From: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org (idealcopy-digest) To: idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Subject: idealcopy-digest V3 #127 Reply-To: idealcopy@smoe.org Sender: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk idealcopy-digest Wednesday, May 10 2000 Volume 03 : Number 127 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: BBQ some sacred cows. ["Michel Faber" ] Bruce is so dreamy (was Re: BBQ some sacred cows.) [Paul Pietromonaco ] Re: Chicago Ideal Copyists! ["MackDaddyD" ] re: Re: BBQ some sacred cows. [Jack Steinmann ] RE: Wire's principle in music. [BOURGEOISIE ] Re: BBQ some sacred cows ["tube disaster" ] re: Re: re-formed [Jack Steinmann ] Re: Re: re-formed ["tube disaster" ] London Gigs ["Wilson, Paul" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 20:57:43 +0100 From: "Michel Faber" Subject: Re: BBQ some sacred cows. michelfaber@ablach.freeserve.co.uk using "From" header Sender: owner-idealcopy@smoe.org Precedence: bulk I'm responding to the correspondence between Robert and Miles Goosens, itself sparked off by the comments of Aaron (see below). I'm with Robert on these issues, but that isn't the point. The disagreement between these gentlemen gets right to the heart of something which might be called the fan mentality. Fans never think of themselves as mindlessly supporting anything and everything 'their' band does - they see themselves as making an informed and discriminating choice based on... well, based on how self-evidently wonderful all the band's work is. I'm not putting fans down - apart from anything else, they're the ones the band needs most, the ones who buy all the records, ponder the words, travel long distances to see the gigs, etc. I'm just saying that fans are, by their very nature, a touch fanatical, and will jump through logical hoops to "prove" that what might appear dodgy when done by other groups is in fact impeccably cool, brave, radical, ironic, etc etc, in the trusty hands of their heroes. If it were not for the blinkers of fandom, idealcopy wouldn't be seeing this ridiculous debate about whether Wire's current act is a retrogressive step or not. OF COURSE IT IS! Miles can talk about "recontextualising" and Colin Newman can talk about how "the older material is somehow suffused with the spirit of the age in which it is being performed", but no amount of semantic smokescreen can obscure the plain fact that Wire, a group who used to play all-new material on principle, are now doing a tour playing old material, much of it structurally and texturally identical to its original form. And the old fans are loving it! Look at how many idealcopy members in the USA are asking for set lists in advance of the gig coming to their town, so they can know exactly what they'll be hearing! (Oh, Lord, please let them still be playing 12XU !) There is nothing wrong with any of this. Bands have the right to play old stuff if they enjoy playing it, especially if there are hordes of punters out there who've never seen them do it before. What IS wrong is when they try to pass this off as something terribly daring or cool. (Robert Gotobed: "For Wire, this is radical") The Sex Pistols did a reunion tour a few years back, playing all the 1977 material. I thought it was abysmal, but then I never thought the Sex Pistols were much good. I'm sure if I were the world's biggest Sex Pistols fan I would have thought it was amazing (Wow! It's really THEM! Playing THOSE songs... and I'M here to see it!) Miles's derisive comment about the Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd/Roger Waters is beautifully apt, but not in the way he hopes it to be. Anyone who knows these bands well, and has read the interviews accompanying their tours, will know that they've used the same arguments and justifications as Wire have used this time around. The Rolling Stones' set list DOES change with every tour - they resurrect more old material, and feel they're terribly daring to pull certain numbers out of mothballs for a new generation of concertgoers. For Stones fans on the Voodoo Lounge tour, the novelty of hearing 'Not Fade Away' (not performed in twenty-six years) must have been every bit as thrilling as a Wire fan hearing '12XU'. If you're not a Stones fan, the fact that they played 'Sympathy for the Devil' in 1976 for the first time since 1969 is no big deal. To someone who worshipped the Stones, this would have been a big event, symbolic of the healing of the wounds caused by Altamont or whatever. Similarly, Pink Floyd, on their horrendously tedious last tour, played 'Astronomy Domine' for the first time in decades. Roger Waters now plays some Floyd material not performed since 1971 - again, cue jubilation from the fans. Wire play their oldies well - but so does Roger Waters. If you