RE: Re: toop, jenkinson, prevost et al
>sheesh.... the guardian is a *liberal* paper. it broadly supports thewell, i guess none of these terms make much sense anymore anyway. but
>British Labour party - but that hardly makes it leftist, unless you see all
>politics through the filter of parliament and journalistic scaremongering.
please let's not go down that route!
>Anyway, liberal or not, it is silly to characterise the Guardian's musicof course ... and i said that if john fordham or jonathan romney had done
>coverage in the way a number of people have - the quality varies enormously
>from one reviewer to the next,
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
>On average, I find Guardian reveiewswell, exactly ;)
>neither more nor less silly than Wire reviews.......
---+ dan hill [state51]
---+ new reviews on motion [2.7.99]:
< arab strap | rachel's | lee hazlewood | elizabeth schimana | paul schutze
| out in worship | flanger >
- On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Oeivind Idsoe wrote:
> That's just you counting the fucking numbers instead of focusing onRemember, content over form, people. I wasn't even going to bat an eye,
> what people are actually saying, which makes you even more superficial
> than your previous pseudo-revolutionary garbish-grammar would imply.
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 isI dunno, I'd have to agree with Joel that the very premise of a handful of
> 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
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 littleI hereby initiate a world-wide ban in using the term "eyes wide shut" (or
> wider next time. Eyes wide shut. You agree with Maddy ('s integrity)
its accompanying clever reversal, "eyes wide open").
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...
- "R. Lim" wrote:
> From: "R. Lim" <rlim@...>Yes, well, sorry about that. My momentary lapse of reason was an attempt to
> 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:
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 theBut then you are discussing something other than the reviewer was talking
> 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.
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 littleI was pushing the new Kubrick movie. It's the textual version of subliminal
> > 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").
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).