The Music Press

[Alexei_K]

I am from Russia and as I need improving of my English reading and I love music (Spiritualized for present, Velvets for the past) I thought I would subscribe to an English language music magazine for practice and exposure to new bands and old bands I might not know of. Since many here seem knowledgeable in music, can anyone recommend a good magazine? I have heard good comments about MoJo and Q (both from England I think) but any feedback or recommendation from this list would be helpful. I do not like the Rolling Stone so something more in depth would be appreciated.

Alexei

[veiko]

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com

[BzaInSpace]

Alexei, if you can get access to it, I would probably suggest Mojo. It has been a great source of knowledge over the years, and although it still has to cater for sales with its awful covers, it contains a lot of good information, not just purely from an indiecentric background. Mojo has done a lot of outstanding articles (and indeed free CDs) of funk, soul, country, jazz and indeed the history of music.

Q on the other hand is a disgrace. Uncut is little better, unless you are into the truly banal Ryan Adams, as it seems to be little more than a fanzine dedicated to him. OK, it has more film reviews, but it seems to contain a lot more adverts too. Also big on Elvis Costello and claiming shit 70s albums are in fact lost masterpieces.

I guess all these mags are made by the same people...

The Wire is not bad either, for mad experimental shit its the business, a little too dry and sef-absorbed maybe - still worth a read - sometimes.

[otherchris]

Read Plan B magazine
http://www.planbmag.com
Everett True's latest venture since the seminal Careless Talk Costs Lives - it's utterly fabulous. Writers from various other magazines writing about the music they want to write about instead of what IPC publishing (or whoever) want them to write about. The result? A stylish, informed magazine written with some real passion (for a change.)
You can subscribe at their website and the new issue features Afrirampo, Sleater Kinney, Electrelane, Antony and the Johnsons, Charge of the light brigade etc etc. A wide range of music covered with wit plus a media section (books, games, films.) I don't buy anything else anymore.

[Paddy]

Mojo is probably your best bet. The last one I read had a feature on Roky Erikson (wonder if the writers at the Alternative Press even know who or what he is. Then again, I wonder the same about Roky) inaddition to coverage of recent commericial fare (a little Oasis, not too much Coldplay. Thank you God) and large spaces given to the lesser known recent stuff (Antony and the Johnsons, Arcade Fire, etc.) . And a lot of Iggy. Is it just me or does Mojo seem to have a mandatory Iggy picture per issue? Overall, Mojo is probably the best major music magazine. Avoid Melody Maker and the NME (tabloids for teens. Most of the letters are signed by Jamie from Leiceister, 14 years old), Rolling Stone and Alternative Press and anything else that regularly treats Pearl Jam with awe while the only "oldies" who apparently matter are the Beatles and the Stones. Bet you didn't know that the aging fellow with the novelty hit Walk on the Wildside, some dude called Lou Reed, was in a band called the Velvet Revolver. Neat. Now let me just download the new Maroon 5 into my Ipod.

[will this do?]

Everett True

Right.

I don't care who you are: fuck off.

I mean it.



No. I mean it.

[will this do?]

Q on the other hand is a disgrace.

On the cover:

REM/Coldplay/U2 talk about their *brilliant* new album.

ANOTHER top 100 list! You won't believe who's number 1!!! You may even go "tsk" when someone points out who we've left outzzzzzzzzz...

INSIDE! On tour with U2 (are these the four most ennui filled words in the English language?)

[jack white]

Uncut [is] big on Elvis Costello and claiming shit 70s albums are in fact lost masterpieces.

its funny cause its true!

as horrid as Q and the nme (and indeed uncut) are, the worst suggestion in this thread has been pitchfork.

[Fuzzhead]

Word magazine is well worth checking out.

[candy-cane-girl]

ARTROCKER £1 per month, not loads of ads, very raw reading, cracking.

