Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Check this out. i genuinely cannot believe i just read this....
sometimes posts on here.
Shoot him an email at email@example.com
and tell him to get over to Drowned In Sound for a message board argument.
and I think he has a point regarding how much press he gets...
It's not as if he falls out of Chinawhite every night in a PVC corset, flashing his arse at the assembled tabloid photographers. He doesn't appear to be involved in a 'stormy' relationship with a
Hollywood starlet nor are there any current 'struggles' with substance misuse.
He gets the attention in part due to his appearance/back story, but primarily due to his phenomenal talent.
Seasick Steve > The hordes of rake thin, pasty faced, art school cunts with battered Casios and a clutch of half arsed songs about their utterly pointless lives in self obsessed East London cunt meccas.
make the best music. And east london is really just a dive so I woldn't be jealous.
for faux-intellectual and you're onto something
in provincial towns. pretty much.
I was always a melody maker kinda chap!
1) He supports Donny Rovers
2) In a Hadouken review he said they were forward thinking in every sense of the term. Quite how he see's that I don't know. If he doesn't like the album, fair play, but to write like that shows a lack of love for music, as it is all about opinion. By parading his opinion as fact, he looks a music nazi, twat, cunt, fuck-wit.
this review has probably had its desired effect with many people. not with i, i might add.
on the strength of that review.
maybe i ought to start the NME again?
...I think 'Desperate-to-be-authentic, carbohydrate-stodgy white blues' is pretty accurate.
easy to bash NME, but those comments are hilarious
"An absolute joke of a review, I thought the vines one was bad, but this takes the biscuit."
"Did an NME editor proof read it before it was published? If so I would like to apply for a job please. My English is good. Do I need to listen to albums before reviewing them?"
I have no veiws on the album but that review is pretty lame. It did make me laugh though that he is kinda sayin that the NME like good music...
a) Music critic in "expressing an opinion on musciain he is reviewing" shocker.
b) What can you not believe? I don't think he's said anything massively unreasonable and he's entitled not to like something.
c) It's actually nice to see the NME going against the grain and expressing an individual opinion, which seems a sadly rarer thing for it to do than it used to be.
b) he doesnt like it yep who cares
c) lol its hardly going against the grain to say you dont like sea sick steve is anyone that fussed about him. And concidering the tripe the NME look into and hype up its not like its a regular thing.
a) Cynical though it sounds Seastick Steve's record label are essentially selling a "product" based on an image and you'd argue the image impacts on how the music is viewed so I think it is relevant to deconstruct an image if you feel that impacts on your perception of the music.
c) Clearly someone's fussed or this thread wouldn't exist.
that is the strange bit rather than anything to do with sea sick or his music. We all know he is just sunday suplement readers choice music that people can take or leave on a whim. If its right on and goin against the grain to say that you dont like it, I find that pretty funny and hardly worth sayin...
the NME is king of that I dont beleave anyone at the NME acctualy likes music.
then it's just as well someone there is criticisng it then.
I know people at the NME who really, really, really like music. Not that they always get to write about it mind. But still, stupid.
Whatever you think of the NME, don't be a bell cheddar.
The magazine comes accross as a marketing campain rather than a music lovers guide.
I'm sure they do like it but they have a funny way of showing it to the world.
Perhaps you should reread it?
and yeah he doesnt do much of that really after readin it again.
I just want the dude to tell me what the music is like rather than spout about everything else its a review after all.
fair enough if it was an opinion artical on other stuff but its a review of a record...
its a record review !
The review is awful. Honestly, treating Seasick Steve as a negative representative of the worldwide homeless is the kind of knee-jerk wannabe socialist crap that a 16 year old might come up with. Don't think the author is really in a position to wax about the homeless either, especially rounding them of as a lazy '100 million' statistic.
Then going on some diatribe about soulless music and blogs etc and how we need 'real' music. Wow pal! Thanks for opening my eyes to these issues of authenticity in an ever increasingly doomed and materialist world. Bye.
BORING BORING BORING BORING BORING BORING.
You can give us more than that!
