Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: toop, jenkinson, prevost et al

Expand Messages
  • The Wire
    ... couldn t agree more with the above. what was the writer (and don t ya just hate journos who tell you what their friend thinks?) doing there? i don t
    Message 1 of 14 , Jul 30 3:16 AM
      >i was at the gig. and, yes, the guardian review is pretty embarrassing. a
      >stunning lack of knowledge of the subject matter. but hey, that's
      >journalism for you.

      couldn't agree more with the above. what was the writer (and don't ya just
      hate journos who tell you what 'their friend' thinks?) doing there? i don't
      usually read the guardian myself, but the name 'maddy costa' sounds
      suspiciously like a pseudonym to me. my friend thinks so too...

      >the second half saw vibert's turntables join the melee.

      that's what makes the last sentence of the review so absurd - "with no
      melodies, rhythms or hooks to cling on to..."

      the only other thing to mention is that, towards the 'end', the group were
      joined on stage by an itinerant member of the audience who asked richard
      thomas if he could have a puff on his bugle, and parped away on it fairly
      tediously for about 20 minutes. this sort of thing surely must have
      happened a lot when toop and prevost were nippers, but here the invasion
      seemed to put the lot of them off their stroke.

      >so, all in all, an interesting night. some things worked, most didn't, but
      >it was good that it happened.

      agreed - a semi-successful experiment that should be encouraged, not nipped
      in the bud.

      rob young

      THE WIRE Magazine: Adventures In Modern Music
      45-46 Poland Street London W1V 3DF UK
      Tel: +44 (0)171 439 6422 Fax: +44 (0)171 287 4767
      E-mail: the_wire@...
      Web: http://www.dfuse.com/the-wire
      Subscriptions: +44 (0)171 734 3555 subs.wire@...
      Ads: +44 (0)171 494 1340 ads.wire@...
    • Davis Ford
      ... don t ... Hey, perhaps someone could actually post this review. This conversation has become sort of interesting. I love it when people tear apart
      Message 2 of 14 , Jul 30 4:51 AM
        > From: The Wire <the_wire@...>
        >
        > >i was at the gig. and, yes, the guardian review is pretty embarrassing. a
        > >stunning lack of knowledge of the subject matter. but hey, that's
        > >journalism for you.
        >
        > couldn't agree more with the above. what was the writer (and don't ya just
        > hate journos who tell you what 'their friend' thinks?) doing there? i
        don't
        > usually read the guardian myself, but the name 'maddy costa' sounds
        > suspiciously like a pseudonym to me. my friend thinks so too...

        Hey, perhaps someone could actually 'post' this review. This conversation
        has become sort of interesting. I love it when people tear apart
        journalists, especially music journalists. I'd like to see the source
        material, though.

        davis
      • dan hill
        hi rob, rfaith and others ... ... well, i quite often read the guardian, though take it with a pinch of salt, as one has to do with pretty much all media. but
        Message 3 of 14 , Jul 30 5:02 AM
          hi rob, rfaith and others ...

          >>i was at the gig. and, yes, the guardian review is pretty embarrassing. a
          >>stunning lack of knowledge of the subject matter. but hey, that's
          >>journalism for you.
          >couldn't agree more with the above. what was the writer (and don't ya just
          >hate journos who tell you what 'their friend' thinks?) doing there? i don't
          >usually read the guardian myself, but the name 'maddy costa' sounds
          >suspiciously like a pseudonym to me. my friend thinks so too...

          well, i quite often read the guardian, though take it with a pinch of salt,
          as one has to do with pretty much all media. but they do have writers they
          could've sent who would at least have some idea of what was occurring on
          stage ... although john fordham usually writes about more mainstream jazz
          (relatively) he might've had a better stab?, or jonathan romney? it's
          pretty sad when the one paper which should be closest to 'that world',
          can't even muster a decent review. i don't mind if people don't like it ...
          it's just when someone's trying to actually create something, it surely
          deserves to be taken seriously at some level? and to be judged or reported
          upon honestly? again, i'm not saying there has to be concensus, and again,
          there needs to be balance, and awareness of culture as a whole (including
          the massive popularity of celine dion) ...

          but if the guardian can only manage that review, imagine what the other
          national papers would be like? sorry for the UK-centric nature of this
          discussion, but for those who don't know, the guardian is, theoretically,
          the left-leaning, "intellectuals" paper - one that is supposedly read by
          many those involved in cultural production. and given this, i share rich's
          frustration with their coverage of anything 'outside' ... their music
          coverage is particularly rubbish.

          on the positive side, it leaves it open for those of us who are trying to
          do something to cover/support music ignored by the mainstream media ... ;)

          maddy costa??!?!?!?


