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

Re: Subject: Re: toop, jenkinson, prevost et al

Expand Messages
  • Oeivind Idsoe
    ... 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
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 31, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      _____ wrote:

      > all you pious fucks are beyond a joke, how can a supposedly 'enlightened'
      > bunch of people be so damn right myopic?

      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.

      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 the
      > guts to do the same thing...

      Bullshit. If the content of a writer's article is supposed to be based on
      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 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 yards
      > away....

      Believe it or not, but I think The Wire covers the marginalized crazy shit you
      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 the
      > magazines they edit?

      Yes, Rob Young edits the magazine all by himself. None of the other members of
      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 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...

      Don't pretend you don't have your own agenda, which is probably just as
      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,
      > genius and magic in it" - goethe

      Are you sure that's not "baldness has power, genius and magic in it"? I'm sure
      that's what George Costanza would say (that's me surfing on the surface for ya).

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.