easycure

ah ok, I misunderstood your hints, then... : )

Am I dedicating too much time to this? It doesn't seem to me like I'm crushing here all day, or do you have proof to the contrary? :) ... I simply replied to those who write posts to me; after all, reviews are written for this reason too. I don't know if you've ever written one... In any case, if you had read some of the posts above, you would realize that your comment is at least absolutely useless. In fact, you start with a premise that all those disagreeing with my opinion have started with, which is (the gist): "Okay, they're mediocre, but compared to what's out there now, they're better than many others." Now, I’m quite tired of always responding to the same banal statement; I will do so again, but next time, go back and reread the posts above: the fact that crap is circulating now doesn’t justify the FF, who are mediocre and remain mediocre. Because you really have to be ignorant (or dishonest, artistically speaking, as probably the majority of music information channels are) not to know that there have been some truly great albums even in times that were not too suspicious; giving credit to idiots like that is completely out of focus. We're really not on the same page. And I say this. Period. Out of respect for albums that are REALLY masterpieces, I can’t help but say what the FF actually are. With this, no one is trying to stop you from listening to them; when has a review ever been an impediment? :) If you get so excited about "Take Me Out," what can I say? Go ahead and listen to it; you don’t need the legitimacy of a review to enjoy it.

Well, for me they are on the same level; in fact, Michael Jackson undeniably produced better stuff without the pretense of sounding "alternative"... and then someone who tells me they listen to QOTSA and then calls a song like Michael brutal further confuses me about the basis of your judgments…

it is not very gentlemanly to hint in your review, in a polemical manner, at other reviews and reviewers... moreover, yours is a cold description devoid of any interpretation... in other words: it doesn’t taste like anything.

Damn it! I guess I’m going to start buying Blow up too ; )

Aaah Petrucci, Petrucci, do you still think I'm mad at you for that story?? ..I've more than consoled myself with your mother, who, well, was picked up down the avenue and is a bit older, but.. damn was it worth it! ahahahahaha : D ..hello sad guitarist.

which other groups are "bloodless," the ones I mentioned? ..hehehe :) ..well, are you sure you don't want to dive into Madonna's latest album, or maybe pick up something from Michael Jackson? or Duran Duran if you prefer the '80s, or maybe some Boy Band, those are very '90s too :)

Yes. Indeed.

...The Velvet Underground also applies this equation, but their meaning is completely different, while often in the SP the meaning is very introspectively similar to that of the MBV, SIMILAR obviously, not the same. You rely too much on formal particulars that are irrelevant in discussing what is influenced by what, even if maybe I hadn't explained this very clearly either :)

Yes, but then it was you who made gender considerations about Shoegaze, not me... in any case, it’s certainly not worth debating who came first or later, so (at least on this) I won't respond anymore... :) ...that said, "Star Power" is not riff-based, but as can be clearly noted, I wrote, I quote verbatim, THE MAJORITY of the tracks, which isn’t the same as saying all of them. You instead only mentioned "Starpower" and three other tracks as if that could resolve the entire spectrum of SY's production, thus providing a biased, misleading view. Second point: I didn’t mention Cocteau Twins because honestly, I hear very few distortions in Cocteau Twins, and the Cocteau Twins, who emerged long before Jesus and Mary Chain and company, are identifiable, by the words of many founders, with Dream Pop, not with Shoegaze, which they undeniably influenced greatly. So if I ignored them, the reason is quite specific. FURTHERMORE, if dreamy vocals + Shoegaze distortions, and this is OBVIOUSLY observable in Smashing Pumpkins, that doesn’t automatically extend to any other group applying this equation without the result being Shoegaze because you completely forget the chronological component, the most objective of all, which is obviously indicative of the EXPRESSIVE component, much more substantial.