theguywithnousername

I still think Edward is Deadward is probably the best thing she's done. Certainly lyrically I do.

I mean it's not the be-all and end-all of being a music journalist but anyone who wants to read a music review fundamentally wants to know

a) Does the person reviewing it think it is any good?

b) Why do they think it is or isn't any good? (ideally with enough info so you can tell if this person looks for the same things in music as you do)

c) Will I like this band or album?

It's all well and good if music journalist does more than that as well but certainly, with reviews, it's the item being reviewed rather than the reviewer people are interested in.

Obviously a lot of what Swells did was opinion pieces, and obviously with that you read it for the entertainment and opinions of the writer and is a different kettle of fish entirely.

That's surely just a free download?

I know I'm being insanely petty but surely journalists of all people should have a grasp of appropriate terminology?

I definitely prefered Maladjusted.

Having not heard it for years I seem to remember Alma Matters and one possibly called He Cried are good songs. Possibly Ambitious Outsiders too. Is this the case or was this more my 15 year old music taste talking?

Speaking as a musician it's quite depressing how I find myself under increasing pressure to look for revenue via places like adverts and sponsorship that I really don't want to be dealing with. So far I've turned down the offers we've got (though I did let a song be downloadable on a jeans (or was it shoe?) company-sponsored website. (I've utterly forgotten who the company was so the sponsorship's not worked on me at least!) but it is depressing that musicians are having to look at revenue from these kind of sources to survive.

Sadly I think the horse has bolted. People are too used to getting music for free and ultimately I don't think there's a way of reversing the trend. But it does raise very disturbing questions about where the money's gonna come from.

DiS has pulled a real coup in getting him to write for him.

So how the sodding fuck as he managed to write something that atrocious? It comes across like the very worst sixth-form fanboy writing. It tries to be experimental but the experiment ends up as all aesthetic without any real meaning. There's a bunch of hyperbole but, even as someone with only a passing inteest in Patrick Wolf, it's told me absolutely nothing I didn't already know (except where he bought his first guitar. Are we supposed to be Smash Hits readers now and, if not, why would we want to read a piece for that level of insight?

It's probably up there with the worst pieces of writing DiS has ever published. Having finished it I'm not convinced Paul Morley even knows anything about Patrick Wolf himself. It feels like he just visited the guy's website then wrote it up in flowery language.

It wasn't even a badly written review (Alc**k reposts it in the course of the discussion thread if anyone's interested).

Sure, he's wrong about how it's going to be remembered and of course he has (in hindsight) gone against the grain of popular opinion but he actually gives a thought-out and well-reasoned critique of the album before concluding he doesn't think it's very good. Obviously many people'll disagree with him, and that's fine if they want to do so (for my part I certainly think Everything in It's Right Place, Idiotque and How to Disappear Completely are very good songs even though I don't think it a great album on the whole) but certainly DiS has published far less considered and far worse written reviews in its time and its ludicrous to single this one out for historical revisionism.

What I find especially depressing about this is I distinctly remember either Sean or Mike Diver proudly boasting about how DiS differs from NME in that it doesn't have an dictatorial editorial policy and there's no "magazine official line" that writers are obliged to follow and this action makes an utter mockery of that claim.

I'm sure a lot of people genuinely like it but I'm also sure a fuck of a lot of people like to feel there's something to "get" and that stating a preference for it as their favourite Radiohead album proves they truly appreciate music as "art".

It's obviously fair enough if people's favourite Radiohead album genuinely is Kid A but you do come across people with this evident sense of smug self-satisfaction that they enjoy the album and you don't and feel they're smarter than these plebs who just don't "get it". Personally I'm pretty sure get what they're trying to do but I far prefer OK Computer and I do detest the snobbery certain Radiohead fans have towards it.

This utterly vile indie snobbery is nowhere worse showcased than on the "apology" that's now replaced the original review. It's easily the most embarrassing and unpleasant thing DiS has ever done. For fuck's sake, you accepted and printed the review at the time. Re-review it with a more balanced review later if you want but it's shocking, unprofessional and despicable behaviour to

a) slag off your own reviewer for stating an opinion

b) rewrite your publication's own history due to embarrassment in hindsight

c) Claim there's something wrong with someone for not liking an album.

but the only real reason it's happening without their involvment is their refusal to be involved, if that makes sense. I agree it'd have been better if they'd been involved and added something really attractive to their packages but it seems to be them refusing to be involved rather than EMI refusing to involve them.

