michael_w

cheers.

they sound like a twang tribute band on dominos

the beatles is a tatty pun. i wouldn't worry about names too much.

they're amazing and deserve more attention and praise i rekon...most reviews just seem to cut out and go for the most overtly sexual,....bit of a shame...

aiden moffat, let's wrestle or darren hayman.

The Week That Was is the most overrated record of the year....

this list really is a bit dissapointing....there's more i like on the mercury

really enjoying this week, some of the best stuff i've ever read on dis i rekon.

...so you mean that greater availability/accessability should give people freedom to seek out all sorts of sounds without being restricted by the positive/negative judgements arising from critical opinion...BUT.....instead of embracing this accessability and seeking out and exploring all wonder of musical possibilities, many still restrict their ears to what they've read about....and the reading material is of far lesser quality now, so you have the odd situation of more oppertunity but less investiagtion because of poorer writing.

if that's right and i haven't bastardised your argument...i definitly see your point....

i think, personally, my dominant view regarding the new oppertunities arising from greater music accessability (spotify, myspace et al.)....focuses more with the way we interact with the music once it's in our grasps. so like....i just don't think we give music enough time anymore. with greater and quicker and easier accessability, i'm not sure we are as willing to put the effort in with things that don't instantly click, which is a great shame as it's normally the things that take a bit of time that you love more in the long run.

this guy from animal collective sums this idea up

'I always think back to when I discovered Will Oldham's music... at first I bought the record because it was on Drag City and I was like, 'Well, I don't get this, is it country music or is it Americana music? It doesn't sound like Pavement, I don't get it'. Y'know, I was like 15 years old and if it had just been MP3s on my computer that I didn't buy or have a physical copy of I'd probably just have deleted it and never listened again. But because it stayed on my shelf I put in effort to get into it, I kept going back to it. And there's just one day, I don't know if it's because the weather is right or you're just in a different mood, but it suddenly clicks for you. Personally, I don't have that many experiences like that anymore because I've been taken in by the accessibility of music and I'm disappointed by what that's done'

anyway...i've waffled. interesting topic though. and cheers for the tip, that skip james book, looks good that.

...but about how the message and the review is articulated

it's like listening to whitney houston sing about love and billie holiday....the message is still the same but one makes my heart swing and the other turns my soul to stone

so like....i dunno....when i read an article, i take more from the writing style and the way a view is expressed, rather than if the object is viewed positively or negatively. sort of...i dunno, i've been in the pub all afternoon.

the key is...the point of a review should be to make the reader view the object differently in light of reading the review....not dependant on good/bad...etc.......

lindsay anderson said it best

''one can imagine criticism so perceptive and illuminating that it can also illuminate for the artist, show him what he has been doing, and tell him truths about himself he did not see. but in practice one seems to know the faults and virtues of what one has done more clearly than the people who criticise it. perhaps this is because critics judge too much, and interpret too little. judgements, after all, are not very interesting. they usually tell us more about the judge than about the work. but a critic who can see something new and original (and maybe perplexing to most people as a result) and who has the intelligence and the culture to be able to interpret it, to reveal it's true value- this is as valuable as it is rare''

you might agree with that but it just seemed like you've put most of the emphasis of music criticism on making positive or negative judgements but it should be so much more than that

but i'm talking a bit more about recent bits, like the last couple years...to show that there are still great things to be read and we aren't just going on about years gone by...if there are recent pieces included, well that's all good.

think it's interesting to delve into the difference between books and print/web publications too. (harris touches on it a bit i think)

think it will probably act as a pretty good intro for the stuff you want to look at.

i think, the thing is....good writing needs to be recognised and spoken about more. like, specific pieces. when was the last time someone posted a link for a review just because it was an example of great music journalism or whatever...i mean, it happens...but not as much as someone will post a link because something has been given too high/low a score....is full of praise/hate...tries to be really funny/stylistic.....my point is, it's only the extremes of music journalism that seem to raise eyebrows and no one seems to talk about just great writing, perhaps regardless of the point being made.