Bluesmatters CAN be good, might be worth a look, as someone already said planB is good to, as is Is This Music? though thats for Scottish Bands more really (which is good if like me you like the fence collective, lone pigeon etc)

[otherchris]

Everett True

Right.

I don't care who you are: fuck off.

I mean it.



No. I mean it.

OK, you stick with NME then. Whatever. I take it your gripe is personal.

[will this do?]

Everett True

Right.

I don't care who you are: fuck off.

I mean it.



No. I mean it.

OK, you stick with NME then. Whatever. I take it your gripe is personal.

OK. It's certainly not with you - but Everett True. A cross between the Grunge Jeffrey Archer and Robert Elms. That's all.

(mind you - NME joke pages were funnier than the Melody Maker's... I don't get either of them these days...)

[runcible]

I'm with will this do. I found Everett True's writing to be so up his own arse it was suffocating. In every article he'd have to quote the interviewee saying his name 'oh Everett you are so funny' etc.

Twat of the first order.

[otherchris]

Wow, so much bile for the guy. I figured (wrongly, it would seem) that Spiritualized fans would applaud such an independently-spirited experiment in journalism, turning the fanzine ethos into a wider arena, staving off the next generation of Justin Timberlakes et al.
So let's agree to differ. Personally I appreciated discovering The Butthole Surfers, Lydia Lunch, The Birthday Party, The Saints, Sonic Youth, Earth, TV Personalities etc via his writing, which I found amusing and inclusive. He also has continually supported females in "rock" letting other writers concentrate on the Alpha-male bands who are so heavily touted elsewhere in the press. And back to the point of the thread, Plan B magazine is good, really - like The Wire but funnier and more laidback. What's more, there's a wealth of drone/experimental/freak out/ free music(k) to be read about there as well as the folkier or poppier stuff, much of which doesn't get a look in in the other magazines until a month or two later when they've checked Plan B for ideas.
Have a look at it if you ever go to Virgin, HMV or Borders - you'll see what I mean. The reason I'm making a point about this mag is that it reaffirms my love of music and I just wasn't getting that feeling from the other magazines.

[will this do?]

The beauty of the internet is that it's one big fanzine. We don't NEED egotistical wankers like True to 'help stave off the blah blah blah'... and if you'd look back through the archives, you'll find that a lot of us don't mind a bit of trash floating through our transoms when the occasion demands (manufactured or not). Wholemeal just gets so BORING.

And I *managed* to discover Sub Pop and Sonic Youth long before I'd heard of Everett True, or his claims to have 'invented' them. I was at Nirvanas first uk gig, and so were a few hundred other people.

I just hated the Melody Maker, basically. Maybe *thats* it.

[BzaInSpace]

But surely Everett loved Nirvana also? I remember he glowingly reviewed an Alice In Chains song and mentioned how is friends would now laugh at him, but he didn't care. The music was more important.

He was right.

Wrong target.

[will this do?]

But surely Everett loved Nirvana also?

But he pretty much claimed to have discovered/invented them. He was their *best mate*. That's the impression I formed, way back when I was impressionable. Now I'm old and stuck in my nasty old ways I still loathe him and his works. I didn't fight in the war you know!

[runcible]

wtd is right bza. True noted himself as the man who had seen it, reviewed it, recommended it before anyone else if said band became recognised.

It reached a point where he became part of the scene itself in his opinion. At the time it pissed me off big time, and he kept the trend going.

He'd also scoff at various bands he hadn't claimed to have found himself. Verve were a favourite target. Pathetic.

Sorry mate - True will always be remembered as an idiot by myself and many others.

[BzaInSpace]

Did he and Billy Corgan not have an almighty ruck that culminated in Corgan appearing live dressed as a clown, and mouthing of about dear Jerry?

Whats your thoughts on say, Steven Wells? He wasn't particularly fond of The Verve, or rather Richard A. But he used to make me laugh.

Sometimes.