I had a dream last night that I was being drowned by cats and I'm not really myself today.
but like the review
John Lee Hooker and Howlin' Wolf?
is brilliant but his songs are to short he gets in a groove and you just want to keep the boogie goin then it fades out. I'm off to make some 12" disco edits of Hooker tracks...
A girl I used to work with used to act as my filter for these kind of things. If she raved about an act, then I know it wasn't for me after 5 or 6 listens.
For example, she loved:
Noah & the Whale
Kings of Leon
six out of those seven are great ! Wish I knew her !
a bit too much.
Perhaps The Whale and Noah count as separate entities?
When you get to my age you're pleased you can string a sentence together ! Maths is for schoolkids !
It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.
BUt the phrase "an irredeemable honk of shit" is going into The Book.
in the review but I'm surprised that the NME still has the balls to print something like that as a review.
Don't agree with it myself but fair fucking play for printing it,
reading those comments on the review brightened up an otherwise crappy day at the office...!
and, for the record, i have no opinion one way or the other on mr. steve.
THAT'S more like the NME I used to read from cover to cover every Thursday ! More reviews like that and I may well start buying it again.
And I agree completely, Seasick Steve is a clear case of the Emperor's new (or in this case, old and a bit smelly) clothes. If you want proper blues, go to the source.
James McMahon play once at In The Pines in Kings Cross. He played on a knackered old guitar and sang songs about love and hate and other really forward thinking topics.
I then walked home and tried to get run over so i could NEVER EVER listen to this tosser sing another song.
McMahon - PLEASE PLEASE STOP.
he sounds like a bit of a creep, so I'm with that review really.
the comments about the record being offensive to homeless people are really weird and confused, but the last bit is pretty spot on, I saw him at about three festivals over the last year, each time because all my friends were like "we HAVE to see Seasick" and each time I just wanted to shriek "WHY?". But I didn't, because I have learned to control my rage now.
If he thinks it's shit I guess he's entitled to say so. At least he justifies it anyway.
who brought The Twang to the world's attention
you big old ENIGMA you!
Especially my fingers.
The implication seems to be that if you like Sea Sisk Steve then you don't really know anything about the blues and should start listening to some "real" stuff(ie: Charlie Parr, Howlin' Wolf, Otis Spann etc etc)
I love all those guys and I really like SSS too.
I don't think there's anything remotely disingenuous about his "image" so i don't really get why people have a go at him for what his label's marketing team are doing (exactly what they're paid to do).
The implication was supposed to be that if you like Sea Sick Steve you're a dick.
Well it seems as if your lust for controversy has been sated. Lets hope your hard on sustains until you fart out your next bombastic, ill informed review!
of NME to dedicate some space to musicians that aren't Glasvegas. Funny review though.
If his music acts as bridge for people to discover more classic blues then i'm all for it. His performance at Glasto this year made me smile a lot!! Haven't heard the new album so my opinion is null and void. I have an opinion on that review though and my final verdict is that its fucking poo-jab!
Wow. Some wild views on here!
I like CiderEagle. They make sense.
in as much as he says about the man, even if the review kind of fails to provide much insight into the record itself.
I dont think it does to well to focus on the hardships that real homeless people endure, as there will always be music good and bad that causes controversy like that.
However, Steve's own particular brand is quite offensive in the way that it has become such a lame false gimmick.
My real problem is that he does just play carbohydrate stodgy blues or whatever that guy said. It isnt original, refreshing, well presented, no real point or sincerity in what it says.
In short, it almost seems a mockery to many blues players that this guy can be heralded with as much praise as he gets. It isnt even like it he is returning to the 'roots' or anything.
How many blues fans of whatever particular niche actually think this guy is special? Not many I've come across. Time to give Jawbone or Son of Dave or some other more deserving one man blues band some credit if this is the fashionable thing to do.
they are just a retro rock'n'roll revival act.
i kind of dont like them very much either tbh. although, the first two kings of leon albums are fun if nothing else.
like seasick is really genuine enough or talented enough to be considered a retro revival. he dont sound a patch on the originals both musically or in the what he has to say and how he says it.
just my opinion on him and his music. i have seen him, and i have got some of his albums... i haven't heard the new one so it could be the new In Rainbows or something for all I know.
