the wire

[mos dan]

where else can you find nice and long -and yes, carefully written and well-documented- articles on Burial, Ricardo Villalobos or Henry Cow to name just a few recent examples?

just to be facetious for a minute, there were (longish) interview-profiles on both burial and ricardo villalobos in the guardian last year. the villalobos one was brilliant, the burial one was by me, so i shan't say anymore.

henry cow is a new name to me - no relation to the cartoon henry's cat, i presume?

 

[slim jenkins]

Related to Captain Beefheart...

 

[noel emits]

just out of curiosity who do you write for and under what name? it seems a bit unfair for people to criticise people's work while posting under an assumed name.

This is ludicrous. It's an internet forum. No-one has to use an identifiable name if they don't want to.

What's up with these gruff dismissals of people with stuff to say? Dissent and disagreement are built into the name of this forum. 'dissensus isnt supposed to be a pub' woebot says on the mods thread you recently bumped, well some of this is starting to look like boorish normalising and a call for flattening out of opinion and style. It's not cool and it's not good for the health of discussion. You've got some valid points to make regarding this stelfox but not properly engaging the actual interesting and new posters here is a bit poor IMO.

 

[stelfox]

i really shouldn't have engaged with this thread at all. all i wanted to say, as previously stated, was that i think the magazine is doing a lot of good things at the moment and is at the most interesting it's been for a while in terms of variety.
i do think it's pretty bad to go around accusing writers who post here (ie not mark because he has the good sense not to post here any more) of not doing research and being lazy.
it's not at all conducive to a harmonious environment to encourage disses of regular posters' work.
constructive criticism, fine. all out slams like that, not at all ok.
my post about that was not directed to aminadab and his/her reaction was quite bewildering.
i also happen to think it's pretty tacky to post, stating that you are a working critic, that another critic's work sucks in all manner of ways without showing your own cards.
if that's ludicrous, i'm sorry.
as i say, i really shouldn't have got involved in this and won't have anything further to add in future.

 

[Dunninger]

IMO a magazine like The Wire is essential. The regrettable thing is that we now lack something like Melody Maker in its golden years but, you know, where else can you find nice and long -and yes, carefully written and well-documented- articles on Burial, Ricardo Villalobos or Henry Cow to name just a few recent examples? And were can you find something like the primer or the invisible jukebox? not to mention the exhaustive reviews section?

Spot on. I can't think of an issue that didn't have something worthwile and interesting in it. Of course not everything is gold, but that's probably impossible.

 

[noel emits]

my post about that was not directed to aminadab and his/her reaction was quite bewildering.

I think it's because aminadab just reopened this thread after more than 3 years with that criticism of Mark F's work and so probably felt implicated in your post.

I mean maybe there's more to this than meets the eye but I thought it was interesting because as it happens I probably disagree with a lot of those criticisms and think it would be good to follow up in more detail.

Is it too personal and close to the bone? I don't know if Mark is ever likely to post here again but I doubt he'd be too dismayed to have his writing talked about.

 

[Jonesy]

I don't like spending a lot of time on the Net and so the Wire, to me, is an indispensible guide to getting my hands on music that will reward in some way. I like its spirit of independence and absolute refusal to bow to commercial pressures (the limited advertising between its pages for one). Like everything it is not without its weaknesses and problems but when you compare it to everything else available nothing comes close.

When I first picked it up I'd heard of about two people in the whole mag. I've always read it cover to cover and my perseverance has paid off in a much more exciting music collection.

My own real complaint is that it's a bit light on humour.

A friend recently passed a copy of Uncut to me and I was surprised at the number of Wire contributors. A good mag but it always seems to go for the same "key figures" like Young, Dylan etc.

