easycure

you don't feel like arguing, but you keep not signing your name, buddy; not signing isn't right if you want to slander people or simply have criticisms to raise... I won't waste my breath on pointless talk about the "cowardice" of those who don't sign... But let me tell you that you're lacking a bit of style...

Look, you’re right; rereading it gives off the impression of a pretentious comment... But have you ever thought about how it’s really just a matter of phrasing? If I had only written “in my opinion,” the comment would have taken on a different tone... Ultimately, it’s also because sometimes I write in a hurry, I assure you... and often (not to defend myself) more polished or seemingly more humble comments are also more “hyped”...
One last note: your criticism is more than welcome, but if you don’t sign your name, it makes me think: what right do you have to criticize? Just because if you signed, I would know who I was dealing with and we could engage in a better discussion... Be mindful of this next time.

I completely agree with Gabri's precise point. And speaking of market laws, Vane, I remind you that the Cure didn't release even one promotional video from Bloodflowers (obviously by Robert's choice)!
P.S. We could have signed more than one contract, but we always refused due to obvious thievery they imposed on us... like outrageous prices for recording the album, exclusive rights for years, and other things like that... I just don't think it’s possible to generalize to the entire world and all record labels...

But I was talking about profit anyway, not art, Vane.. See? Gigio above brought you another valid example of how these much-maligned "impositions" from labels (which do exist often, it’s obvious!) can sometimes be a cliché (or a good excuse!).

Yes, but 1) we are talking about The Cure, not exactly an emerging group. 2) We are talking about the USA, not Italy. 3) We are discussing an independent label, I Am, which has every interest in signing a band that guarantees a stable income like The Cure. I still don't quite believe the story about the imposition by the record label... On the contrary, I would say that especially in the situation The Cure are in now, it’s even less likely.

It is well known that the Cure have always earned above average from their records because Robert Smith mandated that everyone in the band benefit from royalties, not just him; when Wish was released, their distribution company Polygram had already anticipated a total flop, but they didn’t impose anything and, after all, they were used to Smith's constant changes of direction. Smith himself has changed the lineup whenever he saw fit, played with side projects whenever he felt like it, and made records whenever he deemed appropriate... he has always had total control! I’m not saying this because I want it; it’s written in any biography of the Cure, corroborated by producers, sound engineers, and various industry professionals. Regarding having a track that “hits,” Vane, I believe we’ve more or less said the same thing! Bye!

well... In reality, it's known that Robert Smith has always demanded total control over his records, which among other things is evident from the very diverse discography of The Cure... Not to mention that The Cure have always had a "pop key," even at their best moments, so it doesn't really mean anything on its own...

the titular piece is atrocious, the rest below the standards of the period '67-'72

Nice review.. I’ll tell you that more than the album, you got me curious about "una vita al massimo" (which I’m already downloading!! : ))..

Creative genius?! I have rarely heard a more boring and pointless album.