Is shit. That's another record that people pretend to like...
because you spent all your time on DiS, James? Conor should put you over his knee...
i cans haz inglish?
is probably one of the most genuine NME writers, at least he's passionate and honest in what he does. Can't ask for more than a reviewer giving his honest opinion.
Seems to be some seeded hatred for the hobos...
I'm waiting for James to c'mon over here!
I've already posted.
if i want to read someone lamenting the plight of homeless people i go back to the source, like the big issue, or george orwell, or charles dickens, not some twat pretending to be a music journalist.
this is because music journalism is in a state of flux at the moment, especially at that shit-rag the nme. thankfully though it will soon die a death and we can look forward to james jam (cock) going back to re-writing articles for the independent and grovelling to the appropriate PR person he's upset in the process.
Look, up there!
He's like Batman, you just call for him.
that a lot of people commenting on both this thread and the NME article haven't actually heard the album.
Neither have I for the record, but that NME review amused me, at least.
stop being so wet
i doubt james hates tramps. its obviously more a reaction to the music than to homeless people.
it's a lot more respectful then seasick steve's fans, who are almost totally wacky students at festivals
is horrible isn't it.
really aesthetically unpleasing.
apart from when I walked past him playing at ATP once. So I can't really comment.
I thought the review was quite funny though and almost made some quite insightful points.
when i read a review i expect it to tell ne what the albums like, stand out tracks, filler material, analysis of the different componants of the band (are the vocals strong, lyrical depth, musicianship etc). All i got from this review is that this twerp of a reviewer doesnt like Seacick Steve as a person (infact its the type of review you'd expect someone to rush out an hour before the deadline without even listening to the cd!).
I was particularly impressed buy the line "Because we live in an age where so many people pretend to like music, obsessed with not falling behind the hum of the blogosphere" isnt this what the NME copntributes to?
but I heartily agree. At least with NME hating him he won't have one of those embarassing cover shots emblazoned with some daft slogan like "17 reasons why you must love blah-de-blah or get left behind in a new rave grave".
Seasick Steve is PLAYING A CHARACTER for ENTERTAINMENT. You know, sort of like Bowie but with more beard.
As the Seasick one has said on numerous occasions "I ain't no blues man, I'm an entertainer, I'm a song and dance man".
"Time to give Jawbone or Son of Dave or some other more deserving one man blues band some credit if this is the fashionable thing to do."
Jawbone is f*ckin ace!
it's a great piece of writing and James proves himself as a great catalyst for debate once again.
is back on DiS after a ridiculously long hiatus.
Can't believe NME had the bollocks to allow it to be printed
drug references in Klaxons' interviews used to make me cringe. MDMAzing in particular. Urgh.
to get behind this review if it backed up and expanded its statements a bit more than just burping out 'musicians lyrics arent entirely true to his life and dont think about all the poor folk, so he must be a massive cunt'.
james could have a point but he doesnt make it well enough and just looks a bit silly and knee jerk
are Klaxons naughty boys because they spoke about the joys of drug taking without thought for the millions and millions (thats accuarate to the person, i swear)of people whoose lives are torn apart by rabid drug addiction.
er..nah...they just brought about 'the new rave revolution'
klaxons, in their interviews, maybe lyrically, i havent scoured the record, certainly 'ignore the abuse, the horror and the desolation that comes with' (ill take it from here james).....drug use......some nme strapline about 'MDMAaazing'.
it may be fair to say seasick is a shitty immitation of this kind of music, a hollowed out souless facsimilie (disclaimer: i've never listened to a whole record)....but...but but but.....for james to make his point in this way, crying woolfie smith, he just looks like a frustrated lad who didnt like any of the songs much.
if this is truely what you believe james, regarding authenticity and bands ensuring that they always consider all sides of every story/issue, you have set a dangerous precident for music to live up to.
p.s. my entire argument might be a genius point or complete bollocks ready to fold like an arthritic in a thumb war, i can't quite be sure.....
i've read in years.