[otherchris]

And I *managed* to discover Sub Pop and Sonic Youth long before I'd heard of Everett True, or his claims to have 'invented' them. I was at Nirvanas first uk gig, and so were a few hundred other people.

Nirvana's first UK gig was in a little dive in Camden - organised by Organ fanzine - there were about 30 people there.
I don't understand the point you make. In those days everyone read the weeklies and the music they listened to was informed very much by them and fanzines.

Me, I can't help thinking that you and Runcible are still sore that he didn't adore Verve and you can't just let it go.

[will this do?]

...Nirvana's first UK gig was in a little dive in Camden - organised by Organ fanzine - there were about 30 people there....

I was meaning Lamefest '89 at the Astoria. I'm sure you're right about the Camden thing.

In those days everyone read the weeklies...

Well, up to the point: I used to read the NME. I occasionally read Sounds. Once in a blue moon I'd buy the Melody Maker, but only to look at the pictures.

I've no idea of any subtle degrees of what ET liked/didn't like. I just formed the impression that he was wrong, and stuck with it. You'll never convince me otherwise now.

Steven Wells was funny a lot, even if he was unfair and cruel sometimes.
Andrew Collins/Stuart Maconie/David Quantick - you probably hate them, but I think they were good writers, funny, and you're right (I'm guessing what you think): it wasn't ALL about the music, but I happen to think that's to their credit.

[runcible]

1. I was at the gig where Corgan dressed as a clown and that was the point I realised what a colossal arsehole Corgan was and it ended my time as a Pumpkins fan. The fact that they were absolutely dreadful that night didn't help - the clown outfit was the final nail in the coffin. (so maybe True was right if he slagged them off - they deserved it).

2. True's writing was absolutely as I described it. He liked a lot of good music. It was his aloof attitude to the bands he wrote about as well as the ones he didn't like. He'd portray himself as best mates with every band he liked, often including pictures of himself with said band and quoting them saying his name (as I wrote above 'oh Everett you're too much!' etc.).

3. Steven Wells was, as some point out, funny. He wanted proper rock 'n' roll and easily spotted people who were charlatans of the scene, plus he's more intelligent than most of the people he wrote about. He didn't like Verve because of the whimsical nature of their music - fair enough. When NME did a feature on So Solid Crew (don't even get me started on that lot) I was really disappointed that they didn't send Swells to do it. He'd have put them in their place. I loved his comment on Dido - he said what we need are rock stars who look like rock stars and not geography teachers. Brilliant!

4. Music writers have to be very, very good to be any good at all (open goal for $26 here). Nick Kent may have been pompous but he interviewed interesting people and a lot of his pieces were edgy and amusing. Not many writers had smack binges with their interviewees and then rescued them from OD'ing as he claimed to have done with Keith Richards. A writer needs a radical viewpoint without being up themselves. Everett True failed spectacularly at this. I'll readily admit to avoiding his writing nowadays, but if he's changed good luck to him. Maybe I'll take another look.

5. Lester Bangs. The opposite of True - a radical viewpoint that he could justify. His stance on Metal Machine Music is well worth a look.

6. If I am 'sore' that True didn't like a band I was fond of I'd have to expand that into other areas of my life. I have a close mate who is a Man Utd fan and hates Spacemen 3 - that scuppers that argument.

[SpacemanRob]

Haven't posted for a while but have kept lurking. Anyone else think True = $26?
Totally agree with much of this thread. Trues great undoing was his narcissism. He always loved himself more than the bands he interviewed. His writing on Nirvana was revolting. He lauded them, diocesed them but shamefully humiliated Courtney and acted as a misogynist pig we all knew he was. The NME pages following Kurts death will always remain as an example of Trues patronising self-seeking school-boy writing.
The talent at the time had to be Steven Wells, Chris Roberts and Simon Reynolds. Simon Reynold's books since have been some of the best music writing since Bang's without the deliberate controversy. His recent book has been a 'truely' fascinating read and the best book on music fpr years. Chris Roberts wrote many years ago for his love for Sp3 but his entree into music as Catwalk hurt hurt hurt.... Swells made you laugh each week even with his bizarre endorsement of Napalm Death....
Stuart Maconies/Andrew Collins(i forget whitch, both are ineffectual music haters) Cider With Rosies is without doubt one of the worst books of all times. After mildly amusing stories he decides to leave music, leave rock n roll because the madness of a Primal Scream tour got too much..... Sad fuck.... One of the few books over the years i have had to destroy after reading...... I hate you both....

