THE WORST NME COVER OF ALL TIME

Totally with Bramwell on the marketing side of things. Find it fascinating. Also adore the "what are you listening to" type aspect of artist interviews, but I think that's something different to 'influence'.

Philosophically, in terms of both marketing and art and psychology, most people don't know specifically what they're channeling, a lot of the time, just because there's too much stuff being channeled, some of it deliberately and a lot of it not so.

Bramwell, have you seen the recent Swedish film "We Are The Best"? I'd be intrigued to know what you think of it if you have.

xpost - aye, nothing so uncool as 10-12 years after its peak. But they might be about to roll past that uncool point?

The point at which "totally uncool and unfashionable" turns into "elder statesmen of rock" is about 12 years.

See, I find *that* side of the music business absolutely fascinating. The fads, the trends, the bandwagons, how they form, how they get dismantled, what drives those weird memetic fashions in music and genre.

i find it fascinating too, but i have about as much idea re: the answers as i did ten years ago, because no one ever cops to this happening until 10-20 years after the fact! at the time, most critics just prop up the narrative that whatever "trend" scene dominates the music press at the moment really is the most exciting, most NOW thing happening rather than anything to do with marketing or hype bubbles...

How much is that to do with musicians and artists and writers (etc etc) (of a certain stripe) wanting to feel that they are immune to such influences?

Thing is, with historical hindsight plus "there at the time" knowledge, who gets roped in vs who gets left out is also really, super interesting. (And reveals the historians' biases, hugely.)

I don't mean for it to be patronising - what I mean is, an artist might not be consciously able to pull apart their art that way, they may not even be inclined to - it might spoil "the magic", and so on. The critic, as an external force, might be able to hear clearer at a distance. I know you've clearly taken a very partisan stance against "the critic" but isn't any listener able to offer their own take on their music? Or is the creator's take on it the only valid one? Because that flies in the face of everything I've ever understood about art and how it is received and consumed, and I don't believe it one bit - in fact, I find it impossibly patronising of *the listener*.

And sure, drugs and women (or men, men can be groupies too) are powerful influences - that's not what I'm saying, and I'm guessing you know that. I'm saying that discussing the art and what made it is infinitely more interesting to me than the rote sleaze and boasting many magazines seem to prize above all. That stuff that would never make for a great pull-quote is often the substance for all this.

And can you stop making out that I'm some patronising villainous critic, maybe? I think its hugely misrepresentative of my work and how I approach it, and its something I take very seriously, and that's something I'd argue is borne out by my body of work, and I don't really appreciate being slighted because some dick from a fanzine told you you were influenced by Sleater Kinney. And I won't judge you on the experiences I've had with shithead musicians.

Stevie, you know that I have consistently taken the Barthes position on fandom, and the listener's interpretation is just as valid as the creator's interpretation of a piece of art.

But what I am *AGAINST* is the idea of "music critic" as some kind of ~Super-Listener~ who somehow ~knows the artist's intentions better than the artist does~. That is complete fucking bullshit. You can argue interpretations. The critic's position is one interpretation, among many. (And it's often a position I, personally, tend to de-prioritise, on account of the demographics of who tends to be "music critics".) This whole idea that the critic takes one interpretation, turns it into an intention, and calls it ~influence~? That's pernicious bullshit!

And the more that you try to paint this as "just me" having "one bad experience" with one dickhead "fanzine writer" - the irony is, I only went to look up the Joy Division entry because I wanted to know if they mentioned Int*rp*l. Another case in point, of a band who have been told their entire career that they must have been influenced by Joy Division, when it's impossible to talk to Int*rp*l for more than a minute without discovering that actually their principle songwriter was actually way, way more inspired and influenced by Fugazi? This is not some ~isolated experience~ of mine. It's a common thread with many artists, in their dealings with the british press.

I mean, gah, being oversensitive above there, but it really is a drag to be trying to discuss this from a critic's point of view and to be constantly told that I'm being patronising for not swallowing the artist's press release unquestioningly. The listener's perspective has validity too. And the artist is occasionally masking the fact that they might be a little too influenced by another artist. Although your band were clearly, from what I remember, not influenced by Sleater Kinney.

xp

I don't think anyone's take-away from this thread is that you're a "patronising villainous critic", dude, not at all.

xposts.

enjoying this but can i be nosey? i don't know new ilx names so can someone say who bramnwell used to be/wh4t b4nd N's 1n?

Please DON'T, thanks, hoy hoy.

