Is Everybody Who Edits the Village Voice Really This Stupid?

-- Matos W.K. (michaelangelomato...) (webmail), January 4th, 2005 8:05 AM. (M Matos) (link)

but he made a point of saying that at first he didn't remember! and it's not clear if the ghost album he mentions is the same one he was struggling to remember. even if it were, he could have simply written, "you know what, i liked the last ghost album on drag city."

obviously this wouldn't be an issue at all--i'm sure i've done the "i can't remember what it was" thing some times--if chuck didn't make such a habit of it (for evidence, see aforementioned pickle bar thread). it's not even a big issue anyway, i was just pointing out what i thought: that it's beginning to resemble self-parody. and (IMO) it's unbecoming a professional critic to repeatedly insist upon not remembering the music he's paid to review.

maybe it really is existential devil's music, after all.

still, that poster who said in 2003 that the royal trux question hadn't been properly addressed was right. besides, i think the howling hex rocks. fortunately, they do more than merely that. 'transmaniacon' rocks but in a shitty way. (shitty rock records tend toward shitty rocking, don't they?) but it's neither here nor there. even so ... it's a bit like complaining in 1971 that harvest records "doesn't rock". drag city somehow reminds me a lot of harvest in its heyday. but who cares? no one reads internet posts on threads no one wants revived.

er, can't remember this thread and can't say much abt rounder and blue note. the latter is very up and down from the handful of releases I've got from it but Deustche grammophone were a great great label. Like I always see some of the old LPs in second hand shops and snap them up and its always wonderful in terms of artwork, notes, and the sounds but I do enjoy much classical music post-50s. There is no doubt they are sitting on some unissued stuff (you can get a cpl of kagel LPs he released on the label as mp3s on UBU web - go check).

What I've heard hasn't been great, but I gave up on Oldham after Arise Therefor and never liked Chavez. I do recall someone on this board saying that a band name involving Wolf is to 2004 what Super was to bands in 1992, so I like the name.

do remember that they haven't had a bad run yet every team has one.

How did this thread survive so long without a single mention of rockism?

And how come nobody has mentioned that a label called "Drag City" might not be the best place to find music that "rocks"?

Hmmm...

-- Matos W.K. (michaelangelomato...), January 4th, 2005.

(Ghost) is the new (Smog).

that's enough, you can all stop now.

Glad to be of help here.

Very deliberately on everyone's part, I'd guess.

"what kind of anal compulsive twit gives a fuck about always memorizing record labels, anyway? The only reason I even look at them, usually, is because we print them in the paper)"

Do you really mean that, Chuck? I sorta think certain labels have a "sound" or a "personality" (Thrill Jockey? Warp? Stax, maybe? Motown?)

What are you saying here, ultimately? That a critic who follows his muse, listens to volumes of stuff because that's what he/she likes to do, and writes from this particular hand-as-dealt-by-the-muses should turn away from these muses, put his/her nose to the goddamn grindstone, and study the *important* albums instead?

Those that think/realize that a label sometimes tries to cultivate a certain *sound*. The fan knows that the label is *reliable*, knowing that if he buys a DC record won't mean it'll be a dance record, he'll probably like the record,...

It's a bit like buying the VV because you know that what's published in it, will probably be interesting. Instead of pageing through every mag in the shop, you just go for the VV.

Are you saying Jan & Dean didn't rock (in their own way)?

I'm with Chuck. I consider band names and album titles to be minute details yet I still wish to discuss things even though I can remember little about them.

That's the best post evah.

What are you saying here, ultimately? That a critic who follows his muse, listens to volumes of stuff because that's what he/she likes to do, and writes from this particular hand-as-dealt-by-the-muses should turn away from these muses, put his/her nose to the goddamn grindstone, and study the *important* albums instead?

-- Tim Ellison (timejeanne...) (webmail), January 4th, 2005 7:00 PM. (Tim Ellison) (link)

i'm saying that perhaps chuck sets out to listen to too much music and write about it! (or "write" about it, if listing albums under "eddytor's dozen" with an often-inscrutable or irrelevant eight-word note can be considered writing.) as a result his standards of criticism ("this rocked!" "i liked it immediately!" "it was great when i listened to it once three months ago, now i can't remember what it is!") are more than a bit facile. he rarely gives any evidence of having *burrowed* into a piece of music, getting to know it really well. it's the old pauline kael phenomenon of "i trust my immediate judgment and never/rarely go back." but records were made for relistening, i believe. well, to qualify a little, there are definitely critics who can listen and review records at a high pace/volume and still manage to say something interesting about them, to get inside them, to get a real feel for where they fit in and how they work. unfortunately chuck shows little evidence of this IMO. i don't intend to be prescriptive here--i.e. i wouldn't know what chuck *should* do--, just diagnostive. (is that a word?)

anyway yeah i remember the labels and all the attendant info about any album i care about. why not? i've spent a lot of time with the music i care out. because i care about music.

read my books. and a few thousand reviews from the past 20 years on top of those. (and don't whine that i "always" tell you that, and then pretend that you know jackshit about my writing.) bye, shmuck.