From Oeivind Idsoe Sent Fri, Dec 26th 1997, 20:31
From Oeivind Idsoe Sent Fri, Dec 26th 1997, 20:31
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, however)
> totally ignoring Skinny Puppy. They will always, because it isn't "arty"
> enough.
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 (and I really couldn't care less if
street-cred boys think it's "arty" or whatever else is the hip ugly word of the
moment (see, I'm new on the list but already I got the hang of this nasty mix of
sarcasm and bitter irony that so many of the young people seem to like these days)).
First of all, I think you are putting too much of an emphasis on The Wire's conscious
approach to picking out music you think is hype. A trivial fact: A magazine that has
a certain amount of circulation (number of copies being printed) and a semi-large
audience have to 'hype' something, in the sense 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 kind 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 discourse.
So Arthur Purvis decides to start a magazine, and his first ambition is to "not
print/review any of the artsy fartsy stuff featured in The Wire." Fine. Purvis
decides to slag off all No U Turn releases in his first issue. Fine. But don't think
you can avoid the hype, because you are yourself creating it ("I hate Purvis'
magazine because he doesn't think No U Turn is 'arty' enough. And he thinks Panacea
came before No U Turn, and doesn't pay enough respect to the real innovators."). The
hype is the unavoidable consequence of the media world (and the fact that there
aren't one paper for every individual on earth), and the only way you can counter it
is to always keep your eyes and ears open to alternative sources, *and* make sure you
tell The Wire about it if you think they suck in one way or the other. Sure, I *love*
The Wire, but that doesn't mean I don't look around elsewhere (the net, friends,
whatever). And it certainly doesn't mean I agree with everything they say.
To the issue of The Wire being too arty: What the hell does word "arty" mean anyway?
It's being dropped everywhere, but would you care to explain why *you* think The Wire
chose Oval instead of Skinny Puppy to generate the CD-skipping hype (BTW, I like Oval
quite a bit)? Your claim has a sort of semi-paranoid 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 Puppys 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 simply doing it 'better' (whatever that means)?
Second, what I really like (and hate when it's about something I like ;) about The
Wire is that although they might put Artist X on the cover one month, or make a
two-page feature on Artist Y the next, you can never rest assured that this artist
might not be dogged in the next couple of issues. The reviewers/writers sometimes
seem completely independent of the "overall feel" of the magazine (what the magazine
feels like as a whole), which is a very rare, but attractive, phenomenon.
Besides, your opinions on The Wire are just as stereotyped as the stereotypes you
claim The Wire are presenting, if you know what I mean. Come on...Alec Empire "arty"?
Plaid "arty"? Mouse On Mars "arty"? Patrick Pulsinger "arty"!?? No way. Art, perhaps,
but not arty.
> 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 fucking
> retarded. Sure, 99% of rock is utter shite. So is 99% of techno. You
> just have to LOOK, and by failing to look
I whole-heartedly agree. Any kind of ignoration (is that a word?) based on something
as totalitarian as a concept (Adorno (he-he)) is use- and worthless. Forget about
"Techno" and "Rock". What does it sound like? Any good? Are they using guitars!? Oh
my God...but...what the...it rules! (this could be the reaction of a person fixated
on Techno upon hearing My Bloody Valentine for the first time).
And I'll give you this: I really don't like The Wire's attitude towards what they
call "academic electronic music". They could've had a lot more features and reviews
and discussions instead of just name-dropping the genre (oops) with a patronizing
remark here and there -- explaining instead of disdaining, please.
> > Besides, someone from Princeton talking about pretentiousness? It is to laugh.
>
> Umm, fuck you, asshole. You don't actually have to suffer through the
Hmmm. Princeton? "fuck you asshole"?
Cool.
> the humble abbott arthur purvis set his hand hereto
/Oeivind/