Enjoyed the rant. Thanks....

[L.A.M.F.]

You've pretty much covered the UK mags(MOJO being the best of course) so Ill suggest an american music rag for ya. Most people over here that know good music swear by Magnet magazine. It pretty much covers eveyone youd want to hear about and also introduces you to a lot of new stuff you might not of heard of.

Great features, large review section(with no rating system) and excellant interviews

http://www.magnetmagazine.com/

[squirrel]

Fader is a decent mag.

[will this do?]

Haven't posted for a while but have kept lurking.

Oh. Rapture.

Anyone else think True = $26?....

No.

Totally agree with much of this thread...

That's NEVER a good sign.

...diocesed them...

Diocese... Noun, meaning "a district under the Pastoral care of a Bishop..." no past tense, no chance of it being something a critic could do to an artist... no chance of knowing what you might ACTUALLY have meant... Never mind.

...but shamefully humiliated Courtney and acted as a misogynist pig we all knew he was. ....

Personally, I thought that one of his OTHER faults was a kind of look-at-me feminism, which seemed to me more of a tactic to lubricate sexual congress in those po-faced days before the rise of 'ironic laddism' than any deeply held philosophy. Arsehole.

The NME pages following Kurts death will always remain as an example of Trues patronising self-seeking school-boy writing.....

Except dear old Everett wrote for the Melody Maker. Poor bloke, difficult time when your biggest cash cow shoots off his own face. I happen to have kept those copies of the NME though, and I think they handled it quite well.

Stuart Maconies/Andrew Collins(i forget whitch, both are ineffectual music haters) Cider With Rosies is without doubt one of the worst books of all times. ....

The title of Stuart Maconie's memoirs is "Cider with Roadies", which is a good traditional headline writer's pun on "Cider with Rosie", which is the title of the much read memoirs of Laurie Lee (sometime Spanish Civil Warrior and literary genius). I haven't read them, but the title is a good joke. Andrew Collins' book is called "Where did it all go right", another quite good joke about the conventions of autobiography, given that he had a happy childhood in middle England (must be some kind of wanker, eh Rob?).

I think to call them music haters is just wrong. They just like music in a different way to you. Maconie for example is a Northern Soul enthusiast... I remember he seemed to write about poppier music... (what a c*nt, eh Rob? POP MUSIC? THAT'S FOR GIRLS!!).

After mildly amusing stories he decides to leave music, leave rock n roll because the madness of a Primal Scream tour got too much..... Sad fuck.... One of the few books over the years i have had to destroy after reading...... I hate you both.... ....

Oh dear. Here we have the classic SpacemanRob contradiction: It's all about the music, but when a man confesses to finding the 'lifestyle' a bit much, he's a lightweight... Which other books have you 'destoyed' after reading? Have you ever considered 'destroying' a book BEFORE reading it?

Enjoyed the rant. Thanks....

Don't mention it.

[twentysixdollars]

Oh, Will This Do, you're a treasure.

If they let jews do it, I would doicese you in a second.

[radioshack]

See Everett True on the telly last night?

*hate hate hate*


Still, as bad as he was, those sad sacks with the candles, and that odd cat woman who saw the sparks...


Q. Who killed Kurdt Kobain?

A. Kurt Cobain.

Yeah, I saw it too. Yet another pointless documentary on Kurt Cobain and the Nirvana story. It seemed to be a vehicle for the talking heads to spout off, rather than offer anything new.