Wtih regard to the point that they're putting out staff that adds nothing to what fans already own I utterly agree but again that's true of any reissue - they're not things I'm in favour of myself (especially if there isn't the option for people who own the album itself to purchase the extra tracks without repurchasing an album they already own). But ultimately all EMI are doing is putting a CD on a shelf - it's down to fans whether they buy it and, whether we like it or not, if fans buys them labels will continue to release them.

is the fact that hardcore fans will own the B-sides and rarities and casual fans won't want them but there's absolutely no ethical issue beyond that

Radiohead's issues with EMI are purely and simply egotistical nonsense. You sign a major label contract, you expect them to exploit and try to make as much money as possible from your work. You sign the rights of your music to someone else, you no longer have a say how your music is used.

Radiohead seem happy to take all the benefits they had of being on a major label (worldwide fame, large amounts of money pumped into recording and promotion costs, being involved with a major label at a time when they'd still stand by you if your debut album initially failed ot sell) but unable to accept any responsibility for the downsides. EMI have only done what they said they'd do and Radiohead have no-one to blame but themselves if they're unhappy with the terms of the contract they signed.

And surely the argument

"gender's not a genre and all that, but Lissy Trullie might upset this perspective just ever so slightly, because what makes her so intriguing is that she's doing a lady take on NYC black leather jacket swagger rock"

is utterly invalidated by PJ Harvey releasing This is Love 7 years ago which does the same thing only at least 956 million times better?

PS The Jon Ronson book she mentions is excellent. As is the follow-up "The Men Who Stare at Goats".

Excellent work.

Not to mention the likes of Oasis etc. Hell, even Robbie Williams has done it and one time or another.

And ultimately part of the marketing of Lily Allen is that she's "supposed to be" edgy and dangerous os I don't think she's taking any risks by doing that. Both her and her label know that and, as you say, the controversy will work for her.

You say the audience and marketing is different to Kanye or Radiohead but it's different to James Morrison and Take That too and its not true to say that she's taking any risks with her audience with these subjects. Whilst I'm not suggesting she's being deliberately controversial, I think in actual fact it's this kind of thing that'll help rather than hinder her.

PS You're right - SYMM is atrocious and, for the last decade, would always have been answer to the worst lyrics of any song ever. But I'm actually not kidding or exaggerating when I say the George Bush song's lyrics are infinitely worse.

"What other pop star would delight in (and generally get away with) taking on subjects such as convoluted as terrorism, politicians, drugs?"

I mean for crying out loud. Can people stop praising pop stars for their originality in writing about ridiculously well-covered subjects? You cannot possibly for a second not be aware that there have been fuckloads of songs about both George W Bush and drugs in recent years. In fact praising a pop star for writing about such common-place subjects is pretty much akin to praising a lawyer for drawing up a contract or praising a teacher for conducting a lesson.

It utterly baffles me that seemingly intelligent people both on this site and at the Guardian have commended her for tacking these subjects. There's absolutely no courage or bravery or bravery or sik in criticising an ex-President whose supporters even no longer think he did a good job. There's absolutely no courage or bravery or risk in writing about drugs in a culture where even the leader of the Conservatives doesn't get outraged by suggestions he might have dabbled in the past. These are not brave, risky, original or gutsy subjects to write about and, whilst if people want to write about 'em it's up to them, they do not deserve praise for doing so.

PS Her song about George W Bush probably actually has the worst lyrics of any song ever written. I'm even including the Manics' S.Y.M.M. in that.

MIA's not a favourite of mine and the rest I don't think I've heard but I'm looking forward to it - I'm in general not a huge fan of acoustic singer-songwriters but I definitely think she's way ahead of most of the pack.

I very much hope it is as good as it sounds from this.