          >>the second half saw vibert's turntables join the melee.
          >that's what makes the last sentence of the review so absurd - "with no
          >melodies, rhythms or hooks to cling on to..."

          exactly. i reckon he/she left at half-time?


          >the only other thing to mention is that, towards the 'end', the group were
          >joined on stage by an itinerant member of the audience who asked richard
          >thomas if he could have a puff on his bugle, and parped away on it fairly
          >tediously for about 20 minutes. this sort of thing surely must have
          >happened a lot when toop and prevost were nippers, but here the invasion
          >seemed to put the lot of them off their stroke.

          yes ... i'd forgotten this in my rant/review (sorry for the length
          everyone! it was late ...). this incident was pretty appalling, though it
          did provide another fine moment when he handed the trumpet back to thomas,
          and thomas obliterated the guy's previous 20-minute meandering in one,
          incredible, reverbed/echoed/delayed drawn-out blast ... like the anecdote
          about when hendrix and larry coryell shared a stage, and hendrix blew away
          coryell with one feedbacked-to-fuck note after coryell's half-hour
          overblown jazz-rock solo ...

          that'll learn him!


          >agreed - a semi-successful experiment that should be encouraged, not nipped
          >in the bud.

          exactly, rob. and that's what's frustrating about the so-called coverage.
          and i agree with what rfaith said about reviewers trashing bands - it can
          be relevant, interesting provocative. but i don't think the 'maddy costa
          construct' really trashed the band. he/she just didn't have a clue what was
          going on. the review says more about him/her/it than the success of the
          music.

          cheers,
          dan.


          ---+ dan hill [state51]
          ---+ new reviews on motion [30.7.99]:
          < rachel's | lee hazlewood | elizabeth schimana | paul sch�tze | out in
          worship | flanger | jimmy smith >
          http://motion.state51.co.uk/ +---
        • Search for Havoc
          much as i agree with many of the sentiments being expressed here, I have to disagree with the notion that a bad review is worse than no review at all. i simply
          Message 4 of 14 , Jul 30 5:22 AM
            much as i agree with many of the sentiments being expressed here, I have to
            disagree with the notion that a bad review is worse than no review at all.

            i simply don't believe that people ally themselves with the opinions of
            journalists to the extent that the above point suggests. a bad review can
            capture your intrigue and draw you towards a previously unheard-of artist
            as much (or as little) as a good one. I discovered Nought and Rothko this
            way.

            For instance, the review in the Guardian made the Squarepusher et al night
            sound, at they very least, interesting and worth a glance or two in future.

            It provoked a strong reaction in both the journalist and youse guys, did it
            not? Tom Jenkinson's work here is done....by confounding the mainstream
            press, he's gained a hardline defence here, and more widespread interest
            elsewhere.
          • Randy Gelling
            but for those who don t know, the guardian is, theoretically, the left-leaning, intellectuals paper - As I said I while back, a particularly annoying strain
            Message 5 of 14 , Jul 30 9:44 AM
              but for those who don't know, the guardian is, theoretically,
              the left-leaning, "intellectuals" paper -

              As I said I while back, a particularly annoying strain of left thought
              turns music into a kind of trojan horse for supposedly "spreading" left
              politics via "pop" music. And since you want this leftist message to reach
              the widest audience possible music critics of this stripe pose as
              populists who oppose any form of "elitist" music. Of course, there is a
              level of contradiction here as the same critics trumpet blues and other
              commercially marginal music when it appeals to their ego to do so.

              The "Red Wedge" movement was a good--and considering the success of
              Thatcher during that period--ineffective, example of this...
            • knowles
              hurray you are smart can you write me an essay for school or something... Gail Hawley Knowles ... From: Randy Gelling To:
              Message 6 of 14 , Jul 30 10:51 AM
                hurray you are smart can you write me an essay for school or something...
                Gail Hawley Knowles
                -----Original Message-----
                From: Randy Gelling <rgelling@...>
                To: thewire@onelist.com <thewire@onelist.com>
                Date: Friday, July 30, 1999 12:44 PM
                Subject: Re: [thewire] Re: toop, jenkinson, prevost et al


