From: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org (idealcopy-digest) To: idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Subject: idealcopy-digest V3 #63 Reply-To: idealcopy@smoe.org Sender: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk idealcopy-digest Monday, March 13 2000 Volume 03 : Number 063 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Re: NME review ["giluz" ] Re: NME review ["giluz" ] Re: NME review ["Michel Faber" ] Re: NME review ["giluz" ] Wire Re-releases [Jorge Punaro ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 12:01:16 +0200 From: "giluz" Subject: Re: Re: NME review Well, not really. NME is to off-mainstream music the same way that Rolling Stone is to mainstream. So I would expect to see Wire reviewed in the NME but not in the Rolling Stone. Apart from that, there isn't that much difference between the two. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Steinmann" To: "giluz" Cc: "IdealCopy" Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 7:38 AM Subject: re: Re: NME review > > What you're really describing is Rolling Stone magazine. The criticisms of the NME are valid but you'll never read anything about Wire in RS. > > > Jack > > > giluz wrote: > >NME is about fashion, meaning - it is rarely ahead of its times, and usually > >behind them. > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 12:48:34 +0200 From: "giluz" Subject: Re: NME review Well, I have to admit that there is something to that one. Yes, it is pop music, and they can be wrong. But do they have to be wrong so often? I'm very critical, but their criticism always misses as far as i'm concerned, and slagging off the Cranberries is no big deal, because it's so obvious that they're crap. It's not enough to criticise the big mainstream names when, in return, you just praise stuff that anyone will forget long time before the Cranberries are forgotten (and that won't take long (does anyone here remember Ride, for example?)). What I resent is the fact that the NME thinks of itself as being in th centre of alternative music making while actually it's been years off target. There is a place for magazines like NME but it is not the place they think they're entietled to. What's worse is that there isn't any other magazibe which can occupy that place. giluz - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Grant" To: Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 2:05 PM Subject: Re: NME review > At 04:30 10/03/00 -0500, giluz wrote: > >I haven't read NME in almost 10 years now, and even though I'm not really > >surprised, it saddens me to see that nothing in it has changed. The same > >arrogance, the same "we know all there is to know about the music industry" > >attitude, and, especially, the same feeling I get everytime I read it, that > >the most important thing about this magazine is not the artists but the > >magazine itself. > > For me, the natural consequence of the artists always being more important > than the magazine is that you get incredibly tedious, sycophantic > non-criticism. If a writer never thought they had more to say than the > artist they were writing about, then (imho) there'd be virtually no writing > about pop music that was actually worth reading. Elvis Costello might > escape the occasional verbal kicking...but, personally, I'd hardly regard > that as being a positive development.... > > The simple fact is that, for example, when somebody reviews a Cranberries > record, I want them to give it zero out of ten and use more abusive > swear-words per sentence than would seem grammatically possible. Nothing > less will do. Sometimes I get my wish, sometimes I don't...and sometimes > somebody does the same to one of my favourite bands. > > That's subjectivity for you, and that's the weekly music press for you. > There are plenty of more worthy, elevated places where an illusion of > consensus and objectivity reigns supreme. They bore the hell out of me, mind. > > >I remember that in the early 90's every month or so the NME (or MM) would > >tell its readers about the next new revolution in rock music. > > It's pop music, it changes all the time. Getting overly excited about "the > next new revolution", shouting to all and sundry for a month, then getting > bored and moving onto something else is all part of the fun. I mean, the > Romo thing was laughable, ludicrous, hilarious...and it was well worth a > quid to catch up on developments every week. > > It's much like when your team signs a new player, he scores a hat-trick on > his debut and then plays like a useless tart for a year before joining > Colchester on loan - you still fall for it the next time there's a new > signing, and the next, and the next.... And the day when you don't fall > for it is the day when you're probably too cynical to be a football fan > anymore.... > > >What I'm trying to say here is this: > >NME is about fashion > > To repeat, NME is about pop music. > > Why am I being so defensive? Not merely because the weekly music press has > given me more than ten years of fine service, pointing me in the direction > of countless unheard gems (and, no doubt, an equal number of unheard > turds). Mainly because I'm a vastly opinionated pop fan and I hate the > idea that anything is beyond criticism, constructive or otherwise. Even Wire! > > Cheers, > > ig. > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 13:28:33 -0000 From: "Michel Faber" Subject: Re: NME review Re: the debate between Giluz and Ian Grant: People get so used to Britain having an outrageously poor music press that they can't imagine having anything better. In a pluralistic society, there should be music publications aimed at a number of levels - the pre-teen level of 'this band is so gorgeous, here's a poster for your bedroom wall', the teenage level of 'this is the coolest thing in the history of the universe, everything else is crap', the college student level where bands are discussed more seriously but in a fiercely partisan manner, the mature music fan level where things are put into some historical context and defended/criticised according to strictly musical criteria, the scholarly specialist journal, etc etc. In the seventies these distinctions were very clear. Even within the weekly tabloid press - NME, Melody Maker and Sounds - there was a good deal of specialisation, with NME tackling the more left-of- centre bands and discussing them with a socio/political slant, Melody Maker attempting the broader sweep with more impartiality, and Sounds covering areas scorned by the other two, like Heavy Metal and Industrial music. Then in the 1980s when the monthly glossies came along to cater for the older reader, there was a world a difference again between them and the