And yeah, those sad sacks.......stll not as annoying as Charles Cross and Courtney Love though.

[simonkeeping]

I saw the doc last night, Im not the biggest fan of Nirvana but I thought it was quite interesting. I'd heard the name Everett True (I think Sometime in the past Courtney Love saying what a **** he was) before and he did come acoss as being very much the media idiot. But what got me most was the bit where he said the demos of in utero where better than the final cut. I think he used the phrase: it would have changed the course of popular music. Now I take that to be overbrown crap but I thought I'd see what people on here thought? Have you heard the demos and are they any cop. oh and sorry for hijaking the thread.

Mojo and Wire all the way...
the Wire has the best design of any music mag out now.

[BzaInSpace]

But the content Si! The content!

Music isn't a science [well technically parts of it are...] but the mag might give you that impression. I'd rather read something with zero design on bad photocopy if it gave you some depth of the writers feelings.

Its very dry, academic and low on thrills. But hey, that's my opinion.

Also some of the music they 'champion' is truly dreadful. They get it right on occasion though, I'd never heard of Acid Mothers Temple anywhere else apart from here, and the retrospectives on chosen artists or *gulp* genres - The Primer - can be good.

And! The Hiphop reviews are ace. So it aint that bad.

Wish i'd seen this Nirvana documentary! But I can tell you the In Utero demos were/are nowhere close to the supreme final Albini recordings at all. What was said sounds like yet another stupid rock myth, that in 10 years time will be taken as fact!

The demos were pretty rough, and lacked a lot of the finished albums dynamics, and the vocals were rough 'guide' vocals. You can hear some of them on the 'Lights Out' boxed set.

I think the only thing that would have improved In Utero would have been if they had kept the two tracks on it that were removed just before release...

And whatever Jerry thinks, it did in some way change popular music, for those who were listening maybe

[simonkeeping]

But the content Si! The content!

Music isn't a science [well technically parts of it are...] but the mag might give you that impression. I'd rather read something with zero design on bad photocopy if it gave you some depth of the writers feelings.

Its very dry, academic and low on thrills. But hey, that's my opinion.

fair point, I do like the wire. I think its quite special in that its one of the only newstand mags that really opens your eyes to other forms/types of music. Rather than the standard NME, Q viewpoint on things which is so tired and based entirely on profits. It can be quite factual and academic but when they like something they kind of loose there cool and fawn over it which i thinks quite nice. And anymag that constantly references the stooges circa funhouse is alright with me.

I take your point on the passion in writing. I remember a review of an Oasis gig at Irvine Beach back in 1995 written in the Melody Maker. You may not like the band but the writing was beautiful, so poetic and heartfelt. Its something I still have and occasionally look at because it always makes me feel good when I read it. Sentimental old fool that I am...

[drones]

I take your point on the passion in writing. I remember a review of an Oasis gig at Irvine Beach back in 1995 written in the Melody Maker. You may not like the band but the writing was beautiful, so poetic and heartfelt. Its something I still have and occasionally look at because it always makes me feel good when I read it. Sentimental old fool that I am...

When Oasis were Oasis and The Verve were The Verve....

Memories

Cheers Si

[drones]

When Oasis were Oasis and The Verve were The Verve....

Tsk. When 'The Verve' were 'Verve' and 'Oasis' was a swimming pool in Swindon.

THEY were happy days.

Weren't there was you.

[drones]

I didn't claim to have been.

You may have missed the *little winking face* thing in my post. I'd hoped it was implicit.

No, don't see your *little winking face* however that may not be the only thing you have implied whilst not quite clearly expressing.

And to be a pedant the addition of the 'The' to Verve occurred in 1994.

Si, I'd like to read that article if you can scan it. Cheers

[drones]

This what you read Si?