What's the tracklisting by the way? I was looking for it the other day and failed miserably in my attempts to find it. (Not sure if it was hard to find or if I got distracted by something shiny mid-way through my search)

but I don't think it's a great thing when an indepedent music site's main news of the day is a thinly-disguised advertisement for an ISP.

a) Too Young to Die (the singles compilation up to 1995 or so)

b) Tales From Turnpike House

How much stuff is on here that's not on either and how good is it?

I'm not Ash. It's pretty easy to check up on that and you'll find that it isn't the case.

It is also very very clear that you're NelsonM and are making yourself look sillier with each post.

However I'd massively appreciate it if you continue to deny it as it's so blatant you're lying that it's actually very funny.

that you should be making your first ever post on here at this moment in time with exactly the same writing style as NelsonM.

Strange world...

and it's absolutely none of my business but presumably you're aware if someone reads through the discussion you come off far worse than Greenstone does?

Someone's given a bad review to album you either really like or, it would appear, were probably involved with. So what? Let it go...

To be honest, having just looked up the lyrics out of curiosity my main issure with "Days of Fire" is it doesn't seem to have much to say or, if it does, doesn't do a great job of saying it. Yes, I understand he was there (it's been pointed out enough times in thread already) but so were loads of other people and I just don't think he offers much of an insight.

Yes, it's a "mad situation" and the guy's "all out of emotion" and he's seen the "city change in so many ways" but that's about as in-depth as the analysis seems to get. Given the lack of details or insight in the song in general the guy might as well not have been there at all.

but the watches/crothes line really doesn't sell it well and puts me off if anything. I don't doubt there are far better lyrical gems than that on the album though.

but nonetheless feel this series of pictures reveal the fundamental problems of photographing acoustic singer-songwriters in performance in terms of the lack of variety between them.

The article does sound like a press release re-printed.

I really want him to release something brilliant and was really hopeful after reading the interview.

But the two new songs sound like he's auditioning to soundtrack a furniture advert.

in that he has What a Wonderful World and Good Vibrations to Obama's What's Going On.

I think my overall conclusion is Obama's is more of a solid and consistent set of song while McCain has the odd moment of brilliance that lifts the overall standard of a weaker list.

Not sure what this tells us about the election though.

so you'd end up with a collection everyone wanted but no-one'd buy?

is all we've got to go from so far is

*a witness report from someone who witnessed it and weren't sure what was said

*Kele's comments that race was brought into it but with no clarification of what happened

*a witness report from someone else who says it was a racist incident but isn't entirely clear on what happened.

I think the point is that we actually don't have a full picture of what happened and, whilst judging from what we've heard it may be appropriate to criticise Lydon as a racist and a thug, we're actually only doing so on partial accounts of the story and haven't actually heard what happened from his perspective.

And, in the interests of fairness, it's probably necessary to get more information from someone who had a clearer view of what happened, and to know both Kele and Lydon's accounts of the incident, before we could fairly draw a conclusion.

I don't think anyone's trying to say nothing happened, or condoing racist behaviour but it's not unreasonable to suggest people don't make snap judgements without a clearer picture of the facts (which we may never get of course, but hopefully the police will and take whatever action is appropriate)

I mean obviously there was a pretty major incident and Lydon does look like desrving a lot of criticism but it doesn't seem incredibly clear exactly what he said or did (or didn't do, in terms of not intervening) and it does largley seem to depend on a lot conjecture.

Certainly Lydon doesn't come out of this looking very good at all but, in the absence of more information, it's hard to know to what extent he should be condemned for his actions.

Which surprised me a bit as it's not one of my favourite songs on record.

Not a massive fan but don't really get the vitrol either.

But in any case she really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really should change that album title. It's terrible!

I doubt HMV's gonna have to open its doors at midnight due to the demand though.

On a "not talking about myself" note, Tim Ten Yen and David Cronenberg's Wife would be my main answers.

He's signed a deal with a major label and knew what the terms are. Everyone knows with a major label you aren't going to own the recordings and everyone knows major labels want to make as much money as possible (hence them wanting to keep the recordings).

Whilst I can see anyone not wanting to sign for a major label for that reason, they've had a label that for 12 or so years paid for all their recordings, did all the advertising, merchandising etc. stuck by them after Pablo Honey initally struggled to sell and basically did all the things a major label does to get a band well known.