 

[bassnation]

i really shouldn't have engaged with this thread at all. all i wanted to say, as previously stated, was that i think the magazine is doing a lot of good things at the moment and is at the most interesting it's been for a while in terms of variety.
i do think it's pretty bad to go around accusing writers who post here (ie not mark because he has the good sense not to post here any more) of not doing research and being lazy.
it's not at all conducive to a harmonious environment to encourage disses of regular posters' work.
constructive criticism, fine. all out slams like that, not at all ok.
my post about that was not directed to aminadab and his/her reaction was quite bewildering.
i also happen to think it's pretty tacky to post, stating that you are a working critic, that another critic's work sucks in all manner of ways without showing your own cards.
if that's ludicrous, i'm sorry.
as i say, i really shouldn't have got involved in this and won't have anything further to add in future.

thats a pity, because i always enjoy reading your posts, out of all the music critics online you have the most straight-forward cut to the chase kind of approach. never feel intimidated with your posts like i sometimes do with marks (just like to say despite that i always read his blog, even if much of the theory goes over my head). you are clever without being smug or elitest.

i do think, however, this thread is too close to home for you on a number of levels. its just that these are your colleagues and employer which is involved in this kick about and its hard to be objective, i know i wouldn't be in the same situation.

i think sometimes brutal discourse is ok, and its a measure of someone being a good writer to attract this kind of criticism. i don't agree with all of aminadabs points, but mark does tend to crowbar almost anything into a capitalist critique, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. however, i don't think its possible (or interesting) to talk about the music in a mechanical literal way. the concepts are always going to be more relevant, in fact surely talking ideas is the only option for music criticism. i'd rather read something challenging even if i don't agree with it.

but surely part of being a critic is being able to cope with criticism.

it really doesn't matter, its just the internet.

 

[bassnation]

Is it too personal and close to the bone? I don't know if Mark is ever likely to post here again but I doubt he'd be too dismayed to have his writing talked about.

i think mark is quite think skinned, hes certainly dished out some pretty savage stuff to me on here before.

 

[dominic]

i think sometimes brutal discourse is ok, and its a measure of someone being a good writer to attract this kind of criticism. i don't agree with all of aminadabs points, but mark does tend to crowbar almost anything into a capitalist critique, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. however, i don't think its possible (or interesting) to talk about the music in a mechanical literal way. the concepts are always going to be more relevant, in fact surely talking ideas is the only option for music criticism. i'd rather read something challenging even if i don't agree with it.

very well said -- and i agree completely

 

[fokse vektaire xeven]

I don't mean to fan the flames here- but aMinadaB it sounds like you just don't respond Fisher's mode of criticism, his focus is different to many and as Bassnation says can be laboured at times- but that's sorta what he's offering as a "post structuralist" critic...there are many who write about music in narrative terms etc. (and i mean literal narrative) and this is something a little different, a little more risky whether it's successful for you personally or not...

but surely part of being a critic is being able to cope with criticism.

In my experience- and i was brought up by one- not at all

I thought by around 2004-5 The Wire had gotten a bit of a knitting circle, people reviewing friends as well as music they had a commercial interest in promoting, so i stopped buying it. Nonetheless i think it's very important that there is a mainstream-ish platform for more marginal music, and a long train journey last year occasioned buying the Dec 2007 issue which i thoroughly enjoyed- best one i had seen in a long time.

 

[aMinadaB]

okay i'm just getting back to this thread now and i've read it closely (i think) and taken the comments to heart, have thought about what's been said and my own words and i'll try to address a few general points without getting going through individual comments

i'm not trying to be a dickhead, i'm trying to provoke people to talk - fisher's words are plenty provocative towards other musicians and writers, and if he or someone else is offended by discussing specific issues, then that wasn't my intention ... arguments, sure, yes, great! insults or people leaving the forum as a result - no, that wasn't what i had in mind

his blog has no comments section, nor does the wire blog, this seemed like a logical place to throw out issues for discussion. if you disagree with what i've said, of course i look forward to the debate - that's what this place is about, right? i'm a grown up, i'm perfectly fine with being criticized gently or brutally etc (it's the internet for heaven's sakes), and i'll try to respond thoughtfully

of course i am not advocating a strictly formalist music criticism and OF COURSE i want to be provoked by music writers, i just don't happen to think that hyper-cynical criticism where we're told that portishead (or anyone else) is in actuality some sort of hipster-designed product when in fact their musical pedigree stands for itself, is a very very poor form of 'criticism' and deserves to be called out as such, i used the word 'smug' to describe his tone for a reason and i stand by it