Always baffles me that I can recognise Bramwell's tone at about 1000 yards regardless of username but I can't keep track of anyone else who changes their name.

its cool, i knew i was being nosey.

I mean, I think everybody's main takeaway of this thread is "the NME is a shitstained rag of an excuse for music writing" but I think that no longer needs to even be stated. ;-)

I can recognise Bramwell's tone at about 1000 yards

But you still can't SPELL my damn "tone" ppttttthhhhtt :-P

(Now can we please not continue on this topic, IRL-identity-speculation does genuinely upset and worry me. Thanks.)

Damnit.

I mean, fair enough. To be honest Interpol never held my interest long enough for me to discover if they sounded much like Joy Division (though if I'd heard much that reminded me of Fugazi I'd have listened closer). It seems insane to me that an interviewer would posit to an artist that they *had* heard a band when they hadn't - not saying it doesn't happen or didn't happen to you, more that I don't understand where they think that might go as a critical gambit. The whole question of "influence", like I said above, is often a guess to place an artist in some kind of context, a shorthand, certainly in reviews - but again, artists' relationship to the music that first inspired them can be a really illuminative path of inquiry.

And it doesn't have to be music - one of the most interesting interviews I did last year (and it should have been, considering it lasted 5 hours and included very confrontational passages where the artist was explicitly fucking with me) was with an artist whose new album was mainly inspired/influenced by his first serious relationship, an influence/inspiration he teased discussing with me for a large part of the interview, before opening up later on, as he'd clearly wanted to do throughout.

Influenced by and reminded of = not analogues (of course, of course, I know you know, etc etc). But Fugazi are kidn of a perfect example of influence here, because what might artists influenced by them takeaway? A guitar tone? A compositional approach? A lyrical direction? A DIY business model / ethic? Taken independently any one of these pieces might be indiscernible to any given listener.

That's a good point. If I say your band sounds like the Stooges, there might be a different Stooges that lives in my head to the Stooges that live in your head. One of the challenges of criticism, I guess.

eh, I'm not making sense any more. off to fashion those puns...

Exactly; this is why the "sounds like X" is such a meaningless way of describing music, because what you like about Fugazi might be completely different from what I hear in Fugazi.

I said a few months ago that "I like this bit of this song by this band because it reminds me of this bit of this song by this band but made into a pop song", and pretty much everyone else I knew went "I like it because it sounds like this whole other band that you don't even like and specifically are unfamiliar with this era of" and I had to just go "oh". #u2

People experience the world in vastly different ways, even if it seems like they have stuff in common to start with. I'm as solipsistic as they come in many ways but even I have to recognise that fact (and work hard with it every day in my job).

this is why the "sounds like X" is such a meaningless way of describing music, because what you like about Fugazi might be completely different from what I hear in Fugazi.

It's at-best imperfect, but, short of just directing people to youtube clips/spotify links (and fuck that btw) its a way of starting a/the discussion.

I mean "the Stooges that live in your head vs the Stooges that live in my head" is the most pithy and valid thing you've said on this thread, Stevie, and I know *exactly* what you mean.

Years and years of saying that I loved the Velvet Underground, and failing to understand why so many bands that did three chords & a ton of feedback while wearing leather jackets failed to capture what I loved about the Velvets - I guess this is what they *meant* about the "spirit" as opposed to the "sound" of Joy Division (though, honestly, I, too, am *tired* of both.) It took me decades to realise that "feedback plus drugs" was not what I was responding to in the Velvets, but "Queerness and the painful yet ultimately beautiful poetry of accepting yourself in the Other and the Other in yourself" was.

Alan Moore once offered a useful variation on this - "The poem that you read might be better than the one that I wrote" - and claimed it came from Eliot, but I can't find corroboration of this, now.

That's a good point. If I say your band sounds like the Stooges, there might be a different Stooges that lives in my head to the Stooges that live in your head. One of the challenges of criticism, I guess.

― Sporkies Finalist (stevie), Monday, August 11, 2014 4:21 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I found it interesting reading critics reviewing their work from different perspectives. Like those who were coming to the work fresh because it was just being released so hadn't got its own sui generis weight. Who things were being compared to etc.
& trying to remember the big russian review site's name where the guy mainly specialises in first wave prog etc. Since he was coming at that material from a different perspective too.
& even if I totally disagree with a reviewer it can lead to me hearing things from a different perspective.

I've been listening to the first 2 Stooges lps since I was first getting into music in my mid teens thanks to my elder brother having the 2 lps so it has its own somewhat iconic position. Still to hear the bonus material like the Cale mixes of some of the first lp tracks gives you a different slant.

