Oh God, NME Tries To Start Yet Another New Movement ..... SHROOMADELICA - The music movement that will 'weird up your head',

You agreed with me when we discussed this IRL.

1) All of the above is nice when it's in regard to music that you love and actually want to rave about. But 90% of the music that you will be asked to write about is boring, souless, vapid stuff that inspires no passion, either way. I just can't fake passion I don't feel.

2) It's the "when what you love becomes your job" dilemma that I've suffered with regards to music for quite a while. When it's something fun that you do every now and then for the sheer enjoyment of it, it's great. When your fun-thing hobby becomes your WORK with all the pressures and strains that that entails, what do you have left to kick back and enjoy yourself?

so so so so so so so so wrong... am hearing a couple of new records a day, at the moment, that are blowing my mind.

But 90% of the music that you will be asked to write about is boring, souless, vapid stuff that inspires no passion, either way. I just can't fake passion I don't feel.

if you pitch for ideas as opposed to being offered them, this isn't the case. i write *a lot*, and i still only really write about the stuff i like, unless its a singles review. i don't really enjoy writing lukewarm/negative reviews - if i dislike something, it goes in the To Sell bin and i move on.

yeah, wot stevie said.

This is a lovely ideal, but the reality is that no matter what you actually end up writing about, you still have to wade through a gigantic fucking shitpile of mediocre demos, CDs and (this is the clincher) awful awful dull gigs to get through to the good stuff - that's the thing that constantly threatens to kill the love for me, and that's what I think Kate's referring to in her first point.

Also, Doomie you're spot-on - Kathryn Williams album's magnificent...

it just seems to me, *any* job will get boring, if you let it. for me, as a freelancer, every day is different, every piece is a fucking *challenge* to be better than my last, to achieve some impossible goal of perfection. and i still really really really enjoy writing, and music. i don't think i'll ever tire of either, so to be working with both is a treat.

doomie otm.

This is a lovely ideal, but the reality is that no matter what you actually end up writing about, you still have to wade through a gigantic fucking shitpile of mediocre demos, CDs and (this is the clincher) awful awful dull gigs to get through to the good stuff - that's the thing that constantly threatens to kill the love for me, and that's what I think Kate's referring to in her first point.

charlie sorta otm, too... (and it was great to finally meet you at ATP, when my girlfriend was whupping my ass at airhockey)... i mean, listening to wave after wave of crap can be pretty disheartening, but i fight against that by slamming something 100% assuredly GREAT after listening to lotsa crap (MC5's '66 Breakout' or Duke Ellington's 'Money Train' or anything by the Posies seems to do that at the moment). I mean, being confronted with crap is a downer in any sphere, be it watching movies, reading books, listening to the radio. you just can't let it dowse your essential enthusiasm. i mean, i know that's a danger, but you just *can't*.

I'm just *not* a music journalist, it's not my calling, I've never wanted to be one, yet loads of other people have consistently told me (for over ten years now) that I should be one. It's irritating feeling like I have to justify not being one.

Anyway, back on topic... shroomadelica. It's really kind of a cop-out isn't it? Cause, like, Shrooms are the "legal loophole" psychedelic for those too scared to take hardcore, illegal psychedelics.

(I mean, that's not even getting into the stupidity of glamourising hardcore, illegal drug use, but that's another story...)

It perfectly encapsulates the NME mentality, doesn't it? Let's peddle a nice, safe, watered-down, legal version of an already exisiting genre. Sigh.

i love psychedelia.

i love illegal drugs.

hey. tailor made!

am listening to kw right now.

x-post - captain beefheart!

Bods have often said "hey mark, you should have been a journo for a music mag", all said bods not being writers (or even readers) of music mags. Its no put down, but as far as writing about stuff (check my "Laugh I almost bought one" marissa marchant piece/thread here, my critical facilities run only as far as "It's interesting/I like", "It's a bit dull/It's OK" and "Its Rubbish/I don't get it". I just can't quite get into florid hyperbolae. I can write around things, but to hit it directly...

I did write 'audition' pieces back in the day, of the Primitives second album. I finished it, read it, and realised I'd written a rave review of an album I didn't think was that great. (never played it again anyhow. The first album I think is still a classic, but that's by the way)...