It's about time someone stood up and said this guy was shit
without backing up your statements....unless its really, imaginatively funny or hot with the wordplay which this one isnt too much.
but maybe that just me
ill take this review over the nme one
but then....the nme one does use a few naughty words and a funny little bit of imagery. i dunno...i'm torn.
can we disregard the 'ive got no time for' bit...i sound like gordon fucking gecko.
lets pretend it says 'i dont enjoy reading' or soemthing like that.
Can you point out the Klaxons quote you have where they claim to love drugs and ignore the consequences?
I've never seen one printed and I'd love to read one.
can you point out the klaxons quote where they dicuss what a complex issue drugs are you fucking dick splint....or do they just toss about the issue without thought to the thousands of sufferers of drug addiction?
i think you need to try and understand the point i was making you gurgling prick
back up your initial point rather than nit-picking mine because what you're writing here is libellous and I don't think anybody would want you or Drowned in Sound getting in trouble now, eh?
anyone can see im merely playing devils advocate to illustrate the weakness of the point made in the seasick steve review. the one where McMahon spears seasick steve because he talks of a lifestyle without drawing attention to its more rebarbative aspects.
if you honestly think i'm taking the klaxons to task for their views on drugs you are a fucking fool.
give yourself a hand in the future and read a post a couple times over before you start drooling your asinine blurb all over.
Slating artists you don't like for half an hour before fucking off down the pub. That's the dream.
Without the financial benefit. Live the dream!
More like CRAPlay!
God that felt good.
And most of the bile spat their way is totally justified, but that review is ABSOLUTELY on the money. Seasick Steve is a fucking farce.
and its about time someone said it. seasick steve is a fabrication, a record company invention - the guy is a very good actor. its blues for people who buy one cd from tesco's each year. musically its worthless - ask yourself this - how does a 'homeless' guy get on jools fucking holland - whats their fee to play on there - 20 grand or something?? its extremely clever marketing. the unfortunate thing is that the guys dragging themselves round bars playing the proper stuff are ignored - thats not being elitist - i gave him a fair crack of the whip and i came to the conclusion that he's utterly rubbish.
a very ignorant, loud-mouthed little boy. Jools Holland pays MU rates. A few hundred quid. If you did any research (or even simply read Wikipedia) you'd know Seasick Steve stopped being a hobo in the early 1970s. He released an album on his own label in 2003, and another on the very small Bronzerat label in 2006. He signed to Warners early this year. I first saw him play the 12 Bar Club in April 2004. He first appeared on Jools Holland in December 2006 nearly three years later. He is feted by many musicians (Nick Cave, Robert Plant, Richard Hawley, Foals) and Howe Gelb and Kurt Wagner both name-checked him from the stage at the 2007 End Of The Road Fest. None of these people buy their blues CDs from Tesco's. Get your facts right at least. You're worthless opinion you can spout as much as you like.
I was so furious at your shower of shit, I misinterpreted what you were saying about the Jools Holland 'fee'. But as with everything else you said, it's still nonsense. You don't have to pay to play.
but I think the review is terribly written. The wording of the opening is awkward and barely justified later.
Clearly he just wrote this to get some journalistic credit and Seasick Steve was an easy target.
think the Features Ed of NME needs to slag an album for 'journalistic credit'...
pretty keen to make out that he's better than all the 'music periodicals' than are apparently so mislead.
In fact, regardless of what view you take on the merits of SSS, it's a really well-written article.
Bah sounds like a bad AS English/Economics essay.
must have very low standards Mr Voodoo.
i love you a little bit. x
what a honk of sh*t!
Check him out, especially you James!
she ain;t leaving, she gone
And popping up on a few bills round London. Maybe we should dress him in hobo clothes and rebrand him?
boxes of Dischord shit and talked over several cups of fruit tea.
like is there anyone here who is, like, a passionate Seasick Steve fan? The negative comments here seem to almost entirely be hatin' on the McMahon, there seem to be precious few people defending SS by expressing their excitement at the prospect of his new album...
and if he's some sort of record company fabrication, why did Portishead invite him to play ATP?
who the fuck is he and what does he sound like?
is the shoddy nature of the review due to the music taking a huge back seat to the 'politics' of SSS.
seems quite apt considering he doesn't actually talk about the musical content of the album in his review.
