easycure

Damn, let's say you're really exaggerating. The entire '90s were full of avant-gardes; it seems absurd to me to believe that now we can only stir the past. That would mean truly admitting once and for all that rock is dead. Definitely. And then I didn’t understand: in this period it’s like... so maybe in the future something will change? And who will change it? How? In what way? Are we waiting for the Almighty (with all due respect) to come and deliver us a new genre? I really can't see this period as something to accept a priori. Rather, I see it as a huge distortion. After all, there are records like the one from Battles to testify that creativity, fortunately, is something that cannot exist at intervals. They at least "say something," even though they are not avant-garde at all (in fact, this is perhaps where I’m misunderstood; it’s not that everything has to be avant-garde for me. But certainly everything must have a truly creative effort).

johnnycaro, stay very calm and composed. First, you continue to be evidently paranoid: no one is trying to make you appear as someone you’re not; at most I might have "interpreted" your words in a sense you clearly didn’t intend. For this reason, stay very calm: you yourself have already misunderstood me a couple of times, so it doesn’t seem appropriate to resort to explicit attacks just for (possible) misunderstandings (of which you, I repeat, were the first protagonist). Secondly, regarding matters of substance, let’s start quoting textually: "...I am at a loss for words...but do you realize the madness?" your phrase, in response to stoney. "Given the tones and means being used, it seems more like a political debate, and I'm quite happy to withdraw from it. Bye and to my face...(whatever)..." your phrase, in response both to me and to Stoney. It seems to me that your attitude is scandalized towards "tones" and "means" (I quote literally)... or not? Of course, with your last post you helped to clarify things, but the fact remains that this was the impression. Or not? If I am "dishonest," at least you take responsibility for your opinions, come on. Thirdly, I countered EXACTLY the only criticism you had directed at me in your previous post. That is, that somewhat absurd rant of yours claiming that "for you two, anyone who doesn’t think like you falls into the 'fan' category, so they must be attacked, thus circumvented, thus made to understand that they are a poor naïve who knows nothing, right?" I quote literally. Sorry, but did you say this or not? Or are there two of you writing? I am astonished. It was exactly this that I responded to, yet it turns out I didn’t counter anything and that I would be dishonest... Whatever. Scripta manent, and thank goodness for that. Next time, read better (your posts first and foremost); perhaps therein lies the problem.

Johnny, not to say anything, but I quoted a phrase you wrote (note the quotation marks) in the only moment I mentioned the word "credibility" ..as for the rest, I don't think I've even hinted at a comma on the subject ..well, well, well! ..look, you’re not the first: evidently there’s a complex, not even that hidden; Just let someone criticize the group and magically the fan is "circumvented" and "attacked" :-D ..not to say, but where do you see all this terrifying and spiteful intentionality? could it simply be that for someone this is one of the prototypes of the most banal achievable? I’m surprised, for example, that no one asks where these considerations come from (which, as you might have noticed, we are already two to express, so maybe it’s not a coincidence). Does it not occur to anyone to consider that perhaps there’s a cultural, experiential reason for thinking in a certain way? Instead, no, the world ends and begins with deceived fans and a group on which it seems heretical to say something truly critical. Well, and again well

Guys, a heartfelt thank you to everyone! :-) alessioIRIDE! I replied to you with a comment, didn’t you get the message??? Let me know if I should send it again.

I would have never gone either, Sfascia, I have to admit... it was for emotional necessity (my girlfriend is a fan :-D)... but when a concert rocks, it rocks. And theirs was really a great concert, no doubt about it. I wouldn't have even expected to end up writing a review like this. and yet, yet... thanks to everyone for the comments anyway :-)