tabloids. The alarming thing about the music press in this country right now is that almost every magazine is offering us much the same kind of journalism - the pre-teens get a sort of Mickey Mouse version of NME ranting and the readers of glossy monthlies and broadsheet newspapers get a more pretentious, boring version of it - but it's still the same blinkered post-adolescent rant. The review that The Independent did of Wire recently was typical of what would once have appeared only in the 'tabloid' music press - dashed off by someone who was ignorant and didn't give a fuck that he was ignorant, someone who obviously wanted Wire to be a bunch of rebellious, good-looking young lads (or preferably ladettes) and couldn't forgive them for being otherwise. We have a situation now where the serious newspapers are interviewing media trash like Robbie Williams, Geri Halliwell and Billie, and where once-scholarly music monthlies like Q and Mojo are falling over themselves to curry favour with the likes of Oasis, Travis and whoever else wants to be this year's Ride. As Ian Grant's email affirms, there will always be people who want nothing from the music press except to be whipped up into a state of excitement by the latest craze, or to see their most hated band slagged off with the maximum number of swear words, but that should only be one level at which music is discussed. If every publication is aimed at much the same level, this encourages the people who read them to be much the same too. Best wishes, Michel Faber PS: Dear Giluz: Loathsome though I agree The Cranberries' singer and much of their music is, I'm afraid you're very likely wrong to assert that they will be soon forgotten. The Cranberries have had several hit singles in the USA and the brutal truth is that once you've had big hits in the monolithic music market that is America, those songs will live a very long time. A Flock Of Seagulls are still remembered, and played constantly, over there! Ditto Tears For Fears, The Fixx, The Stray Cats - any amount of dross. Ride's ticket to obscurity was not that they were worse than the above (they were a hell of a lot better) but that they didn't have a USA hit single. If Wire's 'Kidney Bingos' had cracked the States, their pensions would have been assured even if everyone in Britain forgot Wire's very existence... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 16:08:13 +0200 From: "giluz" Subject: Re: NME review 100% right (including the PS) giluz - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Faber" To: "giluz" Cc: Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 3:28 PM Subject: Re: NME review > Re: the debate between Giluz and Ian Grant: > > People get so used to Britain having an outrageously poor music > press that they can't imagine having anything better. In a pluralistic > society, there should be music publications aimed at a number of > levels - the pre-teen level of 'this band is so gorgeous, here's a > poster for your bedroom wall', the teenage level of 'this is the coolest > thing in the history of the universe, everything else is crap', the > college student level where bands are discussed more seriously but > in a fiercely partisan manner, the mature music fan level where > things are put into some historical context and defended/criticised > according to strictly musical criteria, the scholarly specialist journal, > etc etc. > > In the seventies these distinctions were very clear. Even within the > weekly tabloid press - NME, Melody Maker and Sounds - there was > a good deal of specialisation, with NME tackling the more left-of- > centre bands and discussing them with a socio/political slant, > Melody Maker attempting the broader sweep with more impartiality, > and Sounds covering areas scorned by the other two, like Heavy > Metal and Industrial music. Then in the 1980s when the monthly > glossies came along to cater for the older reader, there was a world > a difference again between them and the tabloids. > > The alarming thing about the music press in this country right now is > that almost every magazine is offering us much the same kind of > journalism - the pre-teens get a sort of Mickey Mouse version of > NME ranting and the readers of glossy monthlies and broadsheet > newspapers get a more pretentious, boring version of it - but it's still > the same blinkered post-adolescent rant. The review that The > Independent did of Wire recently was typical of what would once > have appeared only in the 'tabloid' music press - dashed off by > someone who was ignorant and didn't give a fuck that he was > ignorant, someone who obviously wanted Wire to be a bunch of > rebellious, good-looking young lads (or preferably ladettes) and > couldn't forgive them for being otherwise. > > We have a situation now where the serious newspapers are > interviewing media trash like Robbie Williams, Geri Halliwell and > Billie, and where once-scholarly music monthlies like Q and Mojo > are falling over themselves to curry favour with the likes of Oasis, > Travis and whoever else wants to be this year's Ride. As Ian Grant's > email affirms, there will always be people who want nothing from the > music press except to be whipped up into a state of excitement by > the latest craze, or to see their most hated band slagged off with the > maximum number of swear words, but that should only be one level > at which music is discussed. If every publication is aimed at much > the same level, this encourages the people who read them to be > much the same too. > > Best wishes, > > Michel Faber > > PS: Dear Giluz: Loathsome though I agree The Cranberries' singer > and much of their music is, I'm afraid you're very likely wrong to > assert that they will be soon forgotten. The Cranberries have had > several hit singles in the USA and the brutal truth is that once you've > had big hits in the monolithic music market that is America, those > songs will live a very long time. A Flock Of Seagulls are still > remembered, and played constantly, over there! Ditto Tears For > Fears, The Fixx, The Stray Cats - any amount of dross. Ride's ticket > to obscurity was not that they were worse than the above (they were > a hell of a lot better) but that they didn't have a USA hit single. If > Wire's 'Kidney Bingos' had cracked the States, their pensions would > have been assured even if everyone in Britain forgot Wire's very > existence... > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 09:44:59 -0600 From: Jorge Punaro Subject: Wire Re-releases cdeurope.com is listing all the Wire and Wire related Mute catalogue at its forthcoming releases list, the rerelease date is march 31 Saludos Jorge ------------------------------ End of idealcopy-digest V3 #63 ******************************