Irvine Beach
14 & 15 July, 1995
I believe everything I read in the papers. I make a point of it. From there on in, it's just a matter of finding ways to rationalize those beliefs, convert them into codes for living, construct a water-tight defense for something you kind of know isn't true. In an age without religion, it's things like this that hold us together.

But, sometimes, it's not that something isn't true, just that it hides its truth. i came to Irvine half in love; I considered Oasis some kind of indulgence, almost a guilty pleasure I had my reasons.

It all seemed dead -- old guitars, charity shop tunes, rock 'n' roll "attitude" worn down to a quarter-hearted snear, like washed to rags hospital sheets. All Oasis had ever seemed to generate was hallow, unfounded optimism; all those songs soaked in a kind of empty, non- specific triumphalism, and try finding a single press clipping from the last twelve months that doesn't bang on about some supposed "new dawn for British music", along with endless unexplained assurances, that somehow, thanks to Oasis, Everything's Going To Be Alright. How? Why?

Tonight, I leave with tears behind my eyes. Won over. Enlightened? Finally, beautifully fooled? Whatever. I stood in the crowd in a muggy marquee on a miserable Friday evening, pools of rain stored high in the canvas coming loose and plopping down the back of a borrowed sweater -- Oasis strode on, plugged in, piled into "Acquiesce", and I felt like The Mighty Thor.

So, this one goes out to the irritated futurists who have Oasis down as an irrelevance at best, or, at worst, everything that was ever wrong with everything ever. Just because a sabre-toothed, champagne-pink tiger is born in the coal shed, doesn't make it a lump of coal. Explain to me why blind refusal is in any way less stupid than blind acceptance if you THINK A LITTLE, you might find that Oasis aren't what you think.

Yes, I'll Explain.

At some point on Friday night, I flashed back to a half-remembered Maker live review from early last year. Something like this: "So we'll go on pretending we've created a scene our children will want to hear about... the hell they will. This has to end." I remember vaguely concurring at the time. And now I'm thinking who gives a f*** what our bloody children think?

That whale Rock N Roll Heritage schtick, lineage and posterity and caring about anything other than NOW, it's gone, it's over. It means nothing to post post-modernism, in fractured times. Which doesn't exclude Oasis' pilferings. (I'd love them more if they maybe drew on something that's happened in pop since 1977), but it sure as hell doesn't excuse criticism rooted in the same outmoded way of thinking. Pensions are not the point.

And maybe empty optimism is, in these times, a perfectly valid creation. Its blind immediacy, its poignancy, I think of riding home at dawn in black cabs, a headful of light and snow ("Live Forever"; Liam hurls a tambourine in the air, Noel throws back his head and sighs...). I think of the flash of the moment, lights so bright they hurt, music closing down the long, open perspectives that dog us with regret, or dread, or other, less concentrated moments in our lives ("Some Might Say"; explosions inside).

Also: I watched Oasis two night running. On Friday they placed a pretty amazing live rock n roll show, and I saw adoration (applause like planets colliding, people folded over the crash barriers like cheques). On Saturday, they played what I'm close to accepting was the most exciting live rock 'n' roll show I've ever seen in my life, (endless, unstoppable chants of "Oasis,Oasis", and I saw insanity face down the front like 15th century paintings of sinners burning in hell, the final feedback feast dissolving into the PA playing "Hey Jude", 8,000 people singing along and, backstage, Noel blinks away real tears).

Trying to maintain traditional reservations in the face of this intensity of feelings is like trying to argue with Judge Dredd. These emotions exist, for any opinion of Oasis to be remotely valid, you have to accept that, deal with it, or you've got your head up your arse. Which isn't to say that popularity means you're beyond criticism, just that popularity brings you extra considerations that after everything. So what if that hysteria adds and extra oomph, elevate Oasis to something a little more exciting than they are? That's pop, isn't it?