Music journalists wish they were musicians.
Music journalists realise they have no musical talent.
Music journalists get bitter.
Music journalists insult musicians
I think I saw you support Seasick Steve.
Wishes they were a music journalist.
I kinda agree with the stuff said in that article a little bit, but does it count as a review?
What's the point?
The few times that I've met people that write reviews, none of them have come across particularly as bitter about not being musically talented, and they've tended to be people that like writing and music with a passion. On that basis, being a music-hack is a fairly understandable career choice.
I still think most of the vitriol going Mcmahon's way is because it's the NME!!! I know loads of people who just assume that it must be shit cos it's the nme, and it's been shit for years, but it's actually been pretty good recently.
Would you like to come to mine for tea?
if Ladyhawke's there. And you've written a review of Sea-Sick Steve's album mentioning the songs and stuff.
of a 15 year old. Not surprising from someone who signs every single DiS post they submit..
Vince McMahon x
Also SSS is rubbish, this review is good fun, I laughed, I cried, we all went home and got a good night's sleep, the end.
does it really cost £20,000 to go on Jools Holland?
Is this actual defined empirical truth or just some spazzy work experience shit?
when I first heard of him. He came right out of nowhere and the story seemed all too convenient. Nothing wrong with spinning a bit of false mystique of course.
oh.. uhmm... gotta go
Interesting. That review really made me address my preconceptions about former hobos singing songs about being a hobo. I guess that's what happens when you have an authentic ex-street tramp write the review. Who knows how that review might have read had it been written by a blissfully comfortable middle class kid who's known no greater stress than an approaching homework deadline. Or indeed, how it might have read had it included some description of the music.
I will now buy a copy of Seasick Steve's album out of spite.
not the blues.
True music journalism right there.
Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?
he should invest in some travel sickness tablets..boom boom!
I'd love to see a longer review than this, with proper space for McMahon to expand on his points. Seastick Steve seems to me like an artist who gets a lot of mileage out of his image without people paying much attention to his music, so for someone to throw up a bit of backlash seems reasonable enough.
At the moment though, this is just controversy without any meaty argument. Could do better.
For the record, I think when the NME allows itself decent space to print big reviews and engaging features, it does it well, and writers like James are generally very entertaining. But when it fills pages with "Cool gimmicky fashion shit you might want to buy now", it just kind of puts you off.
my god what an over-hype, he's a sub-par blues musician by 1950's standards. Save yourself the time and don't listen to crap like Seasick steve.
whereas Seasick Steve may certainly lack in the innovative, he makes up for it in terms of the drive and the sheer quality of his songwriting and live performance.
Just seen him on Jools, and, bar his cringeworthy swaying to The Streets, he's convinced me to try and find a ticket to see him play Brighton a week from now.
And I think I preferred you when your surname was Jam as well.
there was a thread about this the other day that got about ten posts?
I'm baffled at this respons
the board was full of oasis, NME, subways, radiohead, oasis, nme, radiohead...
all day bloody snore fest.
have been put to bed by him coming here and posting responses to criticism and signing them with a kiss. Nice work if you can get it.
you do come across as a bit of a twonk
I won't lose too much sleep over it though.
This thread is weird, but it's nice that folk have so many opinions - on SSS, me, NME, major labels, Jools Holland, the blues, etc...
And that's all that matters really, isn't it?
definitely a twonk
he probably wrote that review after watching this
he must be crying in his cornflakes.
sid vicious is literally rolling over in his grave
is a bit of a shocker.
As someone who hadn't heard of sss until I watched him last night on Jools.
To be honest, I was impressed. I don't think anyone could deny the energy that him and his backing singers had, and regardless of whether it's classified as 'true' blues, it's still pretty solid work.
Also James, have you got any proof to suggest that this man is not genuine and just a fabrication of the record company or is this just conjecture?
I think in a day and an age where a lot of music goes on image, and I can think of about a thousand examples that NME has heralded as the 'new sound' that are generally people with their own stylists, I think perhaps that you should focus on the music?
As stated previously in this thread, this just seems like an attack on SSS.