They've on the whole done very well out of the major label but I wish they'd stop pretending they're being hard done by when their in the same circumstance as every other major label band ever.

Will have a listen later.

I know you didn't mean it in an offensive way - I just wanted to make clear my complaints weren't 'cos I'm a bitter disgrunted scenester. Which I'm not. Probably.

I honestly am sorry about criticisng your song title - to be honest it was more the reviewer praising it than the title itself (in the sense that I was under the mistaken impression it was another "Burn Koko"/"Death to the Indie Disco"-esque song which, whilst I've nowt against either of those songs per se and one of those two bands I genuinely like, there've been so many of recently, it seemed silly to see a band being praised for doing it). Which you obviously weren't doing anyway which did make my comment somewhat pointless.

The subject matter for what Whoreditch actually is about according to above interview does actuallly sound potentially interesting.

Maybe I should have a listen to the song. Is it on your Myspace or anywhere?

The area below is for comments on the review. I commented on the review. There's nothing implicity stating I have to comment on the music.

I've heard William before - people were talking about them and I listened to some stuff on their Myspace. I just can't remember anything about them or exactly what the music sounded like.

a) obviously you think it's a great title or else you wouldn't have written it. That clearly goes without saying.

b) I do regret publically criticising the song title based on an incorrect assumption of what it's about.

c) Nonetheless I'm not the only one incorrect in my assumptions. I have never at any point in my life worn converse and don't intend to start.

And a terrible, terrible title for a song...

(although people who seem to have decent taste in music seem to like them so I might check 'em out at some point) but no-one deserves kudos for calling a song "Whoreditch". It's a terrible name.

a) It's a an obvious pun.

b) It's an easy target.

c) It's been three years since Shoreditch was satirised in Nathan Barley. Surely slagging it off is a bit passe.

d) Songs about "trendy" aspects of the indie scene are pretty much the most insular, uninspired and parochial subject matter any indie band can come up with.

e) They're also completely uneffective as they're only of interest to the cool indie scenester kids anyway who delight in the scene they know about being slagged off (and wind up feeling they're incredibly cool 'cos they're cool enough to listen to records that slag the cool scenesters off which makes 'em cooler than the other scenesters)

As I say I've not heard the album and good luck to the band (I clicked on the review 'cos I'was interested to find out what the album's like and don't want to get them in general) but "whoreditch" is an awful, awful, awful title and it really depresses me an intelligent music reviewer would think otherwise.

I don't think "not giving his all" was people's main criticism...

They're already being hyped so why add to it by proclaiming their album to be a "classic"? All bands seem to do it and, whilst they could be an exception, so few albums ever are.

I remember the guitarist from Space being interviewed before the release of their (later permanently-shelved) album "Love You More Than Football" and he procliamed he'd "learned how to write classic songs" and that was the last we ever heard of them...

It does pretty much seem to be a lot of people marching to curtail free speech.

The Daily Mail article may well have been full of bullshit but, as they point out, they do have a right to reply (by writing to the papers or posting comments under the stories) and there is a Press Complaints Commission anyone is free to complain to if they feel a newspaper is out of order.

On the whole any protest much be to achieve something and I'm just not clear what this one is setting out to achieve given there are already channels in place to register dissatisfaction with a newspaper's content.

It's a simple and obvious logic that the more protests there are, the less sensation there is and the less anyone takes any notice of them. For example the Iraq protests got massive news coverage but if 2 million people marched through London protesting against something, no matter how trivial, every week then sooner or later it'd stop being newsworthy and no-one'd pay much attention to it. Plus 'cos you were given an equally outraged response to anything there'd be no way of distinguishing when you really felt strongly about something.

The right of protest is important and one people should use when necessary but it's something that needs to be used sparingly for maximum impact.

Just Jack's "Stars in their Eyes" just came on the commercial radio station that's on where I work and it struck me it seems inherently contradictory to have a song where someone warns of the dangers of fame and fortune which they've clearly released with the intention of being (as it clearly was) their breakthrough hit.

but I've made this rant several times in the last three years and I'm damn sure I wasn't being very original in doing so.

Surely everyone had spotted that inherent flaw by now?