                >From: Randy Gelling <rgelling@...>
                >
                >
                > but for those who don't know, the guardian is, theoretically,
                >the left-leaning, "intellectuals" paper -
                >
                >As I said I while back, a particularly annoying strain of left thought
                >turns music into a kind of trojan horse for supposedly "spreading" left
                >politics via "pop" music. And since you want this leftist message to reach
                >the widest audience possible music critics of this stripe pose as
                >populists who oppose any form of "elitist" music. Of course, there is a
                >level of contradiction here as the same critics trumpet blues and other
                >commercially marginal music when it appeals to their ego to do so.
                >
                >The "Red Wedge" movement was a good--and considering the success of
                >Thatcher during that period--ineffective, example of this...
                >
                >
                >
                >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
                >
                >ONElist: your connection to online communities.
                >
                >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                >TheWire List Info Page: http://www.msu.edu/user/forddavi/wirelist.html
                >
              • richard starke
                re guardian etc Shit, Who cares ? The Guardian, the wire etc are just filters and you have to know that it can be wrong as much as it can be right. Just dont
                Message 7 of 14 , Jul 30 11:40 AM
                  re guardian etc

                  Shit,

                  Who cares ? The Guardian, the wire etc are just filters and you have to know
                  that it can be wrong as much as it can be right. Just dont take anyones
                  opinion as anything other than an opinion, weather its informed or not!
                  rs
                • John
                  I didn t go to this gig, nor would I have done since the performers don t really interest me that much. But I do think the Guardian review was a right bag of
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jul 31 3:29 AM
                    I didn't go to this gig, nor would I have done since the performers
                    don't really interest me that much. But I do think the Guardian
                    review was a right bag of shit. Two previous posters have made good
                    points-

                    1) Being a po-faced, vain leftie-luvvie type of paper, the Guardian
                    inevitably ends up taking the somewhat patronising view that only pop
                    forms with a blunt left-wing message can be acclaimed - cue the
                    Manics. Its writers, most notably the appalling Caroline Sullivan
                    (who I suspect wrote the review, it's consistent with her standards),
                    seem to take great personal offence at anyone who suggests, whether
                    openly or by implication, that this is closed-minded. These kind of
                    journalists always assume that they are right by definition.

                    2) The constant emphasis on the lack of tunes being considered as an
                    automatic minus point by the reviewer - OK, I myself find 52 minutes
                    of the kind of noise that seems to have comprised the 1st half of
                    this gig grating. But others clearly enjoy this kind of thing, so
                    who am I to suggest that it is definitively inferior? The assumption
                    among Guardian writers (and those who work on the criminally awful
                    Melody Maker) is that music must contain tunes to win credit - I
                    don't want this to turn into some kind of contorted intellectual
                    debate, but this strikes me as a kind of cultural imperialism - are
                    Guardian writers now going to slam the Congo pygmy track found on the
                    new Wire Tapper CD because it doesn't have a conventional tune?
                    Shame on those Central African savages! How dare they not provide
                    white Europeans with hummable tunes!

                    Another point - I don't believe in excluding journalists from any
                    gig since all opinions must be freely expressed. But a writer could
                    at least attempt to understand what is going on - this Guardain
                    review was a bit like me trying to review a new book on rocket
                    science. Or Stephen Hawking reviewing a new Malcolm X biography.

                    Sorry for the disjointed nature of the above - but, hey, it's too
                    early in the morning.

                    JOHN
                  • Nigel Ayers
                    With reference to the Event of the Millennium: are Guardian writers now going to slam the Congo pygmy track found on the new Wire Tapper CD because it
                    Message 9 of 14 , Aug 1, 1999
                      With reference to the Event of the Millennium:

                      "are Guardian writers now going to slam the Congo pygmy track found on the
                      new Wire Tapper CD because it doesn't have a conventional tune?
                      Shame on those Central African savages! How dare they not provide
                      white Europeans with hummable tunes!"


                      Contrary to claims of "cultural imperialism", Central African people are
                      quite capable of carrying a tune.

                      I have a record at home that proves it.

                      I think the Congo Pygmies on the Wire Tapper CD were most probably taking
                      the
                      piss, and you fell for it - you suckers!


                      peace and harmony


                      Nigel




                      Nocturnal Emissions Web Site:
                      http://business.virgin.net/nigel.ayers/index.html
                      Join Nocturnal Emissions mailing list at:
                      http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/emissions
                    • Andy Wilson
                      sheesh.... the guardian is a *liberal* paper. it broadly supports the British Labour party - but that hardly makes it leftist, unless you see all politics
                      Message 10 of 14 , Aug 2, 1999
                        sheesh.... the guardian is a *liberal* paper. it broadly supports the
                        British Labour party - but that hardly makes it leftist, unless you see all
                        politics through the filter of parliament and journalistic scaremongering.
                        Anyway, liberal or not, it is silly to characterise the Guardian's music
                        coverage in the way a number of people have - the quality varies enormously
                        from one reviewer to the next, and most of those who have discerned a
                        'leftist critical methodology' in the Guardian's cultural reviews have been
                        overdosing on sociology textbooks. Of course, most of their reviews are
                        slanted one way or another, but there is hardly anything either unusual or
                        systematic about that. They recently printed an excellent review of The
                        Nectarine Number 9 at Water Rats, and last year had a very thoughtful piece
                        on Faust at the Flux festival...... On average, I find Guardian reveiews
                        neither more nor less silly than Wire reviews.......

