Robert Smith: Not Goth, Has Writer's Block
Today's Robert Smith profile by Reuters caught the iconic singer talking about The Cure's next record, his image, and the band's legacy, all with soundbite-worthy candor. For instance: Call him "goth," and he'll call foul:
It's so pitiful when 'goth' is still tagged onto the name The Cure. We're not categorizable. I suppose we were post-punk when we came out, but in total it's impossible. How can you describe a band that put out an album like Pornography and also Greatest Hits where every single song was top 10 around the world? I just play Cure music, whatever that is.And while the article title was all about "writer's block," it seems more like Smith is aware of his position in the game, and doesn't want to tarnish that rep:
I want them (the words) to mean something, it's not enough that they rhyme. I find myself stopping short and thinking I've done this before, and better...
I'm aware that time is moving on. I don't want The Cure to fizzle out doing 45-minute shows of greatest hits. That would be awful for our legacy.
Would it? It's the classic High Fidelity question: Burn out? Or fade away? It's tough to imagine saying no to another Cure record -- even tougher to imagine worshiping their back catalogue any less, no matter their future output. We know you guys agree. But who has pulled off the "rock 'til you die" thing? The Stones, maybe. There's a ridiculous factor there, sure; but they're still The Fucking Rolling Stones. The Who? Not so much. Who could pull it off? The only band that comes to mind is Radiohead -- but that's 'cause they could pull off anything. Whatever it is, we have faith, Robert. Take your time! Think Disintegration --aka "the best album ever."
Posted at 6:04 PM
Tags: The Cure
-->
-->
![thumbnail: <![CDATA[Gabe And Rich Watch A Movie: Saló]]>](http://videogum.com//img/thumbnails/photos/salo/salo_criterion_8_50x50.jpg)
Sans a ridiculous collaboration with Sum 41 (everyone has a mortgage to pay...), I think Iggy Pop will never fade away. In his own masochistic way. And Tom Waits.
Score = 0
Michael Stipe could pull it off.
Score = 0
Tom Waits is my nomination, as well. And for some reason Bjork comes to mind.
Score = 0
David Byrne
Score = 0
Flaming Lips
Score = 0
i saw the cure a couple years ago and they were awful.
we walked out.
haven't liked them as much ever since :/
Score = -1
also, the new radiohead songs suggest that their next album will be one of their best. again. even if the recordings aren't that good, there's no way that they could really ruin the songs. they're amazing. going to be an amazing album. they will never stop and it's a magical thing. cockroaches.
Score = 0
U2 is pulling it off. They've been around for 20 years or more and they are still crankin out beautiful songs. the only way i see them breaking up is because of Bono's other interests.
Score = 0
I second that about U2. Bono and the Edge, love 'em or hate 'em...they still write better songs than almost everyone on the planet right now with a few exceptions. Plus, to be able to do that after all these years is remarkable.
And they are working on their next album with Rick Rubin...oh my, that should be good. No doubt about it!
Lastly, LOVE The Cure!
Score = 0
neil young?!
Score = 0
U2 are awful right now. Mission of Burma and Tom Waits are not.
Score = 0
I second the vote for Neil Young. Also, Springsteen and Dylan, although what they're doing lately is perhaps a bit less "rock" than Neil, they are still going strong. Richard Thompson also comes to mind...
Score = 0
U2 burned out about 15 years ago...
Score = 0
Bowie. Hands down.
Score = 0
Beck for 15 more years? yes please
Score = 0
JAMES BROWN is almost 80's years old.....
and is still kickin' it!!!
Score = 0
I think Tom Waits and/or Red Hot Chili Peppers will manage it. Along with Radiohead that is...
Score = 0
I'd also like to agree with the Neil Young, Beck & Iggy Pop noms.
Score = 0
prince and oasis might be able to, but I'm not sure about quality.
If the new joni mitchell cd is a reality, and is any good that's another possibility.
Also, madonna's new stuff isn't that good, but she'll be doing her thing for ever.
Another person who I just thought of is nick cave, who will always be cool and rock.
Score = 0
Man, no fucking way that Mission of Burma counts with that long a hiatus. However: no doubt in my mind:
*Tom Waits: listening to Real Gone and Orphans in one day drops my goddamn jaw. Go buy Orphans.
*Radiohead: but exactly- they could do anything.
*Bowie. Ohhhh bowie.
*David Byrne. His country set at the 826NYC benifit was great.
Score = 0
Elvis Costello. Hands down.
Score = 0
morrissey bitches.
Score = 0
Couldn't someone have thought of a better title that the one chosen for this article? Where's the wit my friends?
Score = 0
the cure should have ended with "burn" from the Crow soundtrack. that would of been a fine ending.
