Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Robert responds to the Guardian's response

Posted by @thcure overnight:

LAZY NONSENSICAL CONTENT ASIDE; WE WERE DRIVEN TO REACT TO CAROLINE SULLIVAN’S ‘REVIEW’BY THE BLATANT DISHONESTY OF HER ACCOMPANYING COMMENT "I have it on good authority that the band have read the review and liked it." IT WAS SIMPLY TOO MUCH TO IGNORE…

HAVING EXPOSED THE LIE, WE FIGURED WE WOULD AT THE VERY LEAST GET SOME KIND OF A HANDS IN THE AIR “IT’S A FAIR COP GUV” FROM HER FOR ATTEMPTING SUCH A BANAL SELF SERVING DECEPTION… WE THOUGHT THERE MIGHT EVEN BE A FAINT CHANCE THAT SHE WOULD BE MOVED TO APOLOGISE TO HER READERS FOR MAKING STUFF UP!

BUT AS COMMENT BY COMMENT SHE DIGS HER EVASIVE HOLE A LITTLE DEEPER, IT WOULD SEEM WE HOPED FOR TOO MUCH…A SHAME. WE ALWAYS THOUGHT THE GUARDIAN AND ITS JOURNALISTS VALUED TRUTH?

“OK, Robert. Buy you a drink?”... gulp!!! HONESTLY? ummm… WE WOULD PREFER YOU JUST REVIEWED WITH A TAD MORE UNDERSTANDING AND HONESTY AND CONSIDERING LINES LIKE “Not as scary […] as Robert Smith in full fig” MAYBE THREW A FEW LESS STONES? OR MOVED OUT OF YOUR GLASS HOUSE?!!

"Rock is about grabbing people's attention." REALLY? THAT’S WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO ‘BE ABOUT’? YOU THINK THAT’S IT? IT WOULD EXPLAIN A LOT

WE WILL NOW DRAW A LINE UNDER THE ‘SAD BITTER JUNK REVIEW’ EPISODE, AND SLIP BACK OUT INTO THE WORLD WITH A SHAKE OF THE HEAD AND A SMILE…PREFERRING THE OLD GOTH DISNEY DICTUM TO ROCKER SIMMONS’;“WE ARE NOT TRYING TO ENTERTAIN THE CRITICS;WE’LL TAKE OUR CHANCES WITH THE PUBLIC”

Articles about this: Noise 11 / CMU / Music Feeds / Tone Deaf / VVN / Gigwise / Paste / Spin / Stereogum / Consequence of Sound / Pitchfork / Holy Moly

25 comments:

  1. Excellent, clearly argued and finely lettered riposte from Robert.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not bad for someone who doesn't like "Spacebook" or "Tweeter" :p

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well said Robert!yeah it's just so damn frustrating and ridicules,bah!I read that article,I'd avoided yesterday's reviews,just cos I knew it'd wind me up too much and that it was only drivel anyway!Robert and co,I don't know if you guys read these comments,but just in case,you know well enough no-one agrees with her and we appreciate all that you guys do and how you do it.The media have always been muppets {no insult to The Muppets!!}.Please DON'T CHANGE!! <3

    ReplyDelete
  4. I like the fact Robert has come out fighting but it's all got a bit silly now. I mean, it was, after all, a review i.e. someone's (admittedly crap) opinion. Can't we all just get over it and move on now please?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But that's the point, it wasn't about the review, it was about her lie that the band read and liked her review, and her continued refusal to retract it or even address it. You can't let something like that go. All she had to say was something along the lines of, "I was misinformed about The Cure liking my review. I was given some bad info, and for that, I do apologize to the band."

      And that would have been that. You don't see him going on about the other bad reviews, do you? No, because that's not what this was about. A real shame that he's sort of being portrayed as some thin-skinned musician who can't take a mixed review.

      But I think you've seen the last of it. At least from Robert.

      Delete
  5. Great RS response.

    Looking forward to what's yet to come this year!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Vesselin: I think the journalist ( desperate or not:) ) doesn't genuinely like the Cure. She's not important. Something else is really outrageous. How can anybody write/ share a negative reviews on a such an event ??? This generally speaks about how negative the British press (public opinion) is. Hello, this is Teenage Cancer Trust Charity show. How can anybody attack an artist for giving too much ??? Noone "makes" the Cure to play as long, as probably 3 other bands would have. Yet they supported this cause in the best ( and noble) possible way, and there are people who are not happy ??? This is sick...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Robert has an excellent use of semantic and a so rich vocabulary. I dont get tired of reading his responses. I bet he could right a far more exquisite review than that of ms sullivan (? Is her name ?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed it ;) even in these situations he proves himself a very clever man!

      Delete
    2. Precisely Francesca! He is SO smart! :)

      Delete
  8. http://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/may/03/new-order-review

    I went to this New Order concert at Brixton back in 2012 and it was truly awful, couldn’t hear the vocals, the music was all over the place and like many left well before the end. The review in THE GUARDIAN gave it 4/5 (later changed to 3/5) – below his review a lot of people ask Mark Beaumont was actually there as he didn’t mention the sound issues at all. He then back tracks and tries to do dig himself out of a hole. I seriously don’t know why bands of any standing give tickets to these free loaders who seriously don’t care about the music.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I really love that over the years he has stuck with the all caps thing. It would be so simple to just let that slip. At this point if something came from Robert with proper caps I would call it lies!

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Robert infuriated because some-one lied publicly? He's been lying outrageously for the past 35 years (new "old" vocals to blue sunshine, him owning a dairy farm, and millions of other things which I usually find quite funny), so that's a bit rich, coming from him. I'm thinking the snide remarks on his physical appearance are what really annoyed him - probably rightly so in the sense that it shouldn't have anything to do with music.

    Apart from that, the reviewer might have a point. I was at that concert, I've been a big fan for near on 2 decades, have seen them several times, and I can say that from my perspective I thought the first hour was great, but after that the rest of the show did lack momentum and I could have done with 10 fast songs less and 5 slow songs more. But after having heard 2 Late live, I can't complain, can I?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Really the amount of The Cure you can take (live or otherwise) just comes down to whether or not you are a hardcore or fly by night fan...i have been into them since the fall of 87 when i heard the first strains of Just Like Heaven trickle out on my local radio station, spent countless hours listening and pouring over lyrics,photos, and articles as a teenager, the music was and in some instances still is the soundtrack to my life at the ripe old age of 39 (lol). I've only seen them twice (92 and 04) but as a hardcore fan i would love to see a 45 song set, in fact i welcome it. While i think most everyone who posts here are indeed hardcore fans i do think that is the difference and unless the reviewer is really into the Cure then they just aren't going to get the bands current live agenda which in my opinion isn't about pushing a product by pleasing the hardcore fan base.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can't assume how much live Cure each fan wants.

      I started to tire a little at Leeds. I think Show could be clipped by 20 mins to give it more impact.

      I am a hardcore fan.

      Delete
  14. *isn't about pushing a product BUT ABOUT pleasing the hardcore fan base

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Love the "shake of the head and a smile" line. Robert is just plain brilliant.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This is brilliant!! :) I'm so glad Robert posted this response. What he said - sums it up perfectly. You tell them, Robert!!! :)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Robert's quiet today - I'm picturing him sat in front of some big speakers, scribbling.

    ReplyDelete