i've been holding this back awhile but i hate the wire......

[Wombatz]

No, there's nothing in it. Except maybe because there's nothing in it he comes off as a little more human than usual. It's like Paik and Morton had a nice cup of tea and pleasantly couldn't think of anything Morton could write together (they did meet, but somehow that event evades anecdote). P.m. me if you want a scan anyway, it's not a problem.

[orangettecoleman]

part of the reason for this is they insist on doing them so quickly, so the writers don't often have enough time to really live with and process a record, whether or not they'd like to. it seems very shortsighted to me.

This is true. I think what is at the heart of this problem is that the Wire is trying to be the same thing now it was a decade ago. These days the internet has replaced magazines as the main source of news about music. Very few people will learn of new releases through the Reviews column, like many of us did ten years ago.

I do believe there is still a place for a monthly magazine on experimental music and The Wire can be that magazine, but it needs to stop trying to do the same thing as the 'net and change. Having a monthly digest of quality writing on musicians and well thought out reviews of releases that you can lay in the bath reading is a great idea, an alternative to staring at a screen is always good IMO. To do this though they need to try and stop being so "up to the minute," extend the length of the pieces and increase the number of participating reviewers so that any one person isn't expected to turn in ten things in any one month. The most successful articles in the magazine are almost always when a writer has been given a little time to write about a subject they have interest in.

I agree with this assessment. I used to read the Wire whenever I could find it, but in the past few years there's just too little in-depth writing about music I care about to bother. Three quarters of each issue is comprised of badly written one-page profiles and reviews which are put to shame by any committed blogger. They should just ditch the "trying to be up to the minute" nonsense and focus on doing a few well written, extensive features in each issue instead of single-page/paragraph blurbs that contain no more information than a cursory search engine inquiry would reveal. I will say that the much-maligned metal article was what got me back into metal 5 years ago - I bought the issue for some other article, and the stuff covered in the metal article piqued my curiosity, which led to my finding out about all the interesting things that had happened in the genre since I had last listened to it seriously (in the early 90s). In retrospect, it is pretty badly written and O'Malley centric though, no doubt.

[Dan Warburton]

Ah, time to dump on The Wire again. Must be that time of the month. Fun reading the posts in this thread from 5 years ago though, a bit like looking through an old photograph album - "wow, I remember that shirt.."

The Tilbury IJ was crap even for them

Why is it crap? I think his remarks on touch in response to the first question, and what he says about the hat Treatise, are on the money. What's your beef - the choice of music they played him, or the questions they asked (which, in any case, most IJ victims don't answer, being just a springboard into a discussion of their own work)?

[lukaz]

i was quite disappointed with Tilbury' s IJ, and the blame is not solely on the choice of music or the questions themselves but also on his answers- usually he has more interesting things to say but not this time, but anybody working in musical writings and journalism will know that's how it is w interviews- sometimes they just don't happen as you would wish to ...

[jon abbey]

the bit about Keith at the end, where he allegedly totals up the number of pages in Eddie's book about Keith specifically, is pretty embarrassing for John (IMO), but I think it's pretty well known where I stand in that situation.

overall, I wouldn't say that it's declined or declining, I think it still has pretty much the same issues it's had for a while. the historical pieces are often very strong, the longer pieces on current music often less so, and the reviews section in major need of fresh blood and possibly a different macro approach (review half the records at twice the length one month later? dunno really).

[Dan Warburton]

That's certainly true (responding to Luka's point here - Jon squeezed in while I was typing) - I'm not entirely satisfied with my own recent interviews with Tilbury and Radu Malfatti, and haven't published them yet, for the simple reason that they're not really finished. Sure, interviews can fuck up wonderfully - usually because the interviewer goes into them with a predetermined agenda and list of questions to ask, instead of going with the flow and engaging the artist in a more wide-ranging discussion, from which salient points can be extracted (it's called editing..).
Invisible Jukeboxes are another thing altogether though, in that the music is chosen (and much of it is not chosen by the journalist conducting the Jukebox - I was asked at short notice to do one with Neil Campbell and didn't have half of the tracks I played him in my own collection - yikes! thought it turned out OK as it happened) as a way of getting the artist to talk about specific projects in his/her career. Many of the participating musicians are anxious - sometimes terrified (Eliane was) - of the whole idea, afraid that they'll make a spectacular fool of themselves by not spotting something they're supposed to know (sure you can think of numerous examples). I would certainly never submit myself to the ordeal, I'll tell you that. A notable exception being Derek Bailey's wonderfully catastrophic IJ, the full text of which is in Ben Watson's Bailey book.
I suspect Phil Clark was following a pretty well determined brief passed his way by Wire HQ (nobody else would be remotely interested in pursuing David Keenan's daft "sexy" argument, after all). And remember please that not everybody reading The Wire is as au fait with Tilbury as we - Nick Cain's noble 500 - at IHM are; one of the roles of the IJ is to introduce people who are unfamiliar with a particular artist to the work, and make them want to discover it. If that's the yardstick of success here, I'm not sure this particular IJ was a resounding success - it presupposes a familiarity on the reader with the AMM story - but, as I said above, I found his observations on Treatise, the distinctions he made between Boulez and Finnissy, and the remarks he made on folk music all thought-provoking and necessary.