i think this week it would be really good for people like you and your guest contributors just to give specific examples of music writing that they have loved in the last few years and made them think...'yeah...this is what it's all about'....because if that doesn't get seen or talked about...you can do the state of the nation stuff but then you're still missing the most obvious bit.

and if no one can think of a piece in the last year or two that shows them the point/beauty/value...blah blah...of music journalism...well, then maybe that's the issue.

length is the thing for me (ooh-er) i'd much rather music publications/outlets etc just looked at three albums in depth rather than try and have a little bit on everything. it doesn't seem to be the general consensus, but i'd rather read 1000 words than 100.....especially the way things are today when you will end up reading twenty small-ish pieces on the same album, most saying the same thing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jun/27/music-writing-bangs-marcus

an interesting read.

it's like my birthday or summit

this should be the easiest 10 over 10 since records began.

seriously though, for me it's a perfect album....not a flaw or spot or blemish to be seen.

a good review though.

what a fucking waste of time....and i'm the first to want to spear la rex with accusations of unoriginality and general shitness.....but this....for fucks sake.

new song is amazing...album should be good

moans about how shit albarn is as a musician, guitarist etc...but then albarn starts pulling chinese operas out his arse...and coxon thinks.....hmmm....maybe...maybe

am i right? huh...am i right?

squint and it doesn't move. take that. i win.

1. no Dis strapline at the top of the page
2. no pictures
3. when writing is just in the title of a reply, the name of the poster and a reply box dissapear

i'm using ie6 so thats probably why.

and got em at 7/1

i could have swore i put a tenner on but i just dug out the slip and it was only a fiver so 35 quid, which is still ace.

with a cramped half hour show we got laverne and armitage

last year for two hours it was fucking whiley and holland and adrian edmondson. top marks BBC. well done.

over the moon elbow won.....not only did my bet come in but i fucking love that album and what a top top bunch of guys. brilliant, brilliant, brilliant.

lust lust lust was fucking brilliant....listening to Dead Sound and Blush now, there isn't anything that even touches that on Glasvegas. different bands i know, but i don't think it's completely unfair to compare the two.

there isnt much fucking bite to it is there?

it just seems like a bland collection of steady paced stadium lullabies with a tickle of benign distortion constantly lurking in the background. i thought above all there would be a completely visceral quality but it just doesnt seem to be there. everything feels quite staid and cloying

mary chain+ spector+ 60's girl group+ thick scottish brogue+ lyrics with a social conscious= somehow, a massive fucking dissapointment.

maybe a bit harsh. but after giving it a few spins i'm pretty dissapointed.

This little tete a tete comes across a bit like those diatribes you get on myspace when someone's boyfriend has been wanked off by someone else behind their back. they get a little too soul searching and passionate in public for my liking

'mine is a life of the fight and the hope. and i am a fighter, i promise you that. you can keep your grubby mits wrapped around his cock, keep it. im better than both of you. i am so strong, ive been strong all my life. this once i'll let it slide because i pity you both. but cross me again and you will feel how much power i have in my soul'

im sure this shit can only breathe on the internet, in real life after ten minutes discussion everyone would just see each others point of view and then go get pissed and forget about it.

canada day schmanada day

i was chattin about the post i made about indie labels earlier that no-one replied to.

or i may just be complicating the whole deal.

start discussing it now the question is on the main page you bloody turncoats.

thats a warning right there.

with its pockets picked and holes in its jumper.....something garvey and co. have left crumpled by the base of a bin somewhere.

god..just listening again..it really is awful. apologies to elbow for metioning in same breath

they do sound really amazing...

but the fact that there is no mention of joy division on the myspace influences bit...feels a bit of a toaboo subject..like.. whatever you do dont mention joy division

feels like Turner and Kane acting all blank faced and going...'scott?.....scott who?.....'

im sure the band would say that they dont actually like joy division but on bipolar its just uncanny.