don't give a toss about the Floyd, the decision of Roger Waters to revisit this stuff is just a case of a sad old relic doing a nostalgia trip. If you're a Waters fan, it's a case of him re-claiming songs he feels he has a right to reinterpret after thirty years of grief and growth, etc etc. As for Miles's suggestion that these 'other' bands are teasing the punters with "Our Last Tour Ever, Maybe" - yes, sure they are, but Wire are too! Colin Newman sounds like a marketing exec when he says: "People should be aware that there is a finite period during which we will be able to present this material with enough conviction to satisfy our own exacting demands" (translation: Hurry, hurry, catch us now before we get fed up with playing old stuff); Graham Lewis says "This is the only Wire retrospective"; Bruce Gilbert says: "I don't think any of us entertain doing THIS version of Wire for very long". Fine, my best wishes to them, but let's not pretend they're not trying to lure the punters with a limited-edition nostalgia trip. I love Wire, but I think they're prodigiously talented and imaginative musicians who can still come up with extraordinary new things (the He Said Omala album Catch Supposes is playing as I write this). Given this richness of creative potential within the band, and given how much I always respected their dedication to presenting audiences with new challenges, I just can't get excited about them replicating old material. The very least I expect is for them to present that old material in radically new ways (at RFH, 'Boiling Boy' came closest to realising this, and was the best number in my opinion). But best of all would be if they actually made up something new. That's what real art is all about, it's what the members of Wire are still about individually - it's what I wish they were about collectively. In conclusion, there seems to me to be a note of personal hurt, almost aggression, in the correspondence below. I'm sure everyone concerned loves Wire, and that the 'warring parties' have more in common with each other than they would have with yer average Counting Crows or Cher fan. Perhaps we should remind ourselves that everyone has their own way of appreciating a great band, and that there's room on the planet for both "It was the best night of my whole goddamn life!"-type fans AND furrow-foreheaded analysts. Best wishes, Michel Faber _______________________________________________________ Date sent: Tue, 9 May 2000 10:10:07 -0700 (PDT) From: BOURGEOISIE Subject: BBQ some sacred cows. To: wireadmin@mindspring.com Copies to: idealcopy@smoe.org <> wrote: Miles Goosens: <> Robert: >!? That was unnecessary and I did NOT slag Wire off. In >summation, I asked if it were possible for Wire to move forward >with Robert's no electronics restriction which was responded to by >Aaron who stated (among other things) that it was not important if >Wire adhered to principles that he was drawn to, instead he felt >inclined to hear whatever Wire felt like playing at this time. >I countered by pointing out (in so many words) what blind hero >worship that attitude is and that Wire are a principled band in that >their stated purpose (which in the past) is to move forward w/out >looking back. >As for what instruments Wire should play in the future...I don't >care...as long as they move into new territory, they could play >kazoos for all I care. Miles Goosens: <> Robert: >I can only read what he typed and I feel he expressed an over >reliance on Wire's track record, which does nothing for their >future. I repeat, Wire have not yet proven themselves this time >around as anything but a well oiled nostalgia act, they have not >presented a substantial body of new work that deviates from the >current established "rawk or robot" aesthetic. Miles Goosens: <> Robert: >I do not know him, but from the little bit i've seen him write, I >sincerely doubt he will criticize Wire....I think he'll just feel >fortunate that they came to a town near him. Miles Goosens: <> Robert: >I haven't heard any recontextualizing, i've heard replicating....like I >said, this is based solely on Wire's ATP broadcast.....if they've >progressed since then I wouldn't know (but I will find out on the >13th) Miles Goosens: <> Robert: >Let me quote Wire, "Once is enough!" Miles Goosens: <> Robert: >I disagree, from what i've seen, it is what Wire are doing, *Unless* >they follow through with their stated purpose which is to play old >numbers to regain their competence as a band unit and then move >on into new territory. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 09:01:39 -0500 From: "MackDaddyD" Subject: Beaconsfield - On Topic Post (for a change ;) I received a copy of Rude Mechanic from Beaconsfield this weekend and had a chance (finally) to listen to it last night. The package consists of 2 discs which attempt to be representitive of a the sounds from an installation at Beaconsfield in 1999. Original tones by PanSonic, Hayley Newman and David Crawforth "with" Bruce Gilbert, Susan Stenger David Cunningham (!), Scanner, Kaffe Mathews, Simon Fisher Turner and many others. Uneasy listening of a high quality. I am not real big on the subjective review kinda thing, but it should appeal to those who appreciate gilbert's later solo work. I found this item at David Cunningham's Piano website, and as far as I recollect it has not been mentioned in this list. stylisticly all over the amp with a strong predilection for that quality i like to call 'noise', my 6-month old daughter really liked the jimi tenor piece (draw your own conclusions) there are 4 gilbert pieces david at beaconsfield says these records has a few copies left and beaconsfield holds the ramaining copies - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i listened to an audience recording from the nottingham social club 23-02 last night and have varied thoughts yes charles - it *is* unarguably monochromatic but so many things look better in black and white d - looking for a rainbow on a wet chicago morn ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 17:06:46 -0700 From: Paul Pietromonaco Subject: Re:new bands >In the very illuminating interview by the ex-lion tamer, this Erasure >mix with wirey guitars came up again. Has anyone heard this? > I've got it. Personally, I think it's amazing. Wir took a pretty mediocre Hi-NRG Erasure track, and turned it into something mesmerizing and beautiful. Plus, with Vince Clarke programming, the rhythms were a little more complex than some of the programming on The First Letter (no offense to Wir here though - I like the First Letter quite a bit.) It's really fun to compare the original versus Wir's remix - there's only one little melodic phrase from the original at all. Even Andy Bell's vocals sound cool. (^_^) >Amazing to think that Wir were once slated to support Erasure on a >tour. I can't think of a greater mismatch. > The sadder thing is that I actually went to the Erasure show that tour, because the local radio station had erroneously reported that Wir was there. I went with some friends that had been waiting quite a while for Erasure - bought tickets the day of the show. Ended up with amazing seats - right near the front of the stage - far better than my friends who had their tickets for weeks. And the irony? Not only was Wir NOT there, the opening act was one of Madonna's ex-dancers, who had a truly wretched song on the charts about then. Erasure was a joy compared to that. They had a good stage show, actually. (^_^) Cheers, Paul *********************************************************** Brain: "Pinky, Are You Pondering What I'm Pondering?" Pinky: "I think so Brain, but can the gummy worms really live in peace with the marshmallow chips?" Paul Pietromonaco Test Engineer - Reflection X WRQ, Inc. E-Mail: paulp@wrq.com *********************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 17:11:26 -0700 From: Paul Pietromonaco Subject: Bruce is so dreamy (was Re: BBQ some sacred cows.) >ooh, maybe Bruce will sign the program! he's soooooooo >dreamy! > He signed my copy of The Ideal Copy. He *is* pretty dreamy, I think. (^_-) Cheers, Paul ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 18:10:36 -0700 From: Brian Barnett Subject: Re: Bruce is so dreamy (was Re: BBQ some sacred cows.) And Colin signed my copy of Commercial Suicide. Paul Pietromonaco wrote: > >ooh, maybe Bruce will sign the program! he's soooooooo > >dreamy! > > > > He signed my copy of The Ideal Copy. He *is* pretty dreamy, I think. > (^_-) > > Cheers, > Paul ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 18:39:56 -0700 From: "marlon" Subject: Re: horrifying mismatch? - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Faber" To: "ian barrett" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 12:57 PM Subject: horrifying mismatch? > Ian Barrett wrote: > >I always found the prospect of Wire and Depeche Mode on the > >same bill somewhat horrifying > __________________________________________ > > Both Erasure and Depeche Mode are closer to Wire than they may > appear. What makes them seem so far away is their vocalists - the > camp histrionics of Andy Bell, the let-me-see-those-hands-in-the-air- > cos-I'm-a-sex-god mannerisms of David Gahan, the I'm-so-sensitive- > it-hurts fragility of Martyn Gore. Instrumentally, both bands have > done things to rival Wire, in not dissimilar areas. > i agree, sorry i see grimaces already. and lest we for, members of wire collaborated on the first 2 Recoil albums, which is a project by alan wilder, depeche mode member. if memory serves me right, there was a 12 inch single called 1+2 that was made up of snippets of wire and depeche mode electronica. ps - the new Recoil "Liquid" is brilliant. co starring dean garcia from Curve and Diamonda Galas. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 22:41:26 -0500 From: "MackDaddyD" Subject: Re: Chicago Ideal Copyists! yeah right - my 42 year old ass is gonna be front and center ;) - ----- Original Message ----- From: Ciscon, Ray To: 'MackDaddyD' ; tube disaster ; Ciscon, Ray ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; Cc: IdealCopy Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 5:45 PM Subject: RE: Chicago Ideal Copyists! > During my last visit to the Metro, late February of this year to see Apollo > 440, seating was available only in the balcony. Left side for 'special > guests', right side for 'armchair' concert goers. > > I place myself firmly in the 'armchair' category. When you're my age, 36, > your mosh pit days are over. I hope to grab a table up top on the right. > > Cheers, > > Ray Ciscon > Remote Office LAN/WAN Support Manager > Comark, Inc. > > In order to provide the best level of support, please contact: > The I.S. Support Center at extension 4357 > ** Every support call should begin with a call to the I. S. Support Center. > ** > > -----Original Message----- > From: MackDaddyD [mailto:dmack2002@yahoo.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 3:47 PM > To: tube disaster; Ciscon, Ray; wiremailorder@ameritech.net; > George.m.hook@ac.com; jsteinmann@clynch.com; z946128@rice.farm.niu.edu; > cosa@tiny.net; bumstead@home.com; rorshach23@home.net; pshaw@cave.net; > jenor@csd.uwm.edu; jchenaul@columbus.rr.com > Subject: Re: Chicago Ideal Copyists! > > reserved for priviledged guests > > > > > > Hmmm ... someone from another list just mentioned reserved seating at the > > show. I've probably just been oblivious, but I wasn't aware there *is* > such > > a thing at the Metro, though I've only been there once. (I sure didn't see > > anything that looked like reserve seating at the Buzzcocks show last > > November ... or does that refer to the tables & chairs at [if memory > serves] > > the left of the balcony?) > > > > Dan > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: 09 May 2000 22:52:43 -0500 From: Jack Steinmann Subject: re: Re: BBQ some sacred cows. Reformed bands have a long tradition of turning out weak albums made up in the studio instead of worked out properly, over time, in front of an audience. Suppose, for a moment, that Wire choose to record new material, again. Would you rather that they had done so before this tour? Not after they've learned how to play together again, tried out the odd new song live, and generally rebuilt their internal musical rapport? I think it's a little early to call Wire on the carpet for anything. Comparisons to the Rolling Stones are suspect too, since their tours are all about MONEY, and Wire have never displayed any inclination to enter into any endeavor to get rich... Jack On Tuesday, May 9, 2000, Michel Faber wrote: Colin Newman sounds like a marketing exec when he >says: "People should be aware that there is a finite period during >which we will be able to present this material with enough conviction >to satisfy our own exacting demands" (translation: Hurry, hurry, >catch us now before we get fed up with playing old stuff); Graham >Lewis says "This is the only Wire retrospective"; Bruce Gilbert says: >"I don't think any of us entertain doing THIS version of Wire for very >long". Fine, my best wishes to them, but let's not pretend they're not >trying to lure the punters with a limited-edition nostalgia >trip. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 21:03:22 -0700 (PDT) From: BOURGEOISIE Subject: RE: Wire's principle in music. The point here is that Wire have been making a principle out of the idea that they would not repeat themselves for a long time now, it is not a recent development. The music that they made is a product of that principle, a determination to move forward, even when they could've made a nice pile of money playing a 12xu nostalgia act for "spiky teens" on a split bill with Elastica. This principle has not only been part of Wire's integrity, it is also what has kept their music interesting and fresh and kept them from becoming stagnant. To answer your question of whether I like Wire just because of their principle, the answer is no, but the principle usually results in music that is often ahead of it's time....this is a large part of the appeal for me. However, it is true that this principle alone does not always result in a successful endeavor, witness the much maligned Manscape. > > Will you accept anything they perform or release in the future just > > because of their past? > > at the moment, i would say yes -- and by "accept", i mean LISTENING TO IT, > as opposed to