misunderstanding the discussion: thoughts on the wire
April 12, 2020 at 8:56 pm | Posted in musings, no audience underground | 9 CommentsTags: the wire
On 10th April 2020, in the depths of the coronavirus pandemic, Derek Walmsley of The Wire magazine posted the following tweet:
Equating promos drying up with a lack of activity is a familiar complaint from music journos and would usually only evoke eye-rolling. However, Derek’s references to ‘waiting’ and the ‘current moment’ mean he is obviously referring to the situation now, under the pandemic. This tweet garnered exactly the response anyone paying attention might expect: the DIY underground people pointed out that there is actually a vast amount of activity going on at the moment, more than anyone can keep up with, and the biz people pointed out that businesses were closed and revenue uncertain and as such any delays were unfortunate but simply explained as a result of the pandemic. It also got a bunch of likes and a load of ‘pick me!’ tweets from those with warez to punt (no shade on them, by the way, gotta take yr chances).
I pushed back in this exchange (you may note that the times are a little screwy due to whether I was replying to a tweet in reply to me or in reply to Daniel Gregory who was also early into this discussion):
Derek clarified/doubled down with a response I thought was, at best, tone deaf:
…and I somewhat lost my rag:
I was going to leave it there but when I noticed Derek’s jaunty one-line sign off this morning I couldn’t help but further express my exasperation. Mea culpa:
Fiery stuff. So why do I care?
The first issue of The Wire I bought was #121, March 1994, Elvis Costello on the cover. I was a third year undergraduate philosophy student looking to ‘upgrade’ from the weekly inkies, by then in terminal decline (and if it sounds like I was insufferable, that’s because I was). Rarely has a product so neatly fit the requirements of its consumer. Each issue would be closely read and I would carefully note the publication date of the next. Eventually I subscribed and, all told, didn’t miss or throw away an issue for more than a decade. I lugged the pile – IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER – with me through several house moves.
Then I got sick of it. For years my sub was renewed on the strength of the music it covered. There was nowhere else I could get the skinny on the stuff I was excited by. Also, coming from philosophy (BA, MA, two years of a part time PhD in philosophy of language before I jacked it in) I had a very high tolerance for the hackademic tone. Increasingly, though, I had confidence in my own taste and knowledge and had friends who also shared both. At this point I was able to step back and see the medium was actually clouding the message. The white space and angular design that, ironically, makes it feel cramped and claustrophobic. The dry house style that vacuumed joy and colour out of even the most thrilling subject matter. The unchanging reliance on established formats. And so on.
At a time when the blogosphere was rapidly expanding and starting to suggest strategies for dealing with the phenomenon of limitless availability The Wire was still recommending which album we should spend our pocket money on. I called Oxfam and asked them to bring the van ’round.
Since that cathartic bowel movement (it’s true about the van) I’ve bought The Wire once or twice a year for long train journeys (remember them?) and remain largely underwhelmed. You may ask why I still bother. I think I approach it in the same spirit that Charlie Brown approaches a football being held by Lucy. I live in hope that despite my experience telling me otherwise, things will change for the better.
Here’s an example of me hoping for the best. Aside from getting arsey with each other in the twitter exchange above my limited personal interactions with Derek have been perfectly lovely. I also have it on trusted authority that the magazine has noticeably improved under his stewardship so fair play. We met face to face following his interview with Mariam Rezai at TUSK 2019 and, via email afterwards, he commissioned me to write a short piece on ‘hobbyism’ for the last end of year issue (#431). I was sceptical at first but I thought that if anyone was going to do it then I was a pretty decent advocate. I also thought it would be churlish of me to refuse given that I’ve always banged on about the paper needing more voices from the no-audience underground.
And so the curtain was drawn back. I was given a deadline, a word limit, beats I was requested to hit and the term ‘hobbyism’ (or ‘hobbyist’) which Derek suggested and isn’t really part of my usual critical vocab. I submitted a draft then a surreal, breakneck editing process began. Small changes made or suggested which seemed to me to reduce the fluidity and vividness of the piece. The word ‘bollocks’ was removed (yes, The Wire emasculated my writing). Clarifications and additions were requested and then mostly not used. At the last minute the alleged final draft had to be re-edited as they’d managed to somehow duplicate a passage in the text. When published I was pleased at its reception but, as a writer, it isn’t an experience I wish to repeat.
