This is a message for the semi-anonymous "Derek" from John Gill

Points taken amigo, and fairly stated. I've nothing against aggressive music. As a fan of Ornette Coleman and an old pal of Throbbing Gristle and as someone who single-handedly started a riot at an Einsturzende Neubauten gig, I could hardly throw stones living in this particular glass house.

But as a stroppy queer I find Muscle Mary Mats' pose tedious, annoying and verging on the obnoxious. Polar Bear, in contrast, are a bunch of tossers who hope that we listeners won't spot the sources they are ripping off. Look out for the Fraud CD when/if it gets released..

And, yeah, Jarrett's probably a multi-millionaire, and his Standards albums are so-so, but there are moments on 'Vienna' and elsewhere when his genius strikes terror in the soul. Well, this big girlie's soul, anyway...

If you ain't done so, check out queer genius Paul Schütze - anything with his name on it is worth your money...

Peace, man,

John.

John, thanks for taking the time to read, consider & reply to my off-the-cuff rejoinder. I appreciate the clarifications too. Haven’t actually heard Polar Bear yet, but your lumping them with the Bad Plus/Happy Apple crew definitely gives me pause to seek them out. Far as Mats, it sounds like you’re amenable to his music, just not his stage persona, which I can understand. There’s a lot going on with him musically besides stack blowing & muscle flexing much of the time, IMO.

With Jarrett’s stuff it’s mainly the ‘freer’ improv work done by the trio on albums like Changeless and Inside Out that gasses my jets. So I’m with you on the overall ebbing merits of the Standards projects, but agree that there are choice little surprises tucked away on many of them. I’m curious to learn what you think of a guy like James Carter, blustery, swaggering stud one minute, croony balladeer the next (and then there’s his Pavement covers project).

And also again about your Wilbur Ware findings (his mention in QN is tantalizingly brief), but maybe it’s better I contact you off-site on the about this?

I'll definitely keep an eye out for Paul Schütze, thanks for the rec.

Wondering too about other readers viewpoints on John’s piece. PT isn’t cursed/blessed with comments capability so this might be good place to develop a discussion… or not.

It has always seemed ludicrous to me to use terms such as "macho" to describe jazz (or any music), or to worry about the sexuality of those who play it. "Gender studies" has yet to shed any light on music. It is all banality of the highest order.

Derek, Paul,

My easiest email is johngillwrites@hotmail.com, and you're welcome to write.

To be honest, though, Derek, I was as turned off by The Thing's music as I was by the posing. Been there, done that, and decades ago. And, Paul, given that sex and love are often the over-arching themes of music, popular or otherwise ('Love Supreme', por ejemplo?), I think that gender, and queer, studies, offer us tools to re-examine popular culture in general. Try applying the theories of Roland Barthes to The B52's and see what you end up with landing in your lap ... it's fun...
John.

The piece would have been greatly improved by more explicit discussion of qualities in the music which seem overly "macho" to the writer. As it is, it's mostly a litany of names that the reader is simply expected to a) know, and b) know how the writer feels about them and their music without elaboration. In this way (and I'm only using this description because Mr. Gill has placed his sexuality at front and center), it reads like the shade-throwing of a gossipy queen, not the reasoned analysis of a jazz critic.

The two major musical observations in the piece were the attack on Polar Bear (who I haven't heard) and the phrase "Coltrane clichés and bald appropriations from other styles." In the former case, the claim that the music is unsurprising was mirrored in an experience I had some years ago, listening to Assif Tsahar's first album as a leader and being able to close my eyes and picture his record collection - Ayler, Trane, Wright, check, check, check. So while I'm not familiar with the case in question, I'm certainly familiar with the condition. In the latter case, well, yes, Coltrane's influence has been a monolith shadowing much jazz recorded since his death. But is Sonny Rollins, for example, to be condemned for "bald appropriations from other styles"? What about Jaki Byard? Or is this only bad when young men do it?

I haven't listened to Mats Gustafsson's work that I know of, so I can't cite aspects of his sound and/or technique that I find "macho." Is he similar to Peter Brötzmann? Cause him I've heard, at great and occasionally punishing length, and he can and does send the macho-meter straight into the red (though he kinda looks like a "bear," so maybe he's okay with the gay community).

And speaking of that, while I recognize that there are all kinds of shades between the poles of "straight" and "gay," and stereotypes are often wrong, I was somewhat surprised to see Gustafsson condemned by a gay man for his "weirdly macho obsession with his own physique," when the gay community pretty much keeps gyms in business in most major American cities.

Perhaps the weirdest aspect of the whole piece is that even by just making his broad-brush lists of names, Gill seems to indicate (to this reader, anyway) that the "macho jazz myth" he's so fired up over is already pretty much on the run. If Gill is to be believed, there are acres of sensitive, in-touch-with-their-feminine side jazz musicians boppin' around already. Criticizing the leather-lunged minority hardly seems worth it, if there are so many other items available on the sonic menu.

