easycure

see see lux, I haven't met them either in three years :-D ..you have no idea about all those I've dealt with in 2500 comments... fight 'til you die boy, it's the only way :-D

dear anonymous, unfortunately, I have to come to terms with my "old age" (at 26, one is considered old in rock, or let's say, middle-aged :-D) and so I’m out of any logic of niche listening.. put simply, I listen to everything and more as long as this "everything" aligns with my sensibility which is indeed quite devoted to psychedelic sound evocation but, after thousands of listens, I’m also rather open.

realaxl, are you from Reggio?

come on, steer them a bit towards mine, I'm missing the debate; it's not as fervent as in the good old days.. for a Florentine, debate is everything :-D

for AT LEAST three years (what fun guys...) ;-D

Lux, welcome to my world.. :-D you know that you won't be leaving for a good three years...

Hi Kosmina! :-) Wow, you haven't been in touch lately, I'm feeling a bit down.

Beautiful.. usually I’m not a fan of long reviews, but... beautiful! I don’t know them, and it seems to me that they should definitely be known.. among the hardcore groups that really broke through (but more of the classic angry hardcore, you know), I always fondly remember Sottopressione (often compared to Negazione): they had lyrics that for me remain perhaps the most beautiful ever produced by an Italian band.. forget Marlene Kuntz.

Psycho, on this I completely agree with you: what I was saying to Lord is that I find it a bit naive to assert that the significance of such a media phenomenon can be solely explained by the quality of the music; but I certainly do not deny this media importance. On the contrary, as you yourself say, I am also deeply convinced that this is where the essence of the Beatles' importance lies. In the fact that they were a mass phenomenon, let's say "universal," while still sounding even cultured, or at least with explicit expressive and artistic aspirations. What I come to consider, rather, is that this is more of a sociological and cultural merit (but cultural understood in a rather broad and "distal" sense regarding the music itself) than a musical one: that is, what I reconsider is whether these explicit tendencies to create art in a simple form have truly succeeded, or if there are other groups and artists to whom this merit should be attributed. Not that I want to necessarily fall into revisionism as you rightly point out, it is simply a personal consideration motivated by listening to various groups from that period, as I already wrote.

Wait, wait Lord, we don’t understand each other at all: first of all, I never said that the Beatles are terrible; although I have never grasped what common sense and various experts tout as the greatest rock band of all time, I’ve already said that I find them entertaining and often interesting. With that said, after getting a slightly more in-depth understanding of the 1960s, I find the exaltation towards them even less plausible. Point 2: I never mentioned the Rolling Stones, whom I personally find less convincing than the Beatles with a few exceptions (like "I can't get no...," which I think is a really beautiful piece, and albums like Exile on Main Street). It’s just that I don’t understand attitudes like "those who love good music listen to them and that’s it," because among the many shades of "good music," I think there’s frankly much better than the Beatles from the 1960s.