 

[Slothrop]

i think sometimes brutal discourse is ok, and its a measure of someone being a good writer to attract this kind of criticism. i don't agree with all of aminadabs points, but mark does tend to crowbar almost anything into a capitalist critique, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. however, i don't think its possible (or interesting) to talk about the music in a mechanical literal way. the concepts are always going to be more relevant, in fact surely talking ideas is the only option for music criticism.

What's been pissing me off a bit lately, though, is a bit of a tendancy to almost pick the ideas first and the music second. Like the way a lot of writers immediately forgot about any dubstep that wasn't lumpen halfstep as soon as bassline broke onto their critical radar, because if they admitted to knowing about Whistla or Kode 9 or Pangea or Mala or D1 it'd confuse the direction of their article / post about how bassline is funky and sexy and upbeat and much more exciting than that tedious ploddy dubstep stuff. Likewise the tendancy to generalize about colour and (in particular) class in relation to music scenes.

I've seen this kind of thing on and off in the Wire for as long as I've been reading it, too. I've read quite a few articles where a really interesting and nuanced interview with a particular artist is topped off with a couple of rather cliched and myopic sideswipes at a whole scene. That bit about Kode 9 is kind of a case in point.

On the flipside, it's really good to see journalists (Blackdown springs to mind, or Simon Reynolds a decade or so ago) who can talk about the bigger picture but generally stay grounded in the actual reality of the scene they're talking about.

 

[simon silverdollar]

What's been pissing me off a bit lately, though, is a bit of a tendancy to almost pick the ideas first and the music second. Like the way a lot of writers immediately forgot about any dubstep that wasn't lumpen halfstep as soon as bassline broke onto their critical radar, because if they admitted to knowing about Whistla or Kode 9 or Pangea or Mala or D1 it'd confuse the direction of their article / post about how bassline is funky and sexy and upbeat and much more exciting than that tedious ploddy dubstep stuff. Likewise the tendancy to generalize about colour and (in particular) class in relation to music scenes.

i think that's a good point, and a mistake that i've certainly been guilty of. i've come to realise that it's often a mistake to try and write about scenes as a whole in shorter articles/reviews (in fact, anything shorter than a big historical piece or primer); there's only space to make quick, sweeping generalisations and that can be really unsatisfactory. Far better, i've learnt, just to stick to talking about the particular records/artists.

ultimately, i think there is something quite interesting to be said about dissatisfaction within dubstep with half step and with the more wobbly dubstep stuff, but it's difficult to make that point in a few paragraphs of an article without it appearing as an attack on, or a dismissal of the sene.

 

[fokse vektaire xeven]

his blog has no comments section, nor does the wire blog, this seemed like a logical place to throw out issues for discussion. if you disagree with what i've said, of course i look forward to the debate - that's what this place is about, right? i'm a grown up, i'm perfectly fine with being criticized gently or brutally etc (it's the internet for heaven's sakes), and i'll try to respond thoughtfully

of course i am not advocating a strictly formalist music criticism and OF COURSE i want to be provoked by music writers, i just don't happen to think that hyper-cynical criticism where we're told that portishead (or anyone else) is in actuality some sort of hipster-designed product when in fact their musical pedigree stands for itself, is a very very poor form of 'criticism' and deserves to be called out as such, i used the word 'smug' to describe his tone for a reason and i stand by it

Sure- i'd agree w/ you on the piece on Portishead, it was somewhat unkind. I lived in Bristol back in the 90s and they were a big deal locally, for a start the name was great if you knew Portishead itself and also Geoff Barrow was a staunch supporter of the local hip hop scene... I'd say what they did was entirely genuine. but in broader terms- all critics are looking to have their opinion noticed and of course contrariness tends to be what gets you noticed.