[Dan Warburton]

the reviews section in major need of fresh blood

Oops, I'd probably better bow out of this discussion

review half the records at twice the length one month later?

It's taken me a couple of years but I think I've made some modest progress in saying what I think has to be said in under 300 words (usually a bit over that actually). Of course, it depends on the album. I don't really get much out of the In Brief capsule reviews sections, but then again I had a blast doing the Jazz Improvisation one during the summer. Maybe the artists and label managers whose work featured in that - hello Simon! hello Luka! - didn't appreciate it though.

[lukaz]

well Dan i am appreciating any write up of releases that i put out, no matter how short or long, or ill or good informed, critical or just pure normal reviewers blahblahblah they are. Of course we would all want more space and better reviews (not speaking of you here BTW), but i know how it is working in that field myself as a writer, editor, etc ... for instance right now i am working my job as musical editor (in that situation i have encounter with at least 10 or more reviews of my colleagues per week, and some are great, some even sometimes bad IMO unfortunately and you can't really act as you would want to since radio is still very quick medium)) on the radio and up till 16.00 o' clock i have to finish my concert review of yesterday's Borbetomagus + Thomas Ankersmit concert for a newspaper not to mention to do also my radio show for this evening:)

[bedouin]

I think his remarks on touch in response to the first question, and what he says about the hat Treatise, are on the money.

Can anyone take a photo of this page and post?

[ohmnoise]

If you "hate" Wire, why do you put their top 50 list out?
Why do you give it any attention to them at all?
Does`n it look like a teenage magazine behavior suggesting to you what is hot and what not?
Who is reading that magazine? Intellectual persons? "New Music" college graduates?
Who is taking advantage of that magazine? Labels and distributions? Egos of some writers?
Can you think for yourself?

[kp*]

If you "hate" Wire, why do you put their top 50 list out?

Some folks hate the Wire. Some don't. Some dislike some aspects to the Wire and enjoy others. Several folks on this list have written things for the Wire and many people here have had their music reviewed in the Wire. Just because the OP made the title "Hate" doesn't mean the whole board concurs and that the entire readership of IHM 100% totally hates everything about the Wire. There are varied opinions and many shades and nuances to each individual opinion. If I make a thread that says I hate blue cheese that doesn't mean the whole board hates it and it doesn't mean I hate every variety of cheese or all diary products entirely. Are you really not able to surmise this on your own? Is your life really that devoid of nuance and you just take every utterance as literal? When your bike gets a flat tire do you throw it out and buy a new one?

Why do you give it any attention to them at all?

Because they have a wide readership and are one of the few print publications that touch on areas of music that overlap with the interests of the readership of this board.

Can you think for yourself?

No. Thank god you are here now. Please help us. We are absolutely helpless without out your insights and direction as you might deduce from reading this board (you clearly have read extensively). We are all just dummies here drooling on our keyboards.


-kp--

P.S. When you are done being patronizing, insulting and trolling the board. Get back to us.

[ohmnoise]

When your bike gets a flat tire do you throw it out and buy a new one?

Sure - It is the best way to go on!

Please help us

Not every soul can be saved. Some are just rotten and they are forced to read newspapers.

P.S.

Post Scriptum = Does it indicate you to forget something important to tell?

Anyway - Thank you very much to answer 3 of 6 questions at all.

[Dan Warburton]

I think his remarks on touch in response to the first question, and what he says about the hat Treatise, are on the money.

Can anyone take a photo of this page and post?

Cornelius Cardew
Treatise
From Treatise (Hat Hut) 1963–67, rec 1998

I’ve no idea.

It’s a piece you’ve written about a lot.

Hmmm…Treatise?

Indeed. Perhaps I set you up to fail, playing this?

No, not at all. As Cornelius said, it’s not his music – the musicians make their music in response to his score. My piece is the score, Cornelius thought, but it’s their music.

So there aren’t any Cardew-esque stylistic fingerprints over what we’re listening to?

There shouldn’t be.

This is Art Lange’s Chicago recording with Jim O’Rourke, Fred Lonberg-Holm, Jim Baker and others. If they’re responding to Cardew’s graphic score faithfully, it ought not to sound like improvisation?