X Damn; come on guys, let's get over these superficial and pointless issues of small and trivial formal differences. Now the big news is the use of arpeggio? ..And what about that other thing? that one is American and the other is English? Come on, let's not insult our mutual intelligence :-D ..I look at the intent, the expression, the purpose.. and it took me five full tenths of a second the first time I listened to "obstacle 1" to understand what this group, with quite little restraint, tended to represent. And then, about the voice discussion? But why, is a baritone timbre only possessed by Banks and Curtis? isn't it perhaps in seeking identical harmonies, atmospheres, isn't it a matter of style (the setting for example. Oops, but Curtis was much more out of tune, there's another huge difference :-D) the similarity? I mentioned it above (but I wasn't taken into account): With identical voices, interpretation and melodies can vary. And the possible combinations are approximately tending towards infinity. meh and again meh... it's obvious that they aren't a hundred percent identical: these guys have twenty-five years more of music behind them. One would have to be out of touch with reality not to have a obviously broader range of references. But I look at the substance, and to also respond to blackdog.. maybe your considerations are valid for Unknown Pleasures (which by the way the Interpol often pick up that slightly nervous vibe you mention) but Closer is definitely much more melodic and, above all, full of romantic pathos. In conclusion though, I don't at all disagree with you when you say that they are among the least bad of the bunch. Because it's true. But that doesn't change the fact that they are indeed "less bad," and it doesn't change the fact that one can find stuff that's a bit more honest and less decadent in approach. And even more, that doesn't change the fact that they are mediocre in absolute terms (for me).

Personally, I have never had the audacity to claim that I possess "supreme musical knowledge"... but that doesn't mean I shouldn't say something is trivial if that's my impression. Moreover, as you were trying to prove, Johnny, you based your entire response on the usual misunderstanding mentioned above: quite evidently (he responded on purpose) Stoney is talking about the HOW, not the WHAT... I really don't think I was the one who misread. And I repeat: I fully stand by my total approval of what he says... if the intuition (based on knowing their musical approach quite well by now) wasn't enough, your examples are increasingly confirming it. Furthermore, I don't understand: if Pausini were to talk about the same things, I don't think even Mollica would refrain from calling them trivialities. But when the DT say it, then criticizing them becomes "madness," "arrogance," "superficiality"? How much and what kind of presumption does it take to implicitly suggest that a certain way of criticizing certain "artists" is "forbidden"? Why is it about "destroying the credibility of five musicians"? And I repeat, what if it were Pausini instead? The point is that for you it’s about the credibility of musicians. For me, it’s about the cunning of five smoke sellers. Given that we live in a democracy and every point of view is legitimate, your "scandalization" seems truly absurd to me.

Blackdog, in fact, is the premise I cannot accept: "nothing new is invented anymore" is where the only reason a group like Interpol is generally regarded as "decent" lies. Domo, a voice, regardless of similarities of nature, can be interpreted in millions of different ways and, above all, with billions of possible melodies. So the singer in question really looked for the similarity with a lantern, no doubt about that. Apart from this, the discourse above regarding Blackdog holds: ten years ago, they would have been at most a curiosity (aside from the fact that they would have been difficult to conceive), good for some nostalgic crow of the '80s; today they are praised because we are in a moment where there is no avant-garde, and the concept of "genre" no longer exists either. They simply belong to the enormous legion of revivalists and have heavily contributed to giving this movement a "dignity." So from my point of view, they cannot be saved. They are mediocrities rescued by a mediocre period that they themselves helped to create.

People who don't understand or pretend not to understand are terrifying... who laughed at what? What are you saying? Mine was a smile of sacred sharing with what Stoney wrote. By the way, you also misunderstood him: he wasn't referring to the "themes," but to the way... which is arrogant and superficial. I repeat, I don't know the lyrics, but his descriptions are eloquent and the music is already very indicative... so I trust him and in any case I fully agree with his equation... consequently, I have another cheerful laugh about those who can't even lighten up on something like music. Take that :-D

I hadn't even considered the lyrics because the music was already enough for me... but thanks for finding an additional confirmation to thoughts I've already expressed abundantly. I'm in sync with you one thousand percent :-D ..p.s. stoney, if you want to get an idea of the tons of arguments had on the subject, take a look at my review of "metropolis pt. 2" ;-)