In-between submission and publication I spoke to a comrade at a gig who’d had a similar experience. “It’s infuriating isn’t it? If they didn’t want me then why did they ask me?” They said, summing it up precisely. “Bollocks” thinks Charlie Brown, falling on his back as Lucy pulls the ball away again.
To raise concerns over The Wire, though, is a lonely business. The gigantic majority of people obviously don’t give a monkey’s, which is the objectively correct response of course, but those with skin in the game are guarded. At gigs, and in my DMs, people are willing to express exasperation but actual criticism is vanishingly rare, weirdly taboo, in public spaces like this.
I’ve puzzled over this before. There is no reason not to be polite (well, usually) but are people really so desperate to keep in The Wire’s good books? For the exposure? A friend in the actual music business once laughingly told me that ‘no one plans campaigns based on coverage in The Wire’ and I know from eye-witnesses that a play to the hundred-odd people who listen to the radiofreemidwich show can lead to more downloads than a positive mention from Byron Coley. I’m not judging though, if I had anything to lose I’d hesitate to burn bridges I suppose.
Is it because The Wire is ‘ours’? Because it covers ‘our’ music? I can’t find the exact quote but I remember the comedian Josie Long saying that it hurt to be criticised by The Guardian because that is like being told off by your parents (though, as an aside, if my folks were war-mongering, neo-liberal, Corbyn-hating, TERF publishers spending all day pissing on their legacy I wouldn’t care what they said, even if their cultural coverage was occasionally interesting). I get this. Who doesn’t want the validation of being mentioned in a magazine sold in railway station newsagents? But the idea that The Wire is somehow… Daddy is, er…, no, I wish I’d never started that thought.
Anyway, seeing as I’m being frank let’s have it. The Wire’s ‘journal of record’ demeanor is becoming increasingly absurd as barriers to access shrink and available content may as well be infinite. Likewise the formats and approaches to criticism used are, to be charitable, extremely well suited to the monolithic distribution systems of the late 20th Century. However, real questions need be asked as to the fitness of The Wire to account for this unprecedented moment in music. Especially given the cloth eared tweets of its editor.
Speaking of whom – yes, we’d forgotten Derek hadn’t we? My final tweet was, shall we say, ‘heartfelt and boldly expressed’ impertinently suggesting that he and his publication need to up their game. How will he respond? A blocking might be in order – I couldn’t complain, I suppose. A positive acknowledgement of some kind would make him the bigger man. As long as he doesn’t lean on that cliche of professional journalism: the weary dismissal of the pleb, as if the simpleton had just got the wrong end of the stick. We’ve all seen it a million times but it never gets less disappointing as a tactic. I mean that would be embarrassi…
..oh.
—ooOoo—
backing towards the reverse, part one: not a review
February 29, 2016 at 1:05 pm | Posted in musings | 2 CommentsTags: coil, current 93, david keenan, nurse with wound, strange attractor press, the wire, whitehouse
David Keenan – England’s Hidden Reverse (revised and expanded edition, 464 pages, Strange Attractor Press)
I almost didn’t bother with (any of) this. A coffee table reissue of a book about the good old days, the original edition of which is a sought after collectors’ item. It’s hardly of burning relevance is it? Might as well have released it on Record Store Day.
That said, two things had me ‘continue to checkout’. Firstly, I was caught by the insta-meta-nostalgia on social media surrounding its re-release. The vibe seemed to be: ‘hey remember the good old days when you couldn’t get Keenan’s book about the good old days for love nor money? Well now you can!’ I remember The Small Note, short-lived indie CD shop in Leeds, tried to order a copy for me, to be paid for with the proceeds of fencing flatworm CD-rs they kindly stocked, but their line of credit was stepped on by the supplier because they were going out of business and I missed out. Good times, eh? Now I could finally have it! It’s the same urge that has the middle aged buying childhood toys on eBay, or giant King Crimson box sets. Secondly, I have become morbidly fascinated with a few examples of Keenan’s work that have come my way over the last couple of years. I shall mention three.