declaring my right to judge it out of hand before i've heard > it, or even worse, checking it out from a sense of duty rather than out of > genuine interest. It was not my intention to try to discourage you from forming your own opinion by going out and seeing them for yourself, but I feel my criticism is fair as it is based on the reported set lists and the ATP broadcast (I will also see them in D.C. on the 13th). > see, these are four particular people who have proven in > the past that they think and create in interesting ways. they do things > for me that i couldn't do myself. i'll admit that with hack artists, i'll > go in with my own principles that i expect them to adhere to -- you know, > they're just filling a role. if i get convinced to go see the new big > action movie, i want it to be exciting, fast-paced, et cetera; i don't > care as much whether the makers succeed on their own terms, because i > don't care what their own terms are. > > with artists who do something really interesting, though, what good does > it do you to lug your own expectations in? these are people whose > creations tend to articulate within themselves their own motivation; it's > not like i'm going to be as lost as if i go to a Jackie Chan flick with no > expectations and then spend the whole time wondering why these people want > to beat each other up so much. Yes, but my expectations stem from Wire's own statements regarding themselves and their music (see Everyone loves a history), in addition to their track record of creating innovative music. Because I agree with their stated expectations of their music and I have usually been pleased with the result, I feel that my expectations are fair. > > For me, Wire has always been a set of principles, a declaration of > > independence from the monotonous cycle of pop culture that repackages > > old achievements with new haircuts in tight pants for young audiences > > that can't remember the first time around. > > so you don't need to listen to the music? you can just process the > principles and declare your allegiance to those same principles and you're > done. No, the principle results in innovative music which i enjoy listening to. I often enjoy the result of the application of the principle. Even when the application does not qualify by my aesthetic interest, (Manscape) I still have found the work to be interesting and certainly more so than if they had, say, just re-recorded Pink Flag or more likely, decided to play in their old punk style because it would be of greater financial benefit to them. > > do you *enjoy* playing Wire records, or do you just perceive them as a > vindication of principles, a proof that this artistic philosophy you're > fond of is viable? > you seem to think that i cannot possibly have any standards (i think > "blind hero worship" was the term you used) No, it's not that i think you have no standards, Instead I felt that you had abandoned standards for faith. > if i am willing to give the > revived Wire the benefit of the doubt based on past experience rather than > based on what principles they are currently espousing in interviews. They have always espoused the same principle (afaik), so it's not a recent development. By all means go and see them! But then ask yourself if their performance offered you something for your money that you couldn't have received by just playing their alblum(s) at home. > as > you may have noticed, *many* musicians claim those same principles or > similar ones. some stick to them and produce great music. some stick to > them and produce tedious music. some are just lying. some are lying (or > misguided) but produce great music anyway, music which works on completely > different principles. the past has shown me that Wire's stated principles > are relevant to their music, but that judging things in advance on > dogmatic grounds is a waste of time. But how are we judging things in advance? Wire has again been an active unit for a little while now and though they usually quickly jettison old material in favor of new....that has not been the case this time around...doesn't that seem indicative or at least a warning of stagnation to you? > > aaron > Robert. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 00:20:04 EDT From: Eardrumbuz@aol.com Subject: Re: perfect kiss in the ointment In a message dated 5/8/0 11:35:12 PM, jenor@csd.uwm.edu writes: >I'm terrible at New Order titles, cuz they don't matter anyway - >but the video was done by Jonathan Demme, and shows them creating the new >version in real time - what I admire about them is their incredible knack >for arrangement and chordal variation. If I weren't so lazy, I'd find the >title - but it's the one that ends w/Hook running down the scale on his >bass all the way to low E perfect kiss. incredible song, beautiful video. i heard once that the frog sounds were samples of real frogs. interesting, i thought. i'll take new order, in all their beautiful innocence/ineptitude or whatever you want to refer to it as, over 90% of what's out there from the past 20 years. back to topic...one thing that is irritating to me is something that i noticed while following the bauhaus reunion, er resurrection tour. they played virtually the same set every night for the entire tour, with a few additions towards the end of the tour. so far, wire are doing pretty much the same set at each show. with so much wonderful material to draw from, it makes me wonder why bands do this. one thing that was special about the grateful dead (hehe, who woulda thunk you'd see them mentioned here!) was that the gigs were constantly changing. of course, they spent practically their entire career on the road, but wire should be able to throw us a few curve balls here and there. okay new yawkas, let's start chanting "wire play the 15th" :o) paul ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 22:21:46 -0700 From: "tube disaster" Subject: Re: Wire's principle in music. - - >> if i am willing to give the >> revived Wire the benefit of the doubt based on past experience rather than >> based on what principles they are currently espousing in interviews. > >They have always espoused the same principle (afaik), so it's not a recent >development. By all means go and see them! But then ask yourself if their >performance offered you something for your money that you couldn't have received by >just playing their alblum(s) at home. Unless some of the reviews we've seen of recent shows are outright, outrageous lies, I would say this isn't the case. Unless, that is, you can sit down with the Drill LP & fail to discern any difference between any of the various versions. > >> as >> you may have noticed, *many* musicians claim those same principles or >> similar ones. some stick to them and produce great music. some stick to >> them and produce tedious music. some are just lying. some are lying (or >> misguided) but produce great music anyway, music which works on completely >> different principles. the past has shown me that Wire's stated principles >> are relevant to their music, but that judging things in advance on >> dogmatic grounds is a waste of time. > >But how are we judging things in advance? Wire has again been an active unit for a >little while now and though they usually quickly jettison old material in favor of >new....that has not been the case this time around...doesn't that seem indicative or >at least a warning of stagnation to you? What it tells me is that they've been apart for longer -- roughly 10 years -- than they were together the first 2 times combined, which were of course separated by a gap of about half that 10 years. Dan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 22:27:44 -0700 From: "tube disaster" Subject: Re: Re: BBQ some sacred cows. Which brings up an interesting subject -- which re-formed bands *have* turned out strong work? Second-incarnation Wire are the most obvious example, for purposes of this list ... I've also expressed extreme fondness before for the Buzzcocks' '93 comeback LP, Trade Test Transmission, & the Raincoats' return from the dead 2 years later, Looking in the Shadows -- 2 of the best albums of the '90s. And with the various lineup changes, I suppose that at least 1 of the last 3 Killing Jokes -- Extremities, Pandemonium & Democracy -- counts as well. Now, *if* Wire stay together at least long enough to produce another album, would they be capable of having achieved the above rare feat *twice*? Has that ever been done before (again, I'm not sure of just how to evaluate Killing Joke in all of this)? Dan >Reformed bands have a long tradition of turning out weak albums made up in the studio instead of worked out properly, over time, in front of an audience. Suppose, for a moment, that Wire choose to record new material, again. Would you rather that they had done so before this tour? Not after they've learned how to play together again, tried out the odd new song live, and generally rebuilt their internal musical rapport? > >I think it's a little early to call Wire on the carpet for anything. Comparisons to the Rolling Stones are suspect too, since their tours are all about MONEY, and Wire have never displayed any inclination to enter into any endeavor to get rich... > > >Jack > > >On Tuesday, May 9, 2000, Michel Faber wrote: >Colin Newman sounds like a marketing exec when he >>says: "People should be aware that there is a finite period during >>which we will be able to present this material with enough conviction >>to satisfy our own exacting demands" (translation: Hurry, hurry, >>catch us now before we get fed up with playing old