Personally i think disagreement etc is to be encouraged as long as its respectful, though certain issues are always going to be touchy in certain places. If people disagree with me I don't immediately feel like it reflects on ME , because i don't entirely define myself by my cultural choices, but not everyone feels that way- to some opinion is of paramount personal importance,
and the distancing effect of the internet works to their disadvantage, as ANYONE can- and will- "hit and run". Hence the lack of a comments section i guess

What's been pissing me off a bit lately, though, is a bit of a tendancy to almost pick the ideas first and the music second.

It's a lot easier to write about ideas than music- writing about the actuality of music is very difficult indeed. The remit of a monthly music magazine is surely mostly to get people to go out and listen to the music for themselves..?

 

[noel emits]

it's this subordination of music that's so troubling, ultimately music becomes a secondary vehicle

"What this book demands from a reader is a willingness to accept that the best writer in America could write almost nothing but record reviews."

i don't think its possible (or interesting) to talk about the music in a mechanical literal way.

It's definitely possible, just usually only interesting in a limited way.

One notable example though, actually a quite extraordinary piece of work - Alan W. Pollack's Notes On The Songs Of The Beatles. I guess this is 'musicology', not criticism. :slanted:
http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml

 

[Slothrop]

It's a lot easier to write about ideas than music- writing about the actuality of music is very difficult indeed.

I'm not saying music criticism should remain focussed on line by line analysis of the music and avoid making stabs at the big picture, just that there seems to be a bit of a tendancy at the moment to start by deciding what the big picture ought to be and then generalizing away any actual exampes that don't fit it.

I've been finding Simon Reynolds' stuff in recent years exemplifies both sides of this - when he's writing about something specific like an album and working from there he's still really fantastic, but I get the arse a bit when he starts trying to gauge the state of UK underground dance by (afaict) listening to a bunch of mixes and reading some blog posts.

The remit of a monthly music magazine is surely mostly to get people to go out and listen to the music for themselves..?

Yeah, maybe, but I don't see how making a blanket dismissal of almost a whole scene because admitting the existance of all the interesting exceptional cases and counterflows would spoil their rhetorical punch really does that. (Yeah, I guess I've got a bee in my bonnet about the dubstep thing here.)

 

[noel emits]

(Yeah, I guess I've got a bee in my bonnet about the dubstep thing here.)

Well maybe it's a sign of good health for dubstep and uk dance that it's not so easy to get a quick handle on the state of play.

Even commentators who are constantly on the ground at dances, on radio, making tunes etc., seem to have a hard time agreeing about what's going on, or about what things ought to be called

 

[zhao]

it is always a dodgy (to say the least) proposition to attempt a guess at the "sincerity" of any artist. (and shouldn't we be well past the "cult of authenticity" by now?)

I'm all for a return to form, to formalism that is. with exceptions, but IMO any music writing with substance should begin by addressing first the physical characteristics of the waveforms on display, and whatever semiotic meaning they may signify second.

 

[noel emits]

it is always a dodgy (to say the least) proposition to attempt a guess at the "sincerity" of any artist. (and shouldn't we be well past the "cult of authenticity" by now?)

I dunno, maybe it doesn't ultimately matter but it can be a fun game, even occasionally illuminating.

I think it's probably worth clarifying the wording of the blog post that inspired this, though:

Even though I don't doubt the personal sincerity of either Gibbons or Barrow, formally it all sounded a little pat, a little too cleverly contrived, a little too comfortably at home in This Life 90s Style culture. Gibbons's gloom always struck me as being more like illegible grumbling than the oblique bleakness it wanted to be.