To begin: ‘Subterranean Homesick Blues’, a short piece that appeared in The Wire magazine issue 371, dated January 2015. In this piece Keenan declared the underground dead and it was much discussed at the time of publication. The scamp that forwarded me a copy expected me to blow a fuse and issue a withering line-by-line rebuttal. I was tempted – it would certainly have been deserved – but the more I thought about it, the more disheartening the prospect became. Why engage with the flatulent grumblings of a confused old uncle who, apparently quite literally, had no idea what he was talking about? Or maybe Keenan was self-aware enough to feel guilty that his vision of the underground had been gentrified, codified, canonized and calcified partly due to people like him writing books about it – and silly articles in publications like The Wire. Either way: fuck it.
Next up: ‘Perspective: The Right to Offend‘, published on the Crack magazine website, dated 3rd November 2015. Crack give the context as follows:
London-based label Berceuse Heroique was recently subject to criticism following a tweet from the label’s founder that led to a wide rebuke of the label’s use of extreme imagery.
…and Keenan uses that reaction to kick off an article castigating trends in social media and musing on the nature and purpose of ‘offence’ in popular music. Whilst this is considerably less daft than the above there are several eyebrow raising ‘citation needed’ moments and some seriously muddy argument. Take this, clipped from a section comparing ‘Belsen Was A Gas’ by Sex Pistols to ‘Buchenwald’ by Whitehouse:
An album like Buchenwald by Whitehouse has no chords, no lyrics, no rhythms, no graphics. There is nothing to hold onto, nothing to align yourself with. It’s not ambiguous; it is very deliberately and precisely put together, but it does force you back on your own response without signposting exactly how you are supposed to react. Crucially, though, it does not attempt to aestheticise horror or mass murder or the holocaust. It’s not fun. The music is irreducibly tied up with the subject matter. It sounds as horrifying, as distressing, as barbaric as the scenario it attempts to evoke. No poetry after Buchenwald? Well, there’s no poetry here. In this, Whitehouse dare to take a stand.
First, some pedantry: it is unclear whether Keenan is referring to the track ‘Buchenwald’ or the whole four track album of the same name. This may be important as the other tracks reference incest, the Boston Strangler and the work of the Marquis de Sade so whether or not Whitehouse are aestheticizing horror isn’t as clear cut if the whole record is taken into account. To keep it simple, I’ll assume he’s talking about just the track.
(Aside: the track title referencing the Boston Strangler is ‘Dedicated to Albert de Salvo – Sadist and Mass Slayer’. Songs, books, park benches etc. are usually dedicated out of love, respect or gratitude. ‘Mass Slayer’ is an unnecessarily salacious use of tabloid vocabulary. Is this a parody of sentimentalism or are Whitehouse, as could easily be argued just using the tone and usual meaning of these words, celebrating a monster? Following Keenan’s argument, why isn’t the track simply called ‘Albert de Salvo’?)
Keenan is also ambiguous about the meaning of ‘ambiguous’. At first he claims the track is not ambiguous, offering a very peculiar definition of the notion (a Donald Judd box is ‘deliberately and precisely put together’, does that make it unambiguous?) but at the end of the same sentence he says it does not signpost exactly how you are supposed to react – which is pretty much the dictionary meaning of the word. Likewise, the idea that the music is irreducibly tied up with the subject matter doesn’t hold water. Anyone with a passing interest in the genre could imagine this track retitled and appearing on another Whitehouse album or slotting into any number of industrial/noise releases. Titling it ‘Buchenwald’ isn’t enough – the kind of essentialism Keenan needs to make the point doesn’t exist.