                        ------------------------------------
                        Andy Wilson
                        Technical Director
                        ZINC
                        http://andyw.zinc.co.uk/
                        http://www.zinc.co.uk/
                        97 Charlotte Street
                        London W1P 1LB
                        T: 0171 533 0519
                        T: 0171 533 0533
                        M: 0956 902 438
                        F: 0171 533 0534
                        ------------------------------------
                        "don't invest in esperanto"
                        ------------------------------------



                        > -----Original Message-----
                        > From: Randy Gelling [mailto:rgelling@...]
                        > Sent: 30 July 1999 17:45
                        > To: thewire@onelist.com
                        > Subject: Re: [thewire] Re: toop, jenkinson, prevost et al
                        >
                        >
                        > From: Randy Gelling <rgelling@...>
                        >
                        >
                        > but for those who don't know, the guardian is, theoretically,
                        > the left-leaning, "intellectuals" paper -
                        >
                        > As I said I while back, a particularly annoying strain of left thought
                        > turns music into a kind of trojan horse for supposedly
                        > "spreading" left
                        > politics via "pop" music. And since you want this leftist
                        > message to reach
                        > the widest audience possible music critics of this stripe pose as
                        > populists who oppose any form of "elitist" music. Of course,
                        > there is a
                        > level of contradiction here as the same critics trumpet blues
                        > and other
                        > commercially marginal music when it appeals to their ego to do so.
                        >
                        > The "Red Wedge" movement was a good--and considering the success of
                        > Thatcher during that period--ineffective, example of this...
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor
                        > ----------------------------
                        >
                        > ONElist: your connection to online communities.
                        >
                        > --------------------------------------------------------------
                        > ----------
                        > TheWire List Info Page: http://www.msu.edu/user/forddavi/wirelist.html
                        >
                      • dan hill
                        ... well, i guess none of these terms make much sense anymore anyway. but please let s not go down that route! ... of course ... and i said that if john
                        Message 11 of 14 , Aug 2, 1999
                          >sheesh.... the guardian is a *liberal* paper. it broadly supports the
                          >British Labour party - but that hardly makes it leftist, unless you see all
                          >politics through the filter of parliament and journalistic scaremongering.

                          well, i guess none of these terms make much sense anymore anyway. but
                          please let's not go down that route!

                          >Anyway, liberal or not, it is silly to characterise the Guardian's music
                          >coverage in the way a number of people have - the quality varies enormously
                          >from one reviewer to the next,

                          of course ... and i said that if john fordham or jonathan romney had done
                          the review, it probably would've been more interesting. or indeed tom cox?
                          they at least seem to care about music on some level, at least more than
                          caroline sullivan ...

                          and many western writers *are* beyond melody as the *sole* determinant of
                          relevance in music. very few of those write for the mainstream media
                          however ...

                          >On average, I find Guardian reveiews
                          >neither more nor less silly than Wire reviews.......

                          well, exactly ;)

                          (sorry)

                          cheers,
                          dan.



                          ---+ dan hill [state51]
                          ---+ new reviews on motion [2.7.99]:
                          < arab strap | rachel's | lee hazlewood | elizabeth schimana | paul schutze
                          | out in worship | flanger >
                          http://motion.state51.co.uk/ +---
                        • R. Lim
                          ... Remember, content over form, people. I wasn t even going to bat an eye, but since Davis threw down the gauntlet.. I m not sure when ad hominem attacks
                          Message 12 of 14 , Aug 3, 1999
                            On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Oeivind Idsoe wrote:

                            > That's just you counting the fucking numbers instead of focusing on
                            > what people are actually saying, which makes you even more superficial
                            > than your previous pseudo-revolutionary garbish-grammar would imply.