Also, much of the bile Oasis receives is in fact contempt for their audience. That's not unfair in itself (bands, Simon Price says, always get they audience they deserve), but its the easy option. OK, along with Weller, Oasis are the perfect example of the kind of band loved by those who gabble on about "real music", "real instruments", and "real people", the sort of constipated, visionless nomarks who prefer Fleetwood Mac circa "Rumours"/"Tusk" (peculiar, multi-layered, completely artificial sounding). And, oddly enough, Fleetwood Mac -- next band up for rediscovery, incidently -- are a nice comparison: both Oasis and the Mac are fairly trad rock 'n' roll band elevated to something special as un-rock 'n' roll as their properties. See, that's what hey authenticity gang can't grasp: if Lindsey Buckingham turned rock to gold dust by tampering with the mix until everything sounded not quite right, then Noel is Lindsey on even more cake (artistically, not literally -- that would be impossible), pumping everything up until the boundaries between instruments almost dissolve, creating a kind of hypersound, as intricate and as in-your-face as a TV screen full of static.

And it's also the sound -- that overdrivers, sneering wallop somehow elevated into the rushing in your ears as you enter heaven -- that makes Oasis so compelling: the tug between lumpenness (real life, the everyday) and longing (the blissful retreat of "Slide Away"), kicks and kisses, between their "Down-to-earth" laddishness and the hints of femininity (through riot effemmacy) you'd have to be a hammerhead to miss (the tender, yearning feeling of their best songs, the fact that Liam's not handsome, he's pretty.)

The hotel, afterwards, I collapse at the piano. Hardly anyone about, so I start to play the opening chords of "Live Forever". Instantly, as if by magic, Paul Mather appears with Liam, Liam puts his drink on the piano, motions at me to carry on, and starts to sing along. Three seconds later, a couple of 14-year-old girls walk into the bar with their parents, look over and feel their hearts stopping, impossible looks on their faces.

As they scramble for words and scraps of paper, I stop playing and sidle away smiling, actually feeling for the first time in recent memory as if anything actually mattered, as if life were worthwhile, as if anybody really loved anybody else. As if someone, if you were to look long enough and hard enough, there was something good in the world.

Sometimes, if you think a little, you understand more than if you think a lot.

Melody Maker: 22 July, 1995
author: Taylor Parkes

[drones]

And to be a pedant the addition of the 'The' to Verve occurred in 1994.

I know that. That's what I was saying. "Those were the days."

...

Check again bawbag

The Irvine Beach gig was 1995 = The Verve

You said

Tsk. When 'The Verve' were 'Verve'...blah, blah, blah

THEY were happy days.

Clearly The Verve were The Verve. Not as you typed i.e that they were just Verve.

Or are you alluding to something again that you are failing to say?

Or are you really saying; I only like Storm in Heaven and have never liked Oasis?

Or have you just jumped into a thread where a post relates to 1995 and have started to spout in a slightly uppity manner i.e Tsk (don't mock me ya fcuker, i'd go through your rolling eyes to get to your brains) your tuppence worth?

Spit it out FFS. Are you a Wall Flower or a Floor Filler?

Oh wait...you're another bleatin' Garage Flower...Christ.

There is a quite well posted to (The) Verve topic on the go at the moment y'know. I was purely thanking Simon for reminding me of a very special gig. He was responding to a fella from Eastern Europe who is keen to learn English and would like to do so from Music Journalism/Press.

I'm bored now

[drones]

Or are you alluding to something again that you are failing to say?

No. I'm alluding to something YOU'RE failing to SEE. And I think I'm doing quite well not to be more angry about it.

*Get Angry...type your rage brother...do something!
For the record I fully understand what it is that you are/were alluding too and am glad that you have managed to digress a little below...well done.

"I only like Storm in Heaven and have never liked Oasis"?

Close. Close enough. If you're interesed, I liked Verve, and 'the' Verve. I liked Oasis. I liked them until it became clear that the whole of music (including 'the' Verve) was to be made in their image. I hold them culpable for ruining music.