I thought for a fair while about the final part of that paragraph. What does ‘It sounds as horrifying … as the scenario it attempts to evoke’ mean? Is Keenan saying that this track is literally as harrowing as the actual Buchenwald concentration camp and the horror that occurred there? Presumably not because that claim (that a 12 minute noise track was as upsetting as the machinery of genocide) would be preposterous to the point of obscenity. So what are we comparing? Is the track documentary – like, say, a book of photographs? Again presumably not because, despite the mood it successfully and unbearably evokes, there is nothing essential linking this particular track to this particular atrocity. What are Whitehouse taking a stand on? That genocide is bad and that evil exists in the world? Mate, we didn’t need to be told. Or is it something like the spiel on the cover of Whitehouse’s 2001 album Cruise:
That art created with anything less than unflinching engagement with reality is pathetic decadence? Who knows? As rhetoric Keenan’s account is exciting stuff, as an argument it’s gibberish. The article finishes with this call to arms:
But there is a right to offend just as there is a right to be offended. Rights exist to protect what ordinarily could never survive, what is most offensive, what is most off-message, most non-mainstream. There is also, crucially, a right to be irresponsible, a right to say no, to refuse pieties about the sanctity of life and the beauty of love and the achievements of democracy and the reputation of Boris Johnson, to scribble all over them with crayons, if you feel like it. Take that away and we lose some of the greatest art of the 20th Century, from Life Stinks by Pere Ubu through Suicide and Blaise Cendrars. What are we left with? Billy Bragg, Sting and The Lightning Seeds.
Whilst largely in agreement with this sentiment, the temptation is to remind the author that we are no longer in the 20th Century. An article about the right to offend in an age of identity politics, ideological puritanism and public shaming via social media might have been fascinating but Keenan only mentions this stuff to dismiss it (entertainingly, I admit) and crack on with the history lesson. The ‘what are we left with?’ examples are hilarious. I mean, there are literally hundreds of acts pushing things forward in brilliant, innovative ways without being bulb-ends like Gizmo (yes, really) of Berceuse Heroique. It’s been a long while since blokes in three quarter length leather coats were the vanguard and, quite rightly, plenty of them are amongst those being challenged now.
Heh, heh – The fucking Lightning Seeds. One for the kids there.
Finally: ‘Crime Calls For Night‘, an audio/visual talk presented at Off The Page, Bristol Arnolfini, September 2014. This lecture, given at The Wire magazine’s ‘literary festival for sound and music’ and subtitled ‘A phenomenology of transgression in industrial music’ (for those playing hackademia bingo: ‘house!’), is another order of magnitude less daft than the articles above.
Over 50ish minutes Keenan has some space to flesh out ideas and some of what I called gibberish above starts to make more sense (The Lightning Seeds are replaced by Joanna Newsom too, which made me laugh). The section about the adolescent nature of Paleolithic art is great and had me nosing around the internet hoping to find a cheap edition of the book he mentions (R. Dale Guthrie – The Nature of Paleolithic Art, no such luck – might have to try inter-library loans). The bits on industrial music as ritual gave me pause too – reminding me of reading things like Rapid Eye and the Industrial Culture Handbook, having my nipples pierced by Mr. Sebastian shortly after my 18th birthday and warily climbing the stairs above the photocopiers to Wildcat, the Brighton based piercing supplies shop, only to find Genesis P. Orridge there holding forth:
A day without a Prince Albert is a day lost!
Sage advice.
Anyway, two Whitehouse tracks get an airing this time. Firstly, ‘Ripper Territory’ which is an easier sell than ‘Buchenwald’ as it contains audio from news reports of Peter Sutcliffe’s arrest so the piece is tied to the subject matter in a straightforward way. Keenan’s analysis of this is compelling – the news reports are at once banal and sensational, at odds with the band’s stomach-churning accompaniment which needs do nothing but hold up a cold mirror to reality. That Keenan finishes this section by leaving the question ‘where is Ripper territory?’ hanging unanswered (the implied answer being ‘in us’) is very smart indeed. I was less convinced, again, by the account of ‘Buchenwald’ but it certainly seemed more persuasive than the cribbed version in the ‘Right to Offend’ article. What I really need, I thought, as I rewound it for the third time, is a definitive written account of this argument…
Wait, what? I’m sorry what did you say?
Long out of print and with the first edition demanding serious money from collectors, this much-anticipated expanded edition comes completely redesigned, with many new and previously unseen photographs and ephemera. It also comes with two new chapters, a final summing up of how the Reverse has changed gear since the book was first published and a new Chapter Zero entitled Crime Calls For Night where Keenan presents a daring argument that traces the transgressive urge that animates industrial culture all the way from Palaeolithic cave art through rock n roll and punk rock and up to contemporary noise music.
