easycure

Absolutely agree.. even though it is more derivative than its predecessor, I prefer it because it is more genuinely directed towards a true style.. even if this style is still in a building phase and not exactly "complete."

masterpiece.. surreal and unsettling.. a nightmare of "normality" korine is a pure nihilist and does even better than the films he writes.

this for sure ;-) ..thank you very much, vortex!

Well... I'm sure Chris Parry wanted it, but if he wanted it, it was because the artistic crisis was evident. To put it simply, there wouldn't be any more pornography, one way or another. That said, I don't completely disagree with you, but it feels a bit like the story of the chicken and the egg—who came first? Chris Parry (who, by the way, never had much decision-making power over a band that's historically known for having signed one of the most privileged and artist-friendly contracts there have been) definitely influenced the direction, a direction that Smith would have taken anyway, as evidenced by the complete ease with which he engages with so-called "pop" material. Moreover, he has always been somewhat "pop" (see Boys Don't Cry, etc.). Also, the story that Smith hated chart pop seems to me like the classic statement from Smith tossed out and invalidated ten seconds later (see the various dissolution declarations, etc.... Smith is a clown, after all :-D): this is further demonstrated by the fact that the so-called "chart pop" would never again leave the Cure's career, and it constitutes some of the happiest episodes of the band (Close to Me, Caterpillar, Lovecats, In Between Days). So, in my opinion, Smith didn't despise so-called "pop" at all... he probably hated this particular song, which is deliberately silly, but in its own way still important and, above all, I think, much more personal than the previous dark digressions, at least Pornography.

I completely disagree (I've already expressed my opinion on this matter elsewhere)... in any case, it's somewhat a senseless review: regarding this truly watershed single, more interesting things could have been said from a purely musical perspective and less unnecessarily biased from a "historical" point of view... the key to change, however, lies entirely in the character of the leader... if one simply takes into account his biography and his choices, it becomes clear how not only this sudden change is essentially necessary, but also how much more genuine the Robert Smith of this period is than that of Pornography... perhaps a bit less tunnel vision could rightfully reassess the true masterpiece of the Cure as that inexhaustible treasure trove of creativity that is "The Top".

beautiful review. I fully agree with your analysis.. unfortunately, beneath these formal labels lies the rejection and more often the inability to create a true language.. what probably characterizes today’s rock more than anything else, for better (and especially for worse, for me) is this.

"America is born as a counterpoint to Europe in terms of political ideals" is debatable, in fact very debatable. As for Machiavelli, no one uses and abuses him; I have done little more than quote "The Prince."

well well... you keep getting worked up... I don't know, make yourself a chamomile, but what's the need? :-) ...anyway, obviously I had already anticipated in the previous comment your misunderstanding: I’m talking about substantial identity, I have to repeat myself, in the poetics, in the intent, in the purpose, in what they tell, in the meaning, in the content... I used 6 different terms, I hope I've been clearer... as for the review, written more than three years ago, in the end I also agree with you... it's definitely very sparse (for as much as the topics I expressed are enough), if you want more in-depth comments, the whole discussion from 12/6/2006 onwards should satisfy you... as for the rest, I have never personally offended you, obviously when the arguments run out it's common to raise the tone eh eh eh ;-D bye bye

You're talking about the cause, but I still haven't understood it, since, excuse the repetition, you haven't really said anything.

1) You are not demonstrating at all that there is no objectivity in what I've written: for you, Bellamy has an amazing voice, maybe so... but there is nothing you say to support that is very different from Yorke's voice, as it's quite obvious that it is. Moreover, I find it annoying because it's pompous, rhetorical, and unnecessarily pathetic, factors that are quite evident upon listening. Now, according to your taste, you can certainly say that for you it is an amazing voice, but in critical terms, you have not provided any argument to support that my view is lacking in objectivity. You just said, "I say it's not objective!" Period. Your convictions are welcome, but the fact remains that you continue to prove nothing of what you say.
2) Yes, Muse are banal because they are not very personal and heavily referential, despite appearances. In response, you only quoted a few pieces here and there, we don’t know to demonstrate what. Once again, I don’t understand how and what you are criticizing about my review. You are just getting worked up because I touched on a band that you obviously like. For the rest, you are saying nothing.
3) "Radiohead have nothing to do with it" ...even if Muse were the best band in the world, saying that Radiohead have nothing to do with it is nonsense that even a child could dismantle in three seconds... it’s okay to be a fan, but you could have spared yourself that.
4) Do Muse have the courage to experiment? I doubt it, and even if they did, they have clearly failed in this. Have you ever heard of Battles? That’s a band that, just to give an example, REALLY has the courage to experiment. This brings us back to the beginning. What records have you listened to? Because to make such statements, you need to have at least some awareness. Otherwise, it's better to remain silent. Not to mention, the risk is simply that one might fail to do justice to bands that have REALLY experimented. Regarding "risking," apart from the last one, they have made three fundamentally identical albums (before being misunderstood, the PURPOSE and the MEANING of their songs have changed little or nothing across three albums); stylistically, they copy various trends from the '90s here and there, with few and irrelevant novelties. In terms of sound, they are one of the least original bands you can listen to today, so tied to styles from fifteen years ago that they come off as simply dull. The "incredible" pathos seems to me just pathetic, since it is clearly connected to what has already been expressed by others (let’s not name names since it’s quite obvious), simply raising the dramatic level with a completely exhibitionistic logic and no real search for depth. I don’t see even half a brilliant idea in there, and I don’t know what you’re referring to since you don’t describe these “brilliant ideas.” I may be pathetic, but you continue not to explain to me why. In compensation, what you write is indeed increasingly pathetic in its unnecessarily fervent attempts to dismantle others' opinions solely with childish "arguments" that lack any semblance of analysis.
P.S. I don’t care about the analysis of individual songs; I don’t know if you’ve read any reviews now and then, but almost no one analyzes individual songs. Moreover, the album as a whole is something that goes far beyond the analysis of a single piece; thus, simply put, the analysis of the individual song often does not do justice to the album, and in any case, it is not a necessary condition to fully discuss an album. The comparison with previous albums is utterly pointless in this case; I haven’t seen even half a substantial difference, so my choice was quite straightforward. Is that so difficult to understand? ...obviously, now there is the cliché that dismantling MTV bands would be pretentious... well, I’ve listened to thousands of records, I enjoy writing about music, and for me, this is a crappy album... I don’t understand why this should make me a "pretentious