It was also interesting to read reviews of the late 60s with things like comparing Jim Morrison's voice to that of Eric Burdon. At the time you're presumably having to set up a picture for a reader who has no easy way of going off and hearing the record so the archetypes used as icons for that picture forming are pretty interesting. i don't think I would have made the comparison overly since I was hearing both the Doors and the Animals around the same time rather than Eric Burdon is the one baritone singer people would be familiar with. & the way the 2 sing is pretty different I think.

When Baths released his second album a few years back, in every interview he would talk about how inspired he'd been by Azeda Booth, and I was really excited, since I think Azeda Booth were one of the best bands of the last decade, which I can tell you I'm pretty alone in thinking, in Copenhagen but also, like, everywhere. Plus, Baths was really perceptive as to why Azeda Booth were so brilliant, and he explained that he'd been introduced to them from Braids, another band I'd loved and wondered if they'd heard Azeda Booth. But here's the thing: Even though the guy had explained exactly what band had influenced him, and how, when the reviews came in nobody mentioned Azeda Booth, even though they would obviously list several bands he sounded like. Probably for two reasons: 1) Azeda Booth are obscure, and therefore not great shorthand. 2) The brilliance of Azeda Booth is complicated, having to do with the cynical but shockingly straightforward way they discussed sex and drugs. Or something. It takes an effort to explain.

And talking about influence is so often about dumbing down the discourse. I mean, Paul Banks sounds like Ian Curtis, he just does, they sorta have the same voice. But that is both immediately striking, but also completely beside the point as to what Interpol as a band is actually trying to do. Joy Division? They were a yelpy voice, sometimes with a synth backing. The Strokes? Young guys with guitars and expensive hair. Sleater-Kinney? Women! My Bloody Valentine? Guitar pedals. It's just always reductive. Whenever I blog about music, I've always kept in mind to describe differences, instead of similarities. It's always the differences that are interesting.

NP: Azeda Booth. Gonna make your heart beat faster.

I remember uploading my hard-work onto one of those early 'sell yr music' websites (Peoplesound or Vitaminic) and there was a "List your influences" section.

Of course, they don't care that you have been listening to Beefheart , Beatles, Kraftwerk and sultansof Ping,

They want to label your song as to who it sounds like that's going right now. So, if it's a bit like Oasis, that's what they want. Even if you actually have been 'influenced' by the exact same forebears, they do not care.

Bramwell With An N

I think we're all saying much the same thing now.

Influence is who we listened to that made us think we could be musicians or artists.

The other word is defined by 'who is going right now that you sound like that has a modicum of success which means you might ride on their bandwagon a bit by appealing to the same people?"

Does that word exist?

One of the fascinating recurrences of the record club format is how often we realise, through discussion while listening, that we like the same records for really radically different reasons. Or one likes it and one dislikes it for the same reason. Or various other permutations thereof.

http://xrrf.blogspot.nl/2014/09/ipc-subeditors-no-longer-dictate-our.html

http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-1477912-1222664504.jpeg

http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-1477912-1222664504.jpeg

try again

http://eil.com/Gallery/165194b.jpg

Yep, that was worth it!

Ah. If you were coming in here to complain about the Interpol cover, I was going to break some heads.

They haven't dictated any youth in some time

They don't appear to have sub-edited any articles in a long time, either. Caught 3 blatant errors in a single article. I guess fact-checkers are a thing of the past.

NME definitely on its last legs, they only went and put my band in the Radar section. I'm still somehow incredibly happy about this, though.

omg well played

the NME is obv not a monolithic institution and presumably still employs or sources content from ppl with a genuine interest in good under-the-radar music from a variety of milieux. its primary agendas are usually reductive & boring but it's good to hear that the institution hasn't entirely sacrificed its grip on musical diversity

congrats! mb you'll be able to gauge the extent of its decline by how useful a commendation this proves to be

presumably still employs or sources content from ppl with a genuine interest in good under-the-radar music from a variety of milieux.

Yeah, I still buy it every so often and there are good writers and good bits on new and interesting bands* hidden away in there. The covers and main features almost entirely laughable, though.

*New and interesting guitar bands, for the most part, yes, but there are actually a lot of good, non boring-Bugg-premature-grandad-with-guitar types ones out there at the moment.

good enough reason to be happy

oh wow, good work **** of ****!!!!!

fug o' smells

s. log flumes

what did they say about you anyway? i want juicy quotes

This is awesome! I'll see if I can find a copy on campus.