From Greg Earle Sent Sat, Dec 27th 1997, 00:17
From Greg Earle Sent Sat, Dec 27th 1997, 00:17
=D8ivind Ids=F8 wrote:
> Arthur B. Purvis wrote:
> =
>> Another good example: The Wire would never be caught dead writing an
>> article on a band called "Skinny Puppy." Listen to the track Download=
on
>> Last Rights - lots of CD skipping, noise, etc. 4 years later or so - =
The
>> Wire discovers Oval (after their hype at the hands of Tortoise, howeve=
r)
>> totally ignoring Skinny Puppy. They will always, because it isn't "ar=
ty"
>> enough.
Arthur, given that you've now shown that you're a former (if not present)=
Industrialist and your definition of "dark" music tends to coincide rathe=
r
neatly with that style of music purveyed by certain br=FCtish ambient Ind=
ustrial
artists ... have you ever stopped to consider the fact that maybe the rea=
son
that "The Wire" doesn't write about "Skinny Puppy" or the "Download" trac=
k in
particular is because back when "Last Rights" was finished (at the beginn=
ing
of November 1991) "The Wire" was covering shit like Pat Metheny?
It's true - issue #102, August 1992 (by which time I know "Last Rights" w=
as
out) featured Trilok Girtu, Sons of Arqa, Joi, Pat Metheny, Steve Martlan=
d and
Jimmy Witherspoon. The following month's issue #103 featured such Indust=
rial
artsy stalwarts as Mel Torme, Sinatra vs. Costello, Mike Westbrook, Schub=
ert,
Elvis Presley and Television. Need I say more?
My point being that a magazine covers what it wants to cover at the time,=
based
on the interests of the editorialship and the writers. At the time of Sk=
inny
Puppy's "Last Rights", "The Wire" was still run by people mostly interest=
ed in
Jazz & Improv. By the time of Oval's "Diskont 94", there were people on =
board
who were interested in modern Electronic music (there was a "Berlin Techn=
o"
feature in #124, June 1994, for example). You can hardly skewer "The Wir=
e" for
not covering Skinny Puppy 6 years after the fact!
> I have to 'defend' The Wire, as I think it's one of very few magazines =
who
> actually has something interesting to say about music [...]
I agree with Oeivind (even if he can't keep his posts within 80 columns (=
-: ).
"The Wire" writes about music I'm interested in. It writes about music t=
hat I
don't see written about in the other magazines I have access to. "The Wi=
re"
also covers music that I'm not interested in (the Free Jazz/Improv scene =
that
is their historical/traditional oevre). I simply don't read those bits t=
hat
I'm not interested in. Works for me.
> First of all, I think you are putting too much of an emphasis on The Wi=
re's
> conscious approach to picking out music you think is hype. A trivial f=
act: A
> magazine that has a certain amount of circulation (number of copies bei=
ng
> printed) and a semi-large audience have to 'hype' something, in the sen=
se
> that it's unavoidable that their (The Wire's) influence will rub off on=
their
> readers. The Wire puts Alec Empire on their cover, and of course some k=
ind of
> attention will be paid to this guy (deservedly or undeservedly) ... if =
not
> there wouldn't be any point in running a magazine, right? Enter discou=
rse.
More to the point, who else puts Alec Empire on the cover? Or Autechre? =
Or
Plaid? Or Juan Atkins? Or Rupert (Photek) Parkes? Or Patrick Pulsinger=
?
Props to "The Wire" for having the guts to do this. And to keep going, e=
ven
after years of pummelling in the letters section from the previous Free J=
azz &
Improv readership who continue to whinge at them for covering Techno and =
modern
Electronic music to their dismay.
