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

RE: Re: toop, jenkinson, prevost et al

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 14 , Aug 2, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 14 , Aug 2, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        >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 3 of 14 , Aug 3, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 14 , Aug 3, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            "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 5 of 14 , Aug 5, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              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.