                            Remember, content over form, people. I wasn't even going to bat an eye,
                            but since Davis threw down the gauntlet.. I'm not sure when ad hominem
                            attacks became passable as a reasonable response, so I'll just ignore all
                            that junk. Here, I believe, is the meat of the topical portion:

                            > presented, and that the reason most of us disagree with the article is
                            > that the entire premise of the concept of the mentioned concert seems
                            > beyond the reviewer. Sending a reviewer that doesn't seem to like
                            > sometimes atonal, sometimes free-flowing, sometimes even noisey music
                            > to a concert featuring these very things might be an interesting
                            > sociological experiment, but it's not really interesting (for me) on a
                            > musical level (unless, of course, you think that every arty experience

                            I dunno, I'd have to agree with Joel that the very premise of a handful of
                            the most feted stars of new electronic music taking a dilettante's whirl
                            at improvisation is arrogant and distasteful. Most of the accounts of the
                            show seem to bely that improv (free or otherwise) is a craft that you have
                            to practice at (a lot) to be any good at; otherwise you end up hitting
                            your mark purely by chance.

                            More cogently, it's pretty clear that the only reason most of the audience
                            was there was due to the celebrity status of some of the players. This
                            not only wastes people's time, but also goes a way in convincing the
                            merely curious that improvisation (or experimental music in general) is
                            all noisy bollocks.

                            > that such a thing as "a point" even exist). Open your eyes a little
                            > wider next time. Eyes wide shut. You agree with Maddy ('s integrity)

                            I hereby initiate a world-wide ban in using the term "eyes wide shut" (or
                            its accompanying clever reversal, "eyes wide open").

                            -rob

                            ps to Ongthorne (and others)- I have more Cosmic Volume than David Toop- I
                            presume you are talking about Jan Van Den Dobbelsteen's vanity imprint?
                            I found the text of Volume 3 to be intractably laughable and I'm afraid
                            the s/w was not much better. Plus the advertised waves of drone were
                            downright PUNY. And on the subject of Hafler Trio revivals (dare I utter
                            the sacred name of "Intersystems" in this context? I didn't think so),
                            Gerhard Potuznik gives a pretty good stab at forging his own _Intoutof_
                            with his new _Concorde_. Unfortunately, the music doesn't really hold a
                            candle to superior works (Cube & Sphere's _Great Norwegian Explorers_,
                            along with assorted 12's for Disko B and Cheap); in fact, it reads more
                            like a mash of eclectic leftovers. The inclusion of "songs" is by far the
                            cheekiest move of the package and it _almost_ gels...
                          • Oeivind Idsoe
                            ... Yes, well, sorry about that. My momentary lapse of reason was an attempt to stoop to diskonos level, but as with most instinctual/primal outbursts it feels
                            Message 13 of 14 , Aug 3, 1999
                              "R. Lim" wrote:

                              > From: "R. Lim" <rlim@...>
                              >
                              > Remember, content over form, people. I wasn't even going to bat an eye,
                              > but since Davis threw down the gauntlet.. I'm not sure when ad hominem
                              > attacks became passable as a reasonable response, so I'll just ignore all
                              > that junk. Here, I believe, is the meat of the topical portion:

                              Yes, well, sorry about that. My momentary lapse of reason was an attempt to
                              stoop to diskonos level, but as with most instinctual/primal outbursts it
                              feels good for a short while, but then you're not really sure anymore.
                              Anyways, diskono sort of had it coming. OK, it still feels kind of good. I
                              must have hit a really deep primal note.

                              > Most of the accounts of the
                              > show seem to bely that improv (free or otherwise) is a craft that you have
                              > to practice at (a lot) to be any good at; otherwise you end up hitting
                              > your mark purely by chance.

                              But then you are discussing something other than the reviewer was talking
                              about, which seemed to be an objection to noisey improv in the first place.
                              Besides, there's nothing wrong with chance. If this collection of what you
                              call feted stars actually managed to come up with something interesting just
                              by pure accident, I have no problems with that.

                              > > that such a thing as "a point" even exist). Open your eyes a little
                              > > wider next time. Eyes wide shut. You agree with Maddy ('s integrity)
                              >
                              > I hereby initiate a world-wide ban in using the term "eyes wide shut" (or
                              > its accompanying clever reversal, "eyes wide open").

                              I was pushing the new Kubrick movie. It's the textual version of subliminal
                              advertising. Read it backwards and you'll feel forced to buy a ticket for the
                              premiere (at least that's what the scientological church told me. They're
                              heavily invested in the movie, you know).

                              > -rob

                              /Oeivind/
                            • Oliver Brice
                              I quit, you ve just got too boring. Go and take some drugs or something. Bye, Olie
                              Message 14 of 14 , Aug 5, 1999
                                I quit, you've just got too boring. Go and take some drugs or something.
                                Bye,
                                Olie
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.