*Music is ruined???

...there is a quite well posted to (The) Verve topic on the go at the moment y'know...

Oh - I've read some of your other contributions - you're a bit of a 'thread nazi' ain'tcha?

*Wow - agreed the majority of my contributions are pure cack but then that is your problem. I once attended a party down the British Legion dressed as a Luftwafte (German Air Force) but it was my mate who was the Nazi. Similarly to on here; there there were a few comments, mainly by idiots not old enough to have even fought in the War but then thats life.

Did you know that our replies don't ALL have to be replies to the first post? As it happens, *I* bumped this thread to the top, because I saw Spacemanrob poster lurking, and wanted to try to lure him out.

*Yes lure him out so he can tell us all about another shite band!
I'm categorically referring to the 4-Real thread.
Or is it for hauners thats a little glaswegian dialect for being team-handed.

To quote some Dicky AssCock lyrics;

Come On

And to confirm i'm posting this with a smile on my face and not a hint of anger.

[runcible]

P.M. facilities are a wonderful thing.

[drones]

P.M. facilities are a wonderful thing.

Indeed they are...indeed they are.

http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/page41.asp

[alan_cohaul]

\(wonder if the writers at the Alternative Press even know who or what he is. Then again, I wonder the same about Roky) .

Hahaa.....

[alan_cohaul]

4. Music writers have to be very, very good to be any good at all (open goal for $26 here). Nick Kent may have been pompous but he interviewed interesting people and a lot of his pieces were edgy and amusing.

I totally agree. I find that the best writers are either consistently objective, or wildly erratic. At least if they're wildly erratic, they know that they're going off the cuff, and it usually tends to be funny. The writers that fail, to me, are the ones that are overly serious and take themselves too seriously. They think that they're massively influential, when really, they're just writing about what they'd really like to be doing--playing music. Not to say that there hasn't been great music writers, but music is art (which is also entertainment), and the worst sin to be as a writer is to be boring, I think. It's neither objective, NOR entertaining, and that's the worst way to be as a writer. Not only that, but music is very personal, and trying to convey that taste to an audience is extremely difficult to do (I call it "converting subjectivity into standard".....how do you properly do it?).

I think that less and less people look to writers nowadays for guidance on music. I did it for awhile, and you sort of wonder what the reward for it is, because bands that you give good reviews to tend to not respond, but the ones you give negative reviews to, tend to not have a backbone. Not to mention the fact that people are giving you cds and music that you haven't paid for, and then I always had a difficult time giving them negative reviews, because here's this band that worked hard to get where they're at to give a free cd to me, and I have a hard time really ragging on something that I would have ragged on, had I paid for, haha. I mean, how hard can/ should you really be on something that the band has worked so hard on?

It's sort of a thankless job, that's why I quit it. I've always sort of wondered what the real point is for rock critics, because often, they are wildly erratic, and then i'm thinking, "okay, why did I just read this review of an album that I think is great, but he/ she thinks sucks?". Either it's looking for verification on what you already know, or looking for someone who you might think knows--but I do tend to check things out that writers really love, or at least keep it in mind.

[simonkeeping]

This what you read Si?

thats the one! Do you like?

[drones]

This what you read Si?

thats the one! Do you like?

Yes. I didn't recall them playing Saturday as well though...have checked websites etc and they must've (websites never lie)...I seem to remember Bjork and Underworld on the Saturday. Anyway, nice piece...and good article also! Fnar-Fnar!

[Spamuel L. Jackson]

Have you heard the demos and are they any cop.

I didn't see the program, but he would have been talking mixes, not demo-versions per se. If True said "demos", he likely just doesn't know the difference. "In Utero" (as Cobain wanted it) was rejected by Geffen, and had to be remixed before they would issue it.

There are various rough/progress mixes of "In Utero" tracks out there, but the rejected finished album mix that Cobain wanted to release isn't booted. Least not that I know of.