Not to mention a ten page feature on someone who used to be in a prog / improv band in the seventies and has done very little of any note since. Who needs vital and exciting new music when you've got someone whose brother once met Cornelius Cardew?dubplatestyle said:i would happily write about dnb for the wire. unfortunately i dont really have time to pitch them. (from what i hear from people who have written/write for them, it's a veeeerrrrry long process between initial query and actually seeing something in the paper.) nor do i necessarily think they'd be interested. i mean, after all, there's people with beards and acoustic guitars to write about and i'm pretty sure we need another editor's note about throbbing gristle.
It's easy and fun?stelfox said:oh let's not start wire bashing again. what's the point?
From my point of view, it's not that it doesn't cover new urban music - it does, in its own way. It's more that for a magazine with a focus on new and experimental music, it tends to have a very backward looking feel to it - a sense of history is one thing, lengthy articles on two decade old micro-scenes is another, particularly when there seems to be a lot of interesting stuff within the Wire remit at the moment that's under-exposed.it's decided what it's job is and does it pretty well (regardless of whether or not it bores me to screaming jags of boredom). really, saying you want new urban music in there is like saying you wish razzle had more pieces by malcolm gladwell in it.
Slothrop said:The former could probably be dealt with if they did a lot more short interviews and thinkpieces, or pitchfork-esque 'month in' columns. The latter - erm, acid in the water cooler?
stelfox said:i think they're just catering to their audience now (a group of people who have my limitless pity, as it so happens)
Slothrop said:It's easy and fun?
From my point of view, it's not that it doesn't cover new urban music - it does, in its own way. It's more that for a magazine with a focus on new and experimental music, it tends to have a very backward looking feel to it - a sense of history is one thing, lengthy articles on two decade old micro-scenes is another, particularly when there seems to be a lot of interesting stuff within the Wire remit at the moment that's under-exposed.
I guess I'm also a bit dissatisfied with the tendancy to focus on a couple of long interviews per month, which means that given the astounding (and commendable) breadth of what they're trying to cover, you never get much sense of cohesion - they had Simon's fantastic grime primer a year or so ago and they might well be editorially behind the scene, but have never had the space to fit in a full length interview with a grime artist, so you get the impression that they've forgotten about it - and with the general complete lack of excitement in most of the writers styles, whatever they're covering.
The former could probably be dealt with if they did a lot more short interviews and thinkpieces, or pitchfork-esque 'month in' columns. The latter - erm, acid in the water cooler?
simon silverdollar said:ha ha!
i read the wire, on occasion. it's like eating brown rice, or jogging. not fun, not particularly useful, but makes you feel virtuous.
Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at. But it'd be nice if (for instance) they gave a few more scene or label profiles just to get the sense that there is a continuum behind the individual artists that they cover in depth. I'm not complaining about their free jazz prog improv folk ambient slant so much as the fact that if I didn't have other sources, I wouldn't realize that a load of stuff existed because the only space it gets afforded is reviews, and I'm not likely to read through all their reviews to figure out if there's anything particualr going on. The Primers are a great step in the right direction, although they're bi-monthly, and tend to be the only mention that any given scene gets in about a year.Rambler said:This is all far enough, but it runs the risk of making the mag's coverage of anything much more shallow than it already is. I like the fact that they give proper space and depth to their interviews and articles, but like other posters here I only end up reading about one every other month. There's only so much music you engage with in that much detail.
The Wire's problem is that they try to cover everything that's outside the pop circuit, and do it in commendable depth, which is an impossible and slightly daft remit. They'd be better served admitting that they don't really 'do', say, jazz, urban, or anything vaguely mainstream any more, and be done with it.
The former could probably be dealt with if they did a lot more short interviews and thinkpieces, or pitchfork-esque 'month in' columns. The latter - erm, acid in the water cooler?