stuff); Graham >>Lewis says "This is the only Wire retrospective"; Bruce Gilbert says: >>"I don't think any of us entertain doing THIS version of Wire for very >>long". Fine, my best wishes to them, but let's not pretend they're not >>trying to lure the punters with a limited-edition nostalgia >>trip. > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 21:37:02 -0700 (PDT) From: BOURGEOISIE Subject: re: BBQ some sacred cows dpbailey@worldnet.att.net wrote: <> You might try reading what i've written all along which is that as far as i'm aware, Wire have not developed a substantial body of new work to play at their shows, as they have usually done in the past. They talk about reinventing their old material, but all that has pretty much happened is replication. So then I ask you, what is a good show? Is it a show where a band trots out their old alblums in such a way that you could have just stayed home with your cd's? Or is it a show that where the band tries to play fresh, original material that you won't hear in your current cd collection? Robert. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 22:40:01 -0700 From: "tube disaster" Subject: Re: BBQ some sacred cows >dpbailey@worldnet.att.net wrote: ><it was a good show or not? Anybody for a bracing round of "what is reality?">> > >You might try reading what i've written all along which is that as far as i'm aware, >Wire have not developed a substantial body of new work to play at their shows, as >they have usually done in the past. They talk about reinventing their old material, >but all that has pretty much happened is replication. So then I ask you, what is a >good show? Is it a show where a band trots out their old alblums in such a way that >you could have just stayed home with your cd's? Or is it a show that where the band >tries to play fresh, original material that you won't hear in your current cd >collection? Depends on what you expect from a show. Let's say they'd released a new LP 3 months ago & were just now touring behind it, which wouldn't be at all unusual. Would you stay at home because you'd memorized said CD? And like it or not, there's something to be said for hearing familiar songs in a live setting. Was I disappointed because I didn't hear anything new from the Ramones & the Pistols in '96? Or, for that matter (veering sharply into the mainstream), John Fogerty in '98? Don't be daft. Dan ------------------------------ Date: 09 May 2000 23:46:31 -0500 From: Jack Steinmann Subject: re: Re: re-formed "Trade Test Transmission" really didn't do anything for me -- it didn't seem to break any new ground. I understand "Modern" is very good, but the cover art is so awful I find myself just... uninterested. Best 'comeback' albums I can think of are the Comsat Angels' "My Minds Eye" and then "The Glamour." Reaching further back there is the example of Roxy Music reappearing with "Manifesto," then "Flesh + Blood" and finally "Avalon," which received the sort of acclaim usually reserved for a Steely Dan album. No comment. Most distressing comeback I can think of: the Bee Gees, 20+ years ago, in their disco mode. Jack On Wednesday, May 10, 2000, Dan wrote: >Which brings up an interesting subject -- which re-formed bands *have* >turned out strong work? Second-incarnation Wire are the most obvious >example, for purposes of this list ... I've also expressed extreme fondness >before for the Buzzcocks' '93 comeback LP, Trade Test Transmission, & the >Raincoats' return from the dead 2 years later, Looking in the Shadows -- 2 >of the best albums of the '90s. And with the various lineup changes, I >suppose that at least 1 of the last 3 Killing Jokes -- Extremities, >Pandemonium & Democracy -- counts as well. > >Now, *if* Wire stay together at least long enough to produce another album, >would they be capable of having achieved the above rare feat *twice*? Has >that ever been done before (again, I'm not sure of just how to evaluate >Killing Joke in all of this)? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 22:52:13 -0700 From: "tube disaster" Subject: Re: Re: re-formed - ->Best 'comeback' albums I can think of are the Comsat Angels' "My Minds Eye" and then "The Glamour." They occurred to me as well, but I wasn't sure the Comsats had ever actually broken up, though that Dream Command business would've seemed to have been a suicide note ... Dan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 07:48:16 +0100 From: "Wilson, Paul" Subject: London Gigs So, who's going to any of the gigs in London at the end of the month? I'll be going to the one on the Saturday (27th May). Does anyone know the venue, The Garage, and the surrounding area? Is there a decent pub nearby, in which to meet up? Paul KW ------------------------------ End of idealcopy-digest V3 #127 *******************************