at the same time, it's alternative, so it's good and attracts an audience even for "alternative" magazines, and thus it's well-suited to being pumped up by them.

Well, as is clearly evident, the review is definitely also a critique of the plethora of magazines and similar outlets that have relegated the album to an excessively high tribute. Hence the radicality. With this, my judgment on the band would not have been different in any case.