> To the issue of The Wire being too arty: What the hell does word "arty"=
mean
> anyway? It's being dropped everywhere; would you care to explain why *=
you*
> think The Wire chose Oval instead of Skinny Puppy to generate the CD-sk=
ipping
> hype (BTW, I like Oval quite a bit)? Your claim has a sort of semi-par=
anoid
> ring to it (although I'm sure you didn't mean for it to sound paranoid)=
, and
> I'm curious as to what you might think the The Wire's motives are/were.=
> Perhaps Skinny Puppy's version of CD-skipping just wasn't to be liked (=
I
> haven't heard the track(s) you're refering to - sorry), and Oval are si=
mply
> doing it 'better' (whatever that means)?
I'm not exactly sure what Arthur was referring to (CD-skipping hype?), bu=
t
again I posit that it's simply the fact that their current staff is aware=
of
Oval, who exist in the here & now, and Puppy is from the previous era and=
one
shouldn't necessarily expect all the writers of "The Wire" to be aware of=
every track ever released that uses CD skipping, especially if it was rel=
eased
back in their Free Jazz era by an Industrial band!
Conversely, given that the Immerse people sprung to some degree from the =
old
Music From The Empty Quarter stable, I would be willing to bet that if *t=
hey*
were to talk about Oval and CD skipping, the Pups might get a look-see. =
It's
all in the background & interests of the writer(s).
> Besides, your opinions on The Wire are just as stereotyped as the stere=
otypes
> you claim The Wire are presenting, if you know what I mean. Come on ..=
=2E Alec
> Empire "arty"? Plaid "arty"? Mouse On Mars "arty"? Patrick Pulsinger=
> "arty"!?? No way. Art, perhaps, but not arty.
Exactly.
>> And, as I think about it, your average IDM listener seems to be taken =
up
>> with a need to look down on all things "Rock" as boring. That's fucki=
ng
>> retarded. Sure, 99% of Rock is utter shite. So is 99% of Techno. Yo=
u
>> just have to LOOK, and by failing to look [...]
> =
> I whole-heartedly agree. Any kind of ignoration (is that a word?) base=
d on
> something as totalitarian as a concept (Adorno (he-he)) is use- and wor=
thless.
> Forget about "Techno" and "Rock". What does it sound like? Any good? =
Are
> they using guitars!? Oh my God ... but ... what the ... it rules! (Th=
is
> could be the reaction of a person fixated on Techno upon hearing My Blo=
ody
> Valentine for the first time).
But here's where I'll disagree with both of you.
Somebody that's as young as Arthur probably is ("young" in my almost-40
vernacular is "anyone under 30", for purposes of this discussion (-: ) c=
an
easily come upon all of today's musical genres in a veritable Demolition =
Derby
of spacetime conflagration: translation, anything and everything can be "=
new"
to some extent when you are relatively young.
For me, however, my world lines are sufficiently long enough to have foll=
owed a
certain path. I first heard My Bloody Valentine well before I heard Tech=
no
music. I've already been through my "99% is shit" phase. I like a *lot*=
more
than 1% of the Techno and related music I hear these days. While I'll st=
op
short of exclaiming "It's All Fuckin' Good!" I'm finding that my wider
acceptance of music these days is inspiring. I used to be a young, bitte=
r,
cynical "There's my taste ... and bad taste" type, especially back in the=
Industrial days. I got over it. I feel better now (-: ('Course, maybe=
I'm
just officially an Old Fart ... (-: )
But I've heard guitars/ bass/ drums style "Rock" music for over 30 years =
now.
And it bores me shitless. And I feel this is a valid opinion to have, a =
valid
framework to operate in, because it's filtered through my experiences. T=
he
person who's 19 now and listens to, say, Goth might find it new to them a=
nd
exhilarating; the person who went through it first time 'round and was pr=
ancing
around to Sisters of Mercy and Siouxsie in '82 would undoubtedly find the=
same
exact music the 19 year old now likes to be hopelessly retro and outdated=
=2E
>>> Besides, someone from Princeton talking about pretentiousness? It is=
to
>>> laugh.
>>
>> Umm, fuck you, asshole.
Hahahaha ... hook, line and sinker.
- Greg