From Oeivind Idsoe Sent Mon, Dec 29th 1997, 01:30
From Oeivind Idsoe Sent Mon, Dec 29th 1997, 01:30
Arthur B. Purvis wrote:
> I have had this argument enough times to acknowledge that the wire is not
> a total evil at all, because the fact remains that it is a glossy magazine
> with a large circulation with Steven Stapleton on the cover (it only took
> them 15 years to notice him, too! - this is the basis of my
> dissatisfaction).
As has been said by a couple of other guys: The Wire fifteen years ago, althought I don't
think it existed at that time, was a completely different Wire from the one we know today.
They have a different editor (which is quite young, by the way, only 24-25 years old from
what I've heard (which makes him 15 at the beginnings of NWW)), a different layout, a
completely different agenda, and so 'naturally' they couldn't cover Stapleton from the time
at which he began his musics. How is a magazine as independent as The Wire supposed to be
responsible -- and cover in retrospect! -- things that started way before its time; how
*can* you hold this against them?
I just don't get it.
(besides, this "who did what first" is only the incarnation of copyfright infringement
issues, which again relates back to the capitalisation of music -- so I think we should
more or less forget about it. ;)
> with the wire. My main problem with them is this: they claim to be the
> last bastion of experimental/avant-garde music, while they refuse to
> actually go out and look for new music. They wait for the music to "come
> to them" as it were. They never write about a band that's just started up
> with no commercial or "credible" backing. They just sit on their asses.
I'm sure this may be true in some cases ("music coming to them"), but, as a person who
actually *knows* someone who works at The Wire (to everyone: please don't throw cheap shots
at me for this one - the person I know started working there after I sent The Wire my
subscription), I can assure you that these people don't "just sit on their asses". They
work very hard to put out a magazine, and with such a limited amount of resources as these
people actually have, they have to prioritize and therefore can't spend too much time
looking up obscure bands who make weird noises by rubbing a burnt harmonica on remains from
a dog (sorry, cheap shot. couldn't resist).
Besides, it's downright impossible to cover bands that have just started up. Can you
imagine the number of post-avant garde people who would run down the staff of The Wire
asking for some cover on their latest project? Commercial backing or not, artists somehow
has to 'prove' themselves in one way or the other, and I think The Wire is doing a damn
good job picking out the interesting stuff.
In addition, who you may or may not know varies from person to person. Personally, I have
been introduced to *so* many great musicians/artists/composers/sound artists through The
Wire that I'm forever greatful (but that's just me being servile).
> created their own scene while everyone else paid no attention,
> _especially_ the "new music" rags.
"Scenes" are overrated and numbing. Break away.
> Why does the Wire, to this day, ignore Aube and only write about Merzbow,
> Violent Onsen Geisha, and a few others, when Aube is infinitely more
> interesting than all of them?
Please explain *why* Aube is infinitely more interesting than all of them, and then how
this explanation becomes universal.
Seriously, though, The Wire is an opinion, not a matter of fact. I can't really say more
than that.
> To clarify: When I say "arty" I mean the kind of people who will de facto
> think anything "musique concrete" or "electroacoustic" or "free jazz" is
> the bee's fucking knees, and will laugh contemptuously at bands called
> "skinny puppy," "Nirvana," etc. etc. I have no inherent problems with
> "artiness."
Not sure what "bee's fucking knees" means, but I'm sure I agree with you. All de facto
people are mostly boring. I like Stocky (that's Stockhausen to some people) and Nirvana and
Björk and Autechre and Xenakis and...and...etc.
Although you did pick some bad examples; musique concrete and electroacoustic is hardly
ever featured in The Wire, and they seem to have a very hostile attitude towards composers
within these genres.
BTW, do you hate musiq.concr. and elec.acoust.? Because I could point you to some fantastic
releases that I'm sure you would love (Pierre Henry, Bernard Parmeggiani, Xenakis, Jonty
Harrison, Dennis Smalley...and the list goes on).
> > whatever). And it certainly doesn't mean I agree with everything they say.
>
> But the problem is that a _LOT_ of people do. Even worse, they think they
> know everything about experimental music when in fact they know jack shit.
You're blaming people's ignorance on a magazine, which is kind of reversing the whole
causality. The Wire can't possible be blamed for the eventual ignorant readers they may
have, although I'm sure they're out there.
> despite their claims to knowledge. It's not like SP is particularly
> obscure; they sold > 50,000 copies or so of their final album.
If they sold 50 000 copies of their album it's probably not that good.
(just kidding).
> See above, but you honestly can't find anything artsy about MoM or Alec
> Empire? What about artistic goofiness and "rebellion?" These are equally
> as artistically valid as pretension.
I'm not sure I'm following you here, but I can't guarantee you that I find nothing
pretentiously arty about neither Mouse On Mars nor Alec Empire. These people have way too
much humour in their music to ever be considered pretentious!
(case in point: a while ago I catched Mouse On Mars hosting a program on a basically shi*ty
German mtv-like station called Viva, and these two people giggle and laugh so much that I
think you would have to re-evaluate your opinion on them quite considerably. The same goes
for Alec Empire, I think (if you read the AE interview in the previous issue of The Wire
you will see that this is mentioned in connection with the photo shoot they did for the
article))
Conclusion: pretentious people usually don't have a sense of humour (notice Basil Fawlty in
Fawlty Towers -- *the* incarnation of pretentiousness).
> "Loveless" is better than anything ever called IDM or techno. "To Here
> Knows When" is quite possibly the greatest 4 1/2 minutes of music in the
> history of the art form. That is all I will say.
Personally I don't like such dualities or "either-ors", because they pretend that there is
One way of listening to music, instead of realizing that there are several different
plateaus on which music can be inhaled. I find it meaningless to claim that Loveless is
somehow superiour to fx. electronic music, because I don't listen to MBV the same way I
listen to fx. Xenakis or Higher Intelligence Agency. I listen with my head, perhaps. Or my
heart. Or with both. Or with my body. Or with my body and my head...etc.etc.
Hierarchizing the way you do is impossible for me, because even though Loveless is one
fantastic piece of work, it's not music that I can always listen to, no matter what -- none
of the CDs in my collection are. Of course, this doesn't mean that I don't have
preferences, but making huge generalizations in the absolute sense that you seem to be
doing feels kinda...wrong.
> There is great music hidden in so many places.
This is so true...but you really have to look hard sometimes.
/Oeivind/