This sounds like what it is: people improvising from a score, which is not the same as playing a score or improvising. Listen to how formally organised the music sounds at the beginning. Improvisors could decide to play a long chord to begin. But here they go off into territory that, to me, sounds semi-improvised after that initial chord. The psychology of graphic notation is different. It doesn’t allow you to get carried away. You might take off, but then a symbol will emerge that demands you take an attitude towards it, forcing the playing somewhere else.

Cornelius Cardew
Treatise
From Treatise (Prague 1967) (Mode) 1963–67, rec 1967

Is this another indeterminate score?

Yes, and a piece you’ve written about a lot…

I thought it might be [Cardew’s] Autumn 60 at first because of those single notes at the beginning. But it’s another Treatise, yes?

Yes. Listening to these two versions back to back, their continuity of gesture is strangely apparent, though this was recorded in Prague by Petr Kotik’s QUaX Ensemble 30 years before the Chicago version.

The Chicago performance is more measured, I think. This Prague version has more to do with its own time as anything to do with Cornelius. This is highly subjective playing – it implies: now we’re free, we can blow what we like and shout from the rooftops. But life isn’t like that. Restraint is the wrong word, but Cornelius’s score demands you consider what you’re doing: more the virtuosity of restraint. Take the score seriously and you take yourself seriously, which doesn’t mean that everybody needs to come to the same conclusion. Treatise still goes against the grain because it encourages the imagination.

[bedouin]

This is Art Lange’s Chicago recording with Jim O’Rourke, Fred Lonberg-Holm, Jim Baker and others. If they’re responding to Cardew’s graphic score faithfully, it ought not to sound like improvisation?

This sounds like what it is: people improvising from a score, which is not the same as playing a score or improvising. Listen to how formally organised the music sounds at the beginning. Improvisors could decide to play a long chord to begin. But here they go off into territory that, to me, sounds semi-improvised after that initial chord. The psychology of graphic notation is different. It doesn’t allow you to get carried away. You might take off, but then a symbol will emerge that demands you take an attitude towards it, forcing the playing somewhere else.

Very interesting! thanks.
(I take it you receive the e-edition of the wire)

[johnson]

I read the articles (for free, at the bookstore; I'd never buy a magazine). They usually contain some interesting information, though I would prefer a simple Q&A interview format.
I haven't ever read the reviews; I'm not interested in the opinions of people who are payed to give opinions. I detest critics; who are these people that anyone should care what they think? It would be more interesting to play these records to random people on the street or to my senile grandpa and get their impressions of them.

[Jesse]

.I detest critics; who are these people that anyone should care what they think? It would be more interesting to play these records to random people on the street or to my senile grandpa and get their impressions of them.

You learn nothing from others who are compensated, then?

[jon abbey]

you should see him deciding who to take his medical problems to.

[johnson]

Haha!
No, I don't think that a medical analogy really works. A doctor is qualified to dispense medical advice because she has studied medicine - a science - not because of the fact that she gets payed. Art is another thing entirely and there is simply no reason to consider the opinion of a professional critic as being of any more importance than anyone else's. Even if we are to assume, for the sake of argument, that these critics have made a very careful study of music and have cultivated an understanding and appreciation of it that is superior to that of the average person - well, the same could then be said for most of my friends, and they'd happily give me their thoughts and feelings for free.
There are free reviews on this very forum. I wouldn't read those either because I prefer to listen to a record with as few preconceptions as possible, but at least the authors here aren't so arrogant as to think that their opinions are worth money.
I was a semiprofessional critic myself once; for three years, I was paid $.04 - $.12 per word to review films for Screem, Scarlet Street and Shock Cinema. I quit because it wasn't honest or useful work and I couldn't keep doing it in good conscience.

[jon abbey]

well, obviously the analogy isn't perfect, but there are plenty of grey areas in medicine too, and plenty of shitty doctors.

the purpose of critics, whether they're paid or not (and the Wire people are barely paid, although I'm sure they each have their own deals), is (or should be) to help you figure out what among the trillions of things in the world you might be interested in. no matter who they are, magazines, blogs, here, your senile grandpa, you coordinate those with your own taste and decide if you want to hear something or not. it just seems like kind of a pointless and even anachronistic rant to me, just my perspective.

[Jesse]

Haha!

There are free reviews on this very forum.
I wouldn't read those either because I prefer to listen to a record with as few preconceptions as possible, but at least the authors here aren't so arrogant as to think that their opinions are worth money.

I don't know you from Adam, Johnson, but it is you who conveys arrogance.
For fun and for free!

http://crowwithnomouth-jesse.blogspot.com/

I assure you if my writing facilitates *preconceptions*, the issue might not be one of undue influence, but of your capacity to allow other perspectives and your own to co-exist.