Score = 0
i'll take icons like bowie and U2 and the cure over the burn-out-and-fade-away little emo trendoids ANY day.
Score = 0
Not that I'm much of a fan, but I think Aerosmith has done a pretty good job of aging but staying "relevant" (i.e., having hit singles). They've succeeded in that regard better than the Stones have. Then again I'm not sure what they've done in the last 7 years...
Score = 0
Wilco - a group that, so long as Jeff Tweedy is involved, will continue its ascent. What a healthy band - no trappings of stardom, each member comfortable on his own (Tweedy, Kotche) AND in a band. They'll be around forever.
Score = 0
Without question, Elvis Costello. He's multifarious. Dude's having twins, releasing rock & roll albums, releasing country-rock albums, releasing soul/blues albums, releasing jazz albums, playing two and a half hour shows without breaking for encores (I mean, have you ever seen hime live?), and doing it all better than anyone around all while looking dapper as hell. And that's just the past four or so years.
Score = 0
I liked the latest Cure album a lot, so if it is up to me, Robert should continue releasing stuff when he feels like it. I know almost everyone hated it, but that is exactly what The Cure does: they release stuff in genres that makes all the fans of the previous albums go "What was he thinking exactly?". I mean, an album with a nu metal producer is nothing from a band that wrote a freaking tango.
Score = 0
Madonna
U2
Rolling Stones
Bruce Spreingstein
Bob Dylan
Red Hot Chili Peppers
all i can think of right now. When you think about it, quite a few of the popular music legends like Michael Jackson, janet Jackson, Prince, and even Madonna are being phased out by radio and MTV, all at around the same time. It 's like this decade will be rembered for the downfall of music icons, and all we're left with is Fergie and Rihanna. And Hinder.
Score = 0
jesus, it took 30+ quotes for dylan to be mentioned. you're all going to hell
Score = 0
dylan, waits, costello--in that order.
NO band stays together forever and remains relevant, not even our precious stones. there's a growth factor, a maturity in artistry to consider that just isn't found between people who stick together as a band. the stones are a one trick pony who just happen to have the best trick ever. U2 runs a distant second in that department. but isn't it getting just a little bit embarassing to watch both of them now? come on fellas, act your age. take up golf or something.
that being said, i will most likely listen to whatever thom yorke has to say for the rest of my life...
Score = 0
flame me if you want, but my vote is for the Beastie Boys. i didn't even think "to the 5 boroughs" was very good, but their live show is still awesome. i don't know that they'll make it into their 60s, but 20+ years is quite an accomplishment.
Score = 0
Prince. That sexy MF can pull a James Brown and funk it out for life.
Score = 0
Ooh, everybody's choices are so good... Elvis Costello, Bob Dylan, David Byrne, Morrissey, and Tom Waits definitely, but they're already sort of there.
In terms of staying relevant, my first thought went to (cringe) Madonna. I dunno, is she burning out or fading away? Or has she found some odd third choice? And, I hate U2, but they'll definitely be doing what they're doing until Bono singlehandedly saves the world. Meaning, forever.
For more alternative music, I get the feeling that a lot of the E6 bands are going to be really prolific for a long time. Jeff Mangum aside, they're all, like, the most well-adjusted psych rockers ever. Which is good. I sort of think Stuart Murdoch will be around forever if not Belle & Sebastian, since they're kind of the new Smiths and Murdoch's the Morrissey.
But I think musicians have to keep making good music in order for them to keep touring. I mean, GOOD music, relevant music, music that's actually inventive and doesn't pretend like the past thirty years haven't happened. If you were once in a really good or even legendary band, you can't just go around playing the hits. That's just lame. In other words: STOP, PAUL MCCARTNEY, STOP!
Score = 0
That Wilco talk is exactly the sort of thing that makes bands break up!
Foo Fighters seems to be maturing and growing a lot, and they're still a great live band, but their relevnce seems to be slipping. I think they peaked with their second album, but they are still going strong.
Score = 0
I would say that Madonna has found that third choice: fan loyalty (at least in the states). Confessions DID produce a hit single with Hung Up, gbut ultimately her hardcore fans picked that up. The only place she is still doing well is in Europe, where dance/techno is liked by everybody, not just by clubbers or gays. I've heard she's working with the ABBA girls for her next album, so I don't think she's leaving the disco alone anytime soon. I just hope she doesn't become the new Cher.
Score = 0
U2 is DREADFUL. Nasty, nasty music.
I think Paul Simon goes rather unnoticed for his endurance in the biz. Paul Simon and The Cure are my two favorite musical acts of all time, though, so of course I would say that.
Score = 0