Subject: Re: toop, jenkinson, prevost et al
- all you pious fucks are beyond a joke, how can a supposedly 'enlightened'
people be so damn right myopic?
kudos to maddy..he called it as he saw it...not many of you would have the
guts to do the same thing...the only bad thing about the review is the
subject matter i.e. that he chose to cover the event at all..the coverage
these pointless "experiments" gets only serves to marginalize anything of
any real worth, i bet there
was loads of crazy shit kicking off the same night in the backrooms of pubs
dead space eats up dead words
rob young : >what was the writer (and don't ya just hate journos who tell
you what 'their >friend' thinks?) doing there?
dont ya just hate journos who put their friends on the cover of the
magazines they edit?
and rob ..it dosent matter if the guy was present or not...one does not need
to attend to imagine what a self indulgent and spurious excersie in back
slapping and mutual masturbation this gig would have been....buy some cosmic
volume records and FUCK yesterdays / journey men such as d toop, luke
vibert, tom jenkinson....amongst the blind the
one eyed man is king...maddy for president...
yours with maximum ostentation
Joseph Sergej Velez a.k.a. His Cigar Smoke Was Unmissably Subtle
No Scarves !!! No Kids !!! No Runners!!!
"whatever you can do, or think you can, begin it. boldness has power,
genius and magic in it" - goethe
- _____ wrote:
> all you pious fucks are beyond a joke, how can a supposedly 'enlightened'That's just you counting the fucking numbers instead of focusing on what people
> bunch of people be so damn right myopic?
are actually saying, which makes you even more superficial than your previous
pseudo-revolutionary garbish-grammar would imply.
If you took the time to read the various mails posted to this list on the topic,
you would notice that there's actually been some arguments 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 is
purely sociological, but I won't offend diskonos sensible fucking ego by going
> kudos to maddy..he called it as he saw it...not many of you would have theBullshit. If the content of a writer's article is supposed to be based on
> guts to do the same thing...
integrity and integrity only you would find yourself honouring the integrity of
all the Daniel Bells of the world just because their bell curve "calls it as
they see it", which is just as one-sided as what you are accusing the "pious
fucks" on this list for being.
The discussion this time wasn't about integrity, but about relevance; integrity
is well and good but means microscopically little if what you're actually saying
is just crap or beside the point (if you accept 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) because it fits your quasicountercultural attitude
that dictates you to oppose everything supported by more than three people. What
does that say about your integrity?
> the only bad thing about the review is the subject matter i.e. that he choseBelieve it or not, but I think The Wire covers the marginalized crazy shit you
> to cover the event at all..the coverage these pointless "experiments" gets
> only serves to marginalize anything of any real worth, i bet there was loads
> of crazy shit kicking off the same night in the backrooms of pubs yards
are talking about. You would notice if you actually read it. Don't expect The
Guardian to cover it. It's quite a big mainstream newspaper, remember? And once
a mainstream newspaper decides to cover the margins you know exactly what
happens. Be very glad it ain't so, unless reterritorialization gives you some
kind of masochistic satisfaction.
> dont ya just hate journos who put their friends on the cover of theYes, Rob Young edits the magazine all by himself. None of the other members of
> magazines they edit?
The Wire team can object to Rob's suggestions. Rob decided to put Scanner on the
cover all by himself. Rob is the big bad Ulf.
Would it be better to not put him on the cover because he knows him? It would
still be within the same either/or you are trying to construct.
> buy some cosmicDon't pretend you don't have your own agenda, which is probably just as
> volume records and FUCK yesterdays / journey men such as d toop, luke
> vibert, tom jenkinson....amongst the blind the
> one eyed man is king...maddy for president...
masturbatory as the next wavefield of aesthetic interest desperately trying to
penetrate the fabrics of social discourse. Putting the diskono web address in
every mail would count as masturbatory in many circles, which I'm sure you are
aware of. Not that you should remove it. Just be aware that you're playing a
game just like the rest of us, even if your game involves writing fuck with big
letters. You are one of the blind revolutionaries. Which one-eyed man is leading
> "whatever you can do, or think you can, begin it. boldness has power,Are you sure that's not "baldness has power, genius and magic in it"? I'm sure
> genius and magic in it" - goethe
that's what George Costanza would say (that's me surfing on the surface for ya).