And I think it's a sad state of affairs when a music review comes to that.
Has everyone seen this? it's ace....
The 25 bands of Christmas application has been launched.
You get a free download every day until xmas day - todays free download is a track by Seasick Steve!!!
You can also invite your friends to the application to give them the free download too!!!
its not even a review. its just two paragraphs of denigration.
the one time iv seen seasick play (bestival last year) iv really enjoyed him. he was cool last night on jools too.
it's pretty appalling for a couple of reasons - accusing Steve of being a fake because he chooses not to write about the bad side of homelessness, accusing fans of Steve of only liking him to keep up with "the hum of the blogosphere" and ending on a note suggesting Steve makes a ton of money.
has anyone seen this guy in the charts? has anyone exposed him as being a fraud who's happily lived with a roof over his head his whole life? does anyone like music just because it's in blogs?
answer to all three questions: no. but what's even the point. McMahon laughs here because he's paid a lot of money to compose bullshit simply to enrage others. well done for keeping ahead of the blogosphere.
But, writing is lifeblood, innit? http://hearyoume3.blogspot.com/
the millennium stadium last year?
I quite like some of what I've heard, but having witnessed Seastick Steve milk the crowd for all their worth at Latitude this review seems pretty fair.
"Fact is, music finds itself in a time of flux– bands break in different ways and rarely unify people in the same way they used to – and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. But is this the best we can do?"
I think the honk of shit appeared about the time I read that sentence
that it's reviews like this that are necessary these days...LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE FOOKIN DEBATE!!! had the review been 'beautifully' constructed and hyper-factual, nobody would have given a shit about the album...as it is lovers have defended Steve to the the hilt and haters agreed he is shit...what's the problem?
And don't whinge about it, seasoned DiSers NEED this (not me im teh n00bz)...you NEED this.
it was quite a good review!
..and have not read NME for many, many, years and feel all the better for it
on what you require from a review...if you want it to completely factual and have a complete structural analysis of the music, and the methods of recording then great....it's not likely to spark a debate though. i mean the NME is ripped to pieces but this review has created more of a talking point, exposure for the album etc etc than a straight ahead one would have. and if McMahon/NME bothers people so much, stop reading it, stop posting about it.
its this kind of endless debate, rippery and vitriol that enabled the courteeners to get ahead...just think about that.
STOP DEBATING THE ISSUE IF YOU HAVE NO TIME FOR IT, all you are doing is prolonging the issue...(I realise i am prolonging the issue, but I don't have a problem with the review..gergh)
Why are we still talking about it?
there appears to a an inordinate amount of peeps who HAVE to vent their spleen, oh and call you a cunt it would appear. tsk tsk.
Promise its my last post on this thread!
NME are calling that a review now? It's basically just referring how much he smells. It's pretty clear that people seemed have latched on to Seasick steve because of his appearance at Glasto. He's quite talented. No bonnie prince billy but still talented...more so than that razorlight twodle NME have raved about!
NME are a bunch of wankers and their magazine is dog shit, i wouldn't expect anything less from Connor McCunt and his band of twits. I wouldn't wipe my arse with their "paper" let alone read it.
in my over zealousness to have a swipe at the NME i mistyped and posted too quickly.
Re: The Twang;
"Last year, features editor James McMahon compared 'the spirit and flair' of the Birmingham band to that of the Stone Roses, Public Enemy, Oasis, the Pistols, Joy Division, the Verve and Happy Mondays."
He won't respond to this, and nowadays, he'll try and forget it ever happened.
My point is - I dunno about you guys, but anyone comparing The Twang to Joy Division deserves very little to none of my attention and respect.
may well be a bit of an embarrassment but does that of necessity invalidate everything else he says ? I mean, I disgreed with something you said once, that doesn't mean I instantly dismiss everything you say.
It was a shame their album was dogger.
One man doesn't like Seasick Steve, loads more don't like NME. It's all inconsequential surely. Can't we talk about some good music instead?
this is just silly
nice to see the DiS boards are nice and involved with current music hey....
Seasick Steve is a bit crap. I saw him live once. I've seen loads better.