This is going to be so xpost, it's not true... (xpost, yup!)

Can't we have a Proper Daft Clever Pop revival now? Saw David Devant last night, fucking brilliant.

Music recorded by people actually on psychedelic drugs sounds more like the Grateful Dead, i.e. terribly dull and tedious for anyone *not* on psychedelics.

Chop-chop!

So many of the people I've known who made really psychedelic music were the way they were a long time before they ever took drugs.

i'm almost 100% sure Zappa didn't take any drugs aside from nicotine and caffeine.

wayne coyne took acid as a kid, a couple of times, but hated it. there have been drug problems within Flaming Lips, but not psychedelics-related. as far very-real insanity, however, the answer is, sadly, yes.

King Tubby made some brain-smashing dub records, while never touching marijuana, or even booze.

That's what I thought, though I didn't know for certain.

It just irritates me when these sort of people are held up as examples of "wow, kids, this is psychedelic music, this is what will happen to you when you take drugs" in a glamourisation sense, when the truth is, drugs had little to do with that music.

But I suppose it's the same as the glamourisation of mental illness with regard to you when people hold up Brian Wilson or Syd Barrett and say "wow, kids". Irritating.

i don't know... i agree about psychedelics, etc. but what about the influence of a drug like heroin? maybe its more that the psyche of a junkie is more likely to influence their art than the junk itself? and someone experimenting with psychedelics is less likely to be making a conscious life decision as someone who chooses (jesus, i feel like a tory minister saying this) to become a junkie.

Richard Pinhas released an album earlier this year, Tranzition. An astonishing intoxicating mixture of electronics and kaleidoscope guitar sounds.
http://cuneiformrecords.com/bandshtml/pinhas.html

This is far superior to the weak radio friendly bands it labels as psychedelic.

The difference is more that heroin is physically addictive while psychedelics are only psychologically addictive. So maybe being a pscyhedelic-using hippie is a lifestyle in that you *can* wake up one day and decide you've had enough of, while being a heroin-using junkie is a *life* in that it's a far harder thing to give up once you've got into it.

Different drugs attract different personality types. Any user - either an artist but more likely a fan - is going to be drawn to the ones that tick their particular brain-chemistry/personality boxes.

Drugs in Music:

1) Jazz / heroin = Environment
2) Sixties bands: Bands who experiment with music more likely to experiment with drugs. The drugs experience informs the music. Bands who do not experiment with either, settle for a comfortable 'ballroom' existance (freddie and the dreamers worked their five hits and various well known tracks for 40 years afterwards).
3) the notion drugs = good music was born. Erroneously.
4) Anyone with a ready and plentiful supply was supposedly a musical genius. Terrible music was made.
5) Suddenly, everyone got abstemious/took other drugs/drank instead. Music more accessible, but not neccesarily better.
6) Anyone with a pocket of blow gets stoned and writes drone anthems aout their girlfriend's beautiful eyes. But does not notice girl has gone home. Then does. And writes another song about girlfriends eyes. From a photograph.
7) Now the drugs experience is well documented. You don't actually have to do them to make good music. You just have to know your shit.
8) if 6 was none?

Especially number 7. These days, people are attracted to artists who appear to be documenting the drugs they wish they were taking...

(or is it just me?)

I lost my post I just made, rats: summary was:

Noel Gallagher: Taking Drugs is the same as a cup of tea,
he never said a more true thing.
So who would write a song where dgs appear as an incidental rather than 'what the song is about' or 'what the drug is a metaphor for' or vice versa.

(The original lost posting was much better btw)

I'd have to agree here.

Just tap them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper and say "NO!" in a loud, commanding voice.

There was an attempted NME scene called 'stool' possibly late 90s. Don't think it ever caught on cos it's a shit title.
Despite the crap pun that is true. Think it was singer-songwriter plus band stuff.

was that the taking the piss out of noel rock thing?

yeah, stoolrock was Noely G-based

also Lo-Fis were great, Regular Fries were good, and if the first Campag album stopped after 45 minutes it'd be a lot better

despite the ILM consensus 'sic' tells the truth.

also, the second campag velocet album is a lot better than it should have been ..