From: u882517@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (Blos!)
Subject: Re: Cure: I Wish...
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 06:50:41 GMT

pkang@acsu.buffalo.edu (Pablo Kang) writes:

>  I don't know if the Cure has swerved into the tastes of the bland public.
>  I have friends who _only_ like "Friday I'm in Love" and that's that.
>  Nobody--meaning the 'bland' public--bothers to listen to "Open," "High,"
>  "A Letter to Elise," "From the Edge...," etc.

	My point is that it's not just one song that's the problem.  It's
easy to focus on "Friday" and "Doing the Unstuck" as horrifying, but when
the rest of the album was just stale and did nothing different (and DON'T
try to argue against my point of view by saying that they change all the time-
it's precisely because there was such a dearth of fresh ideas on _Wish_
that I was so disillusioned) then I was forced to conclude that there just
isn't much more left in them, at least for me.  The new guard have taken
over, and the Cure just can't keep pace.  Sad, but true...even Robert says
Ride is his favourite band.  (Need I say more?)

>  The Cure haven't conformed, they just churned out one poppish tune, and
>  it just made it big. Ask any "jump on the wagon" Cure fan, and you'll
>  agree that they don't know the other tunes at all.

	The Cure have always made poppish tunes which were the fun side
of the albums, but the side that was worthwhile was the constant reinvention
with the unmistakeable stamp of genius on it.  There's just nothing new:
they're caught between two stools and it shows dreadfully.

>  I don't think any "intelligent" person would assume this. First, not
>  _all_ music sucks (though I'll admit most of it does stink), and second
>  you can't assume just because the Cure get play time for _one_ song that
>  that's proof enough for you that they are in a state of demise.

	Emotive argument, perhaps, but it makes me cringe to hear that
song when I'm subjected to shit mainstream radio.

>  Remember, their popularity is probably, if not most likely, not due to the
>  fact that they conformed, but rather their longevity, conformity _by the
>  public_ to let the Cure be as they are, and/or a few tunes (emphasis on the
>  few). If the few songs catch people to listen to the Cure, and then go on to 
>  keep on listening to the Cure even further, great.

	Yeah, it's just a shame that the record people are hearing first is
one of their poor efforts.  I suppose the "Pornography" era fans thought the
same thing about "Japanese Whispers", but at least that had "La Ment"...

	I DON'T LIKE U2 AT ALL.

>  Maybe they just stopped being important to you...but believe me, to some,
>  they still are.

>>_Disintegration_ was a miracle, a return to beauty I thought had gone
>>forever

>  _Disintegration_ was not really a return to the 'original sound' of the
>  Cure. Listen to early Cure for reference. I agree though,
>  _Disintegration_ was beautiful. I found it to be very dramatic, very 
>  opus-like. The ethereal synthesizers blasting fully in the background
>  adding power to the voice of a single guitar note.

	Friend, I have been listening to "early Cure" since it was "new
Cure" for YEARS.  Please don't assume these things.  I did not say that
it was a return to the same sound (as anyone with half an ear could tell)
but that it was a return to BEAUTY after the soullessness of "Kiss Me...",
reminding me of the "Faith" and "Seventeen Seconds" (now THERE'S a Cure 
album) era.

>  I wouldn't really count _Mixed Up_ and the _singles collection_ as part
>  of the process. The singles collection was just that, a collection and
>  not part of their musical progress. _Mixed Up_ was a remix of their old
>  songs, and again not part of their musical progress. Now for _Wish_.
>  I wouldn't say that _Wish_ was bad, just rather different. They wanted
>  to go back to a full guitar sound...of course MIDI equipment from the
>  late 70s and early 80s has changed, hence the different guitar sound of
>  the Cure.

	How could you say that releasing radically different mixes of
old songs (including one new one and two re-recordings, mind you) was not
part of the band's musical progress?  I suppose that was just done without
their knowledge?  Huh!  The singles collection was merely symptomatic of
a band that felt the need to sum up their careers because they felt the
end approaching.  (Yes, yes, the record company probably thought of it.
It's still symptomatic.)

>  The Cure signature is still there if you listen. A paradigm of this is
>  "Open" ala "One Hundred Years." Not as emotional, but the central gut
>  grunge is there. 

	My tenet is that all of it is a rehash of old stuff.  Pointing out
similarities doesn't exactly disprove it.

>  "End" ala "Three Imaginary Boys." Both very minor in key. Both very
>  dark. One with more MIDI power, the other less.

	What are all these references to MIDI power?  I'll EAT my entire
Cure collection AND my guitar if you can find me one SHRED of evidence
that the Cure have ever used MIDI equipment apart from standalone synths.
MIDI has about as much to do with the Cure's sound as VT100 terminals...
not very much AT ALL.

>  How can anyone say the Cure has lost it just because of _one_ song?
>  That's beyond any intelligent argument. 

	Never did.  Next?

>  I don't know how it's for everybody, but every album by the Cure took
>  some getting used to by me...I think that goes for every band. Sure,
>  there are the songs that catch you immediately, but it takes a while to
>  get used to a whole album. Same goes for _Wish_. How long has it been
>  since the Cure came out with an original album? In that span of time,
>  I'm sure that their music has changed a bit...which is what I love
>  about the Cure. Again, again I have said it. I'll say it again.
>  Listen to all the albums by the Cure, they're all different music-wise.

	Yes, except this one.

>  If you're bothered by Robert Smith's happy lyrics, well I think it's
>  about time. Why not? He deserves it. Kicked the old 'drug' habit.
>  He's married, has two children, has success, and knows he can write 
>  music. After all the Hell's he's been through, why not?

	TWO CHILDREN?  I think Robert would be pretty surprised to hear
about that!  In-depth knowledge, eh?

>  In addition, change is not always bad...just different. The Cure's music
>  is surely a bit different today, but to survive so many years, you have
>  to change. Come on now, you don't expect to listen to the same old album
>  every time they come out with a new album, right? Give the boys a break.
>  I think they did a good job on _Wish_ and I'm looking forward to many
>  others. 

	Enough said.  See above.  _Wish_ is a lame rehash of previous work
and contains two absolute DOGS of songs, which is more than enough reason
for me to conclude that the Cure are finished as a creative force.  I know
you will all rush to defend them, and I'm sad that it's so because I have
loved them for years (and still will love most of their previous work), but
the problem is that any defence of such a poor album is wrong.  This is
my final opinion and will remain unchanged.

			Matthew.

PS: Why do some people see it as a VIRTUE to love all of a band's output
	uncritically?  I'd regard it as an insult, to know that I could do
	anything and people would still love it for the name alone.
	It implies that the music will bear no criticism...hardly a great
	tribute.
Newsgroups: alt.music.alternative