Actually, I take that back: the weirdest thing about the piece was the shout-out to the goddamned Red Hot Chili Peppers, who were tolerable for about five minutes in 1988 and are by now pretty much a plague on music.

Hi John Gill. You wrote: "To be honest, I was as turned off by The Thing's music as I was by the posing. Been there, done that, and decades ago."

I'd love to know who you're thinking of that played like the Thing decades ago. I'm also especially interested in names of other free jazz bands that you found busy "posing" decades ago. (Does that just mean dressing up? Even if so, I'd love to know who as I am fond of coordinated outfits in music.)

While I think all manners of cultural studies are valuable (and find it ridiculous that they have to be defended), I think statements like your "Try applying the theories of Roland Barthes to The B52's and see what you end up with landing in your lap ... it's fun..." are precisely why people don't take cultural studies seriously. Having "fun" debasing the work of an artist under the guise of uncovering its truth seems like the height of leisure-class snobbery to me.

Incidentally, have you heard Mats' take on Steve Lacy's music, Windows, or his recent solo disc Catapult? In other words, do you think all of his music is consistent with the label you put on it? I don't.

what "Unwrinked" said...

But where does that photo of Mats come from? It looks like a scene from a sci-fi monster movie. Does it have something to do with the red army of giant crustaceans infiltrating Scandanavia?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/03/0309_040309_giantcrabs.html

Nope, but those crimson pinchers of death do remind me of that Roger Corman creature feature classic Attack of the Crab Monsters. Actually, it’s a photo I pilfered & slapped with a quick Photoshop filter to riff on John’s portait of Mats & one possible reaction of Mats to it (ie. seeing red). Didn’t have time to cut & paste puffs of steam sprouting from the ears though ;)

Some good points (& some less so) raised. Fingers crossed that John responds.

Hey Jason, what happened to your Restructures website?

Derek,
Nothing has changed much with Restructures -- just doing my part to satisfy the record fetishists (and those who can't get enough of Mats and his Thing).
www.restructures.net
(an update is pending... any day now... any day...)

''And speaking of that, while I recognize that there are all kinds of shades between the poles of "straight" and "gay," and stereotypes are often wrong, I was somewhat surprised to see Gustafsson condemned by a gay man for his "weirdly macho obsession with his own physique," when the gay community pretty much keeps gyms in business in most major American cities.''

Maybe it isn't out of order to remind that Mats Gustafsson has been lately very close to community of musicians from Washington who esthablished harcore scene with it's emphasis on critical socio-political issues also regarding race and gender issues back in the 80s. Mats works closely w members of FUGAZI, one of the main part of that communitiy who almost totally excluded Bad Brains out of it cuz their homophobic issues drawn from their rasta culture ...

...not to mention his regular involvement with members of The Ex and his work with dancers... Mats' 13 year old daughter has performed with The Thing and Joe McPhee is a regular guest.

Gustafsson, Haker-Flaten and Nilssen-Love are much more versatile and nuanced artists than this article would have you believe.

I thought the skinhead comment was particularly unfair.

BTW. The Thing will be touring the US this month in all their macho glory. Catch them in a city near you.

...not to mention his regular involvement with members of The Ex and his work with dancers... Mats' 13 year old daughter has performed with The Thing and Joe McPhee is a regular guest.

Gustafsson, Haker-Flaten and Nilssen-Love are much more versatile and nuanced artists than this article would have you believe.

I thought the skinhead comment was particularly unfair.

BTW. The Thing will be touring the US this month in all their macho glory. Catch them in a city near you.

Just a few thoughts on this subject from a non-writer and non-cultural studies / queer studies / whatever person. Isn't it a bit convenient to classify Bill Evans or other "sensitive" jazz artists as queer-friendly, while Mats gets described as some sort of macho-hater? Not only convenient, but stereotypical? There sure seem to be proportionally as many macho/posing gay guys as straight guys, what is the difference really? I think a listener could easily call Cecil Taylor's music macho, what exactly makes it non-macho? his sexual orientation? that just seems odd.

The problem I often come up with in these sort of cultural studies articles is that you can pretty much make any claim and then spin just about anything to "prove" your point. It's nice to think about things differently, but this hardly seems like essential research or terribly critical thinking.

And as for the "been there, done that" argument of music criticism - that is even more tired then any music that the critics who use it are writing about. Why can't The Thing, for example, just be fun music? My take on it is that it's 3 jazz guys playing in a garage band - what's wrong with that? I really doubt they are trying to make some grand statement. But then, if you have to look at everything through your humanities-degree earning glasses, it's going to look a lot different from those of us who just play and enjoy music for itself.

upon further reflection, and to echo some of the above sentiments, i think it's rotten and insane to characterize gay-friendly if not gay-made music in such a narrow way as mr. gill. Since i just read Graham Lock's excellent "Blutopia" last week, gill's 'argument' reminds me of all the critics, even the positive ones, who tried to pigeonhole what 'black' 'jazz' was supposed to sound like, and complained when it didn't sound that way. Gill seems to complain that The Thing's music (or Gustafsson's onstage persona) "sounds" or "looks" macho, and he then infers that if it sounds macho, it must be homophobic!