Ah, OK, let me get my credit card…
—ooOoo—
In part two: ‘Crime Calls For Night’ revisited, including more on the ‘no poetry…’ idea if I can get my head around the source of the notion (Adorno: ‘To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric.’), some ‘Lester Bangs died for his own sins, not mine’ stuff about the erosion of the artist/critic divide and the redundancy of critics in general and maybe even an account of the contents of the book.
Don’t hold your breath though – it only arrived on Saturday and is a right doorstep.
—ooOoo—
shock discovery continued: zines vs. magazines, writing vs. journalism
April 20, 2012 at 7:43 am | Posted in musings, no audience underground | Leave a commentTags: analysis, criticism, feedback, journalism, magazines, mainstream versus underground, no audience underground, the wire, who is that masked blog contributor?, writing, zines
This morning I discover that after posting the piece below about The Wire magazine, criticism etc. I had my second-highest daily ‘hits’ total since this blog’s inception. You lot like a bit of poking-a-sacred-cow-with-a-stick, obviously. It has also provoked some thoughtful and illuminating correspondence. Chief amongst these missives is what follows. It was hand-delivered during the night, unsigned and in a scented envelope, with a note attached saying I could use the contents as I saw fit, but that the author’s identity had to remain a secret. I was quite taken with the further distinctions proposed so have decided to make this the first ever guest post on radiofreemidwich. ‘Comrade X’ writes:
Hmm, I’m trying to think what I make of your distinction between reviewing and criticism. Is that a thing? I suppose it could be. For my sins, I’m afraid I rather like a good diss piece sometimes. But the building up and knocking down of flavour of the months seems to have become a staple of music journalism, and it is depressing after a time, so maybe less of that would be a good thing, give the space over to things you like rather than things you don’t. I can see that being on the receiving end of bad criticism is not pleasant. In the fast cycling world of modern pop culture it seems a reputation can be made and destroyed in about 18 months. But I feel to live in a world of total positivism is very twenty-first century, and a bit of me longs to see the boot put in from time to time. It’s entertaining. What happens when an artist you always loved turns stale? Do you just walk away? I presume you are aware of the irony that you have just performed a criticism of the Wire. Which I have to say I enjoyed immensely.
For my part I too make distinctions, between zines (which I think is what RFM is) and magazines. I see zines as the superior medium of criticism, or review, despite their supposed ‘lesser’ standing in the world of writing. Zines are written from a standpoint of amateurism, in the sense of the lover, one who loves their subject. They allow the writer freedom, from the restrictions of time limits, space, and the editorial concerns of their superiors and commercial backers, to say what they think, to create interesting writing, explore new ideas, to invent.
Magazines are commercial enterprises. The veneer of criticism and commentary barely disguises the main fact that they are vehicles for selling the products contained within, and their interests are governed by those of advertisers, PR companies and A&R agents. For this reason Billboard may be the most honest magazine in existence, it cuts to the chase, it is music journalism laid naked.
Some might say that the restrictions make writing into a serious discipline, and are necessary to avoid sloppy, rambling writing. In answer firstly I’d say it doesn’t, in the reams of toe-curlingly trite prose that are cranked out every month. This leads to the second distinction I make, between writing and journalism.
Writing, as I see it, is a creative endeavour, whereby language is manipulated to produce new ideas, arrangements of words, and viewpoints. We have a sense of the writer’s personality embedded in the words. Writing may eventually lead to a commercial benefit for the writer, but this is not the ultimate motive for its production. Journalism is producing a prearranged number of words to order, usually as a reaction to something that already exists in the world, to a time deadline, for the goal of procuring money. People make the mistake of thinking journalism and writing are the same thing. They are not. You will not find much writing in a magazine. Journalism is not writing, as it seldom creates any new ideas or experiments with new approaches to writing. Its aim is to convey clearly why you should or shouldn’t buy something. No room for experimentation, the meaning will get lost. There is also what I call the ‘Earnestly Whimsical’ school of journalism, which attempts to shoehorn the euphoric zeal and skattiness of a ziner into a corporate rags column inches. Never works for me as it always seems like they’re trying too hard to be kooky, and their voices always somehow manage to be indistinct. I also think zine writing is generally only poor when it seeks to ape a ‘professional’ journalistic style of writing.
