easycure

Therefore, I am an intellectual, if I understood correctly ; ) ...but you see, I understand you too, it's an argument as old as the hills: the moment you criticize something particularly "catchy," the best comeback is, of course, that the critic is an "intellectualist," maybe a bit snobbish... as I said, for me, catchy things (let's call them that, but we understand each other, we mean the same thing) are definitely the most lovable because they are synonymous with humility, which for me is a fundamental concept in art.. with this, you are still attributing to the group in question definitely more credit than they deserve... since the "unbridled vitalism" you speak of seems to me bland dance entertainment, but it’s not a big bass in quarters and a Charleston in sixteenths that creates unbridled vitality.. anyway, there exists creative pop, which for me is the best music in the world, but they don’t even have that Dandy look anymore... and I see very little that is out of the box, it seems like an offense compared to those who have truly been outside the box, without giving up being communicative...

yes yes, maybe.. too bad though that from Talking Heads and Clash (clash??!!) to Franz Ferdinand, like most bands around today that "revive" New Wave, they actually only mimic its form... put simply, the Talking Heads and the Clash were born (especially the former) from a huge innovative drive; they wanted to CHANGE rock; whether they succeeded or not is another story, but they remain, in all respects, experimenters. And this is precisely the focal point: there isn’t even the slightest trace of this intent in Franz Ferdinand or others. This is why Franz Ferdinand tragically, unequivocally, inevitably remain absolute mediocrities. For them, there exists only communicative intent, and furthermore, as established, they borrow stylistic canons from other groups and another era. In other words, the WORST of the WORST of mediocrity. Moreover, even recognizing that they created "a poor art that is also kitsch," in reality, it is an additional admission that they have created nothing. Because even in the first half of the '80s, the most wretched offshoots of English New Wave followed the exact same precept, just as this "philosophy" does not stray far from the Glam Rock of the early '70s.

this album is horrendous. The pathetic performance of three tired old men surrounded by an army of backup musicians, complete with a setlist as pathetic as they are. A low-budget self-celebration with tacky special effects included.

Oh yes, too bad that Rush came a few years after Pink Floyd…

I noticed, Antonino.. you’ve reviewed just about everything from SY ; )

I didn't say it's ugly, I said it's super heavy. Certainly, if you want to get into Sonic Youth, it's not the best choice... plus it's not even the most representative. If you want to have a global idea of the SY, then there's nothing better than the Evol-Sister-Daydream Nation period, more mature but also already more melodic without being ruined (artistically) like that piece of trash Dirty.

But revolution, exactly, what about?

Well, it’s definitely not a five-star album... but it reminds me too much of my 18 years! ; ) I agree about the lyrics.

Dear Monsieur Derecensoreo Sfascia carrozze of (s)fiduzia, your style is undoubtedly charming and, as usual, elegantly refined. However, your recommendation does not particularly resonate with me, perhaps because, in this moment of transition from autumn to winter, I find myself in need of more upbeat music as well as less melancholic tunes. Warmest regards. your Easycure

I absolutely love this album, just like I have infinite admiration for the Beach Boys... but saying that this is the cradle of 3/4 of modern music is still misleading.