Seems to me like the best thing to do is let straight and gay musicians make whatever music they feel like they have to make as people rather than expect a certain thing from them and be disappointed when they decide to be creative individuals.

-----
Hey lukaz - could you let me know what musicnas from Washington you're referring to Mats working with/ becoming close to? thanks.

"could you let me know what musicnas from Washington you're referring to Mats working with/ becoming close to?"

Guy Picciotto mixed & mastered Mats’ recent Blues album on Atavistic, so I’m guessing the two of them are pretty tight.

Girls! Girls!

This is turning into a violent weather event in a tea receptacle - and one, you might notice, conducted wholly by men...

To answer some of your points-

Been there, done that: Why not start with Archie Shepp, followed by, dunno, Globe Unity, Evan Parker, Misha Mengelberg, Han Bennink, Pop Group, Rip Rig and Panic ... etc, etc...

Gays and gyms: haven't been in one since I left school. I'm semi-bald, bearded, but wear diamante earrings. I'm also an astronomer who hikes up to 40km and can sail a yacht through a storm. I see no contradiction there, and neither should you.

Fun: What's wrong with fun? Even Wittgenstein must have had a laugh sometimes, and Roland Barthes certainly did, although personally I'd draw the line at Baudrillard.

The gay/straight thing: This is deeply, deeply boring, but perhaps the most salient point here is that, hey, buster, we homos didn't start this, you did. So don't be surprised if some "gossipy queen" (interesting choice of phrase there...) gets a little tetchy with the moronic either/or debate or Gustafsson's Wagnerian masculinism. Has it occurred to any of you that, basically, Matsy Boy is jazz's answer to Tony Iommi of Black Sabbath?

Homophobia: I never said Mats G was homophobic, just hysterically butch, and that feeds into a whole network of readings of gender and sexuality. If you can't see that, I'd recommend either a white stick or a guide dog.

Humanities degrees and cultural studies: Ain't got one, I dropped out to become a rock journalist in the era of punk. And why are some of you so scared of cultural/queer/gender studies? They're only theories, not papal fiats.

JG.

"Even Wittgenstein must have had a laugh sometimes"

No question. You should check out Norman Malcolm's book. He particularly enjoyed getting several people together to play the solar system.

OTOH, according to Monk's book he once responded to a landlady who asked him what he liked for lunch, that he didn't care what she gave him...so long as it was always the same thing.

BTW, I think I must have been one of the first to report publicly (a bunch of years ago now) that I'd never seen so much testosterone on one stage as when I caught that Mats-Brotz-Vandermark tentet. I wasn't offended by it, but the strutting around seemed pretty obvious (and kind of funny) to me.

I think this brings up some interesting ideas of what people think music infers by performance and sound. I'm not sure where The Thing's originality (or lack there of) fits into this line of gender discussion. I, too, don't think The Thing is that original, although I do enjoy them and plan on seeing them with Joe Mcphee in a couple weeks. I also don't hear much similarity between any of the examples that you think they sound like, Mr. Gill. But again, I digress. I think the problem here is that the arguement stated is based on little to no information about the performers other than what they look like and that they're playing is derivative and somehow macho. There are no real examples, nor any evidence that The Thing is guilty of being "macho" other than flexing their muscles (do they really do this?) and having questionable fashion sense. I don't know; it seems just kind of like dorky musicians to me. I need more to be swayed by such simply superfical and subjectively swayed observations. It would be different if they grunted and smashed beer cans into their foreheads. Anyway... I'm not saying this isn't an interesting train of thought as much as I'm saying it needs to far more fleshed out to be convincing. And the arguement has to be pretty damned thorough to convince anyone that powerful and loud music is invariably "macho."

>Has it occurred to any of you that, basically, Matsy Boy is jazz's answer to Tony Iommi of Black Sabbath?

If so, then I'm going to have to check his work out post-haste. I can think of few musicians more important to post-Sixties rock than Mr. Iommi.

Just for the record, john gill wrote "I never said Mats G was homophobic, just hysterically butch, and that feeds into a whole network of readings of gender and sexuality. If you can't see that, I'd recommend either a white stick or a guide dog."

If this 'whole network of readings' that we are supposed to see is not a clear implication on gill's part that mats 'machoness' is homophobia, what is it?

It's like gill knows that the accusation is moronic, so instead of saying it, he just wants to imply, imply, imply it.

though mr. gill's original piece of writing does not really deserve a response, i'd like to ask the folowing question without being rude: what is the reason for publishing something so inept by someone who doesn't even know the musicians they are writing about? Is the whole point just