So again I think zines offer writers freedom to actually produce writing and not journalism, so they win. I think for me the distinction between criticism and reviewing are not so important as the distinction between zines and writing on the one hand and magazines and journalism on the other. I admire Idwal Fisher’s approach to reviewing music he doesn’t care for, long tangential musings that skirt the music entirely. But they are entertaining and you sort of get what he’s getting at. If you get me. So yeah, what Miguel said basically (Editor’s note: see Miguel’s comment on original piece below).
But I suppose you’re also asking, is criticism useful to outsider artists? I think probably not, because most criticism of a ‘vision’ only seeks to rein it back into conventional notions of excellence or good taste. And good taste should be avoided wherever possible.
Oh, and the sad thing is, there is no such thing as ‘critic school’. People get thrown in there and suddenly their word is law. Maybe there should be. Or maybe critic school is a journalism degree, but do many people do one thinking their dream job is to write for the Wire. It makes me suspect some people would be happy to write about Stockhausen or copy for a travel brochure, whichever pays better.
Anyway, enough from me. I really should get my own blog, but I never find the time between replying to other people’s.
My thanks to Comrade X and I hope they do somehow find the time for their own blog – I would certainly be an avid reader.
shock discovery: no audience underground immune to criticism!
April 19, 2012 at 7:40 am | Posted in blog info, musings, no audience underground | 14 CommentsTags: analysis, criticism, feedback, mainstream versus underground, no audience underground, the wire
Two weeks ago, a chain of thought I will partly explain below led me to buying a copy of The Wire magazine. This may surprise regular readers as me whaling on this publication is almost a running joke here at RFM. Wasn’t always thus. From the early 90s, and for over a decade, I never missed an issue. From discovering its existence I earnestly supported the only champion of ‘our’ music on the newsstand. The full realisation that I had been duped by this nonsense was a long time coming but a blessed relief when it did. I binned my final subscription copy with the same relish with which I extinguished my final cigarette.
However, since my return to music in 2009 I have felt the occasional twinge in the direction of The Wire. “What is it like now?” I would wonder occasionally. The omens weren’t good: a lot of interesting people I know dismiss it out of hand, the dull and unfinished ‘Splazsh‘ by Actress got 2010 album of the year and I was shown a review which asserted that Neil Campbell was the best solo improv guitarist since Derek Bailey. Now my admiration for Neil as a musician and a human being is second to none, but this hilarious comment shows a woeful ignorance of at least three key things: a) Neil’s music, b) Bailey’s music and c) music in general. Oh dear.
Despite all that, I intended to start this piece by talking about The Wire so I thought I should at least read it again and bought the April issue. A photo of some dude who looks like a young Dave Grohl was on the cover, as was a CD affixed with the plastic snot that all magazines use for the purpose nowadays.
Alas, it is actually worse than I remember. The layout is dismal, almost wilfully alienating. A tiny unreadable font is surrounded by white space like a medieval book of days. In ye olde dayes when paper (vellum?) was expensive leaving wide empty margins served a twofold purpose: it gave the text a gravity and importance and it indicated the wealth of the owner. Interesting to see The Wire using the same technique to signify a not-too-different snobbery.
The content is awful. So much for ‘our’ music. Aside from a track by Neil Campbell & Robert Horton on the CD, none of the dozens of people I know making terrific music on the fringes are mentioned. The magazine is as in thrall to ‘big’ names and respected labels as the most infuriating hipster. Advertised on the cover is ‘We are all David Toop now’ an eight page (including dull photographic illustrations) article by Simon Reynolds on David Toop which begins:
The names of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari barely feature in David Toop’s writing…
Christ on a bike, eh? This stuff is beyond parody. Scything out the cultural studies (im)posturing you are left with a basic overview of (the admittedly interesting) Toop’s writing and an argument from Reynolds that seems to point to the conclusion that actually no-one is like David Toop nowadays. Eight bloody pages. The review section is similarly dispiriting. Reams of forgettable writing so airless, claustrophobic and undifferentiated it makes me want to shred the magazine and throw open a window.
It pains me to write this – it does – as I want my blog to be as positive as possible, but I’m struggling here. Think of the hundreds of hours and thousands of pounds that go into The Wire’s production every month. It would be interesting to compare the latter figure with the combined total of all the extra ticket/album/download sales that positive coverage in this magazine generates. I know from personal experience that it is virtually nil (or less-than-nil once you count in the cost of sending review copies). I would bet, with confidence, that the two or three sales occasioned by the joyful wordsmithery you find on this humble blog beats the total for many of the reviews The Wire publishes to no avail each month.
