easycure

Well, if you listen closely to the album, it doesn't really leave much with you, Samuel.. it has that Royal Trux vibe, you know.. very metamusical: a big reflection on form, but ultimately just form, after all.. at least that's what I gathered; for this reason, I think the important factor in his growth is to truly start telling something (musically) with this form. And another thing that doesn't fully convince me are the arrangements.. there are some unnecessary or even trivial overdubs.. I would have highlighted more the acidity of the guitar; if you could hear the strings being attacked like live, it would have been much better :-D

Haha Dallas, Samuel katarro annoys many for many reasons.. I appreciate his bold destroy-form personality.. for the rest, maybe he really needs to start saying something, that's true. Bye!

x primiballi: very true! However, as you rightly say, the "niche" can be an artistic problem or, conversely, it can be a problem of space reserved for certain forms of art. In that case, one cannot blame the niche; in fact, it is a state of affairs, not an artistic choice (if we absolutely must use the term niche). Hi!

I already notice a significant shift in perspective: between saying that there’s nothing original like this album and saying that nothing truly original reaches a wide audience, the difference, if you allow me, is abyssal. "The niche product is dangerously limiting" is a rather incomprehensible statement. What does niche product mean, and above all, what does a niche product do? Does the fact that Samuel Katarro was printed in 2000 copies automatically categorize it as niche, or is the inability to reach a broad audience something that is independent of the artist? These are questions worth pondering. Furthermore, the Animal Collective mentioned above are not casually featured on the cover of a famous music magazine... are they still considered niche? Yet they are billions of times more original than McCartney's snobbish divertissement... hmm, hmm. Often disinformation "protects" itself by labeling anything that doesn’t fit its parameters as "snobbish," a notion I've noticed more than once here. In fact, thinking it over, I truly believe there is no album more snobbish than the one reviewed here. Ciao!

x Donnie Darko: it's true, McCartney has made history whether I like it or not. At the same time, and fortunately "I can want it," he just seems like an old and stale rich man who enjoys playing and composing little records every now and then. Which is obviously perfectly fine, but don’t expect me to say that his music makes any sense… or that it’s even the most original music you can listen to today… it descends into the ridiculous: I feel like I'm reading dangerous shifts in culture akin to X Factor… where beauty has very debatable (and 50-year-old) criteria and everything else simply doesn’t exist.

I would have set the response exactly like the comment above mine :-) I’ll just add two things: each month hundreds of releases come out. It's true that it’s really hard to keep track of these hundreds of releases. Nevertheless, even just out of curiosity, one can occasionally go and check out some of these releases... Now, as I’ve already written, there are dozens and dozens of these releases that are ENORMOUSLY more original than this album, simply because they are albums made by people who are 40 years and more younger than McCartney and maybe, just like him in the Beatles era, they have a hint of an idea of what's going on around them and consequently a real desire to experiment. Now, I don't blame the reviewer or the review at all because they consciously do not consider these albums. Nor do I criticize you for liking this album... it's your opinion, and that's perfectly fine. However, I do criticize you because you insist on claiming that this album is better than many that have come out recently solely based, as you implicitly suggest, on the fact that you know this one while you evidently don’t know many others. Because if you did, I really couldn’t think that you would consider this album more original than, say, Animal Collective, Father Murphy, São Paulo Underground, or Samuel Katarro, and I mention these artists with good reason because among the "original" albums that have come out recently, they have all received considerable attention from magazines and the internet. What I criticize is your a priori attitude, or proudly uninformed, or perhaps simply "conservative," or all three together. In any case, I cannot think of a more snobbish attitude, if that's how we want to frame it... then again, it’s possible I’ve completely misunderstood your point of view.

1) If you jam with people who have real experience, it's clear that something good will come out of it. Personally, I couldn't care less about jam sessions, so I wouldn't even get involved. However, if groups like Slint or Tortoise were to try the same approach, then it would make sense, and without a doubt, they would come up with immensely more interesting things. 2) We're talking about one of the Beatles: exactly. One who made music 40 years ago and who already, with Wings, produced unimaginable crap. Not to mention the various unnecessary solo albums. Compared to his average output, this is even more interesting; in the best-case scenario, it could be considered a curiosity.

Can I give you my take? If someone doesn't keep themselves informed, they can't blame the world for there being nothing original. More original albums than this have come out by the dozens in the past year, even in Italy. As for the merit of the album, I think it's the most overrated release of the last five years. It's really a senseless album, the enjoyment of an old-timer buoyed by a few good collaborators who engage in pathetic experimentation on the usual tunes. The problem is that mass culture needs myths, and from this perspective, I agree with you; since there are no more, the latest mediocrity from an "artist" who could have easily faded into obscurity decades ago is declared album of the month. Also, while I agree that it’s not a great time, one: as mentioned, there are interesting albums out there.. you just have to look for them. Two: the usual talk that there are seven notes and six strings and that rock is based on blues and country is the most misleading thing to say: the blues and country roots were already disintegrated by the end of the '60s, not to mention moving on to kraut, new wave, etc. Rather, let’s say that the fact that rock is accessible to everyone makes it terribly susceptible to the total waste of mediocrity.

Well, anyway... I don't agree, at least when it comes to the latest album, Mirrored... especially the use of vocals seems very, very new to me... in the context. And anyway, they seem fundamentally different from the usual math and post stuff.

X Root: I completely understand your point of view, but I have never agreed (with others who talked about it in the same ways before you, but regarding different groups): the fact is that it's a race to the bottom: everything is mediocre, so let's save the less mediocre. I really don't believe that there can be limits to human creativity; there are cultural limits, but historically speaking, they have always been surpassed (as it should be) through revolutions (artistic) or evolutions. Admitting that there is nothing new today just means that renewal is needed, and from the ground up, and if no one is doing it, it’s evidently because they don’t have the guts to do it, not because “no one is capable of doing it.” Moreover, groups like Clouddead, Battles, Broken Social Scene, and the Father Murphy I have recently listened to, to name a few, are bands that have implemented all modernizing or at least very original operations..the fact is that they should be considered (at least some of these groups) much more than they actually are..one of today’s major problems is that critics themselves contribute to standardizing and legitimizing mediocrity: out of 100 reviews you read in Blow Up, Rumore, or similar crap (it’s the same for all magazines), there will be two or three poor ratings and the rest somehow are all geniuses, even those clearly described as “revivalists.” In short, criticism sucks up to mediocrity and creates a vicious circle where mediocrity justifies itself, when they should be doing exactly the opposite. Despite this, I confirm: it’s ridiculous to think that just because everything is stagnant, no one can move.