I could go on but I don’t want to lend it too much importance. Like the city in Christopher Priest’s Inverted World, The Wire grabs and distorts whatever is unlucky enough to get too close. Fortunately its reach is poor and is easily avoided. The reason I mention it is that The Wire is the biggest, dumbest-whilst-it-thinks-it-is-being-clever example of the problem of criticism which I shall now elaborate on.
First, I need to make a face-saving distinction between reviewing and criticism. Writing reviews is what I do here, most of which follow a similar template: the spec of the release (format, length, some pictures etc.) followed by an account of what it brought to mind, sometimes illustrated with anecdote or flights of fancy that I hope you find charming and not too self-indulgent, followed by details of where to get hold of it. My humble desire is to bring stuff I like to your attention in the hope that you’ll check it out. I am, of course, aware that there is such a thing as a bad review, and that bad reviews can be entertaining to read, but I am uninterested in writing such things myself for reasons that will become evident. For me the essence of reviewing is positive and unapologetically subjective.
What I don’t do is criticism*. Yes I know this is not necessarily a value-laden term – it can refer simply to the act of discussing or forming a judgement on the qualities of an endeavour. However, I think that in common parlance it carries unavoidable connotations of disapproval and, interestingly, objectivity. Roll the two terms around your brain for a moment and you’ll see what I mean: the reviewer is offering an opinion, the critic is pronouncing from a position of expertise. Whether you’d prefer your work to be reviewed or criticised, you have to admit that the latter term implies a rigour that the former doesn’t. Criticism, as commonly understood, involves finding fault, ‘constructive’ criticism implies advice on how to correct those faults, or how to otherwise better your work. At its most daunting this is analysis, criticism with a university educated vocabulary, at its most positive and friendly this is criticism’s hyperactive cousin feedback.
And here is where the problem starts. In two words: why bother? We are undoubtedly as vain and needy as any bunch of artists and will lap up praise and validation with an obscene eagerness. However, that said, the huge majority of the music I listen to was obviously produced mainly to please the producer. I may consider myself something of an expert on these things (I’ve certainly put the hours in – see my imagined rejoinder ‘quoted’ in the Spoils & Relics piece) but am I really justified in saying that a piece is unforgivably meandering? Or that the high pitched sounds are grating and would be better lower in the mix? Or that the promise shown on their genius early recordings has yet to be fulfilled? This is not music to be marketed via focus group. It is profoundly personal, verging on solipsistic sometimes, and this needs to be respected for two reasons.
Firstly, people’s feelings are at stake. To criticize their offerings is like telling a new mum that her baby is ugly. ‘Awww… diddums,’ the hard-hearted amongst you might be thinking but I’m serious. This is a small scene and the unit of currency is goodwill. To strut about the changing room thrusting your ‘opinions’ into the face of other team members is childish and inappropriate. Secondly, this is someone’s vision we’re talking about here. The stuff I’m presented with is finished, complete – not just in the sense that a physical object, or even a download to a lesser extent, is immutable, but also in that the creative process has led to this concluding point.
This is why The Wire is such a flat, dry, saddening read. It is full of critics who cover their shaming lack of knowledge with daft pronouncements. They are determined to use the chops they’ve learnt in critic school no matter how inappropriate, detrimental or uninformative, no matter how forced the contextualisation, no matter how bogus the conclusion. Perhaps what is most depressing is the thought of how much fun, how joyful it could be instead.
So, to conclude: shamelessly subjective reviews, ideally positive = good, criticism and analysis = dull and quite possibly pointless. So there. Anyone want to offer some feedback? Just a little comment? C’mon, man, I need some FEEDBACK!!
Heh, heh.
—ooOoo—
*That said, I will pull people up on two things. Firstly, pretentiousness. I am aware it is a fault of mine so I am hypocritically hyper-critical when I see it in others. Secondly, easily solvable technical issues with the recording – unbalanced channels and the like. Sort it out kids, you’re mugging yourself. And works in progress are a different story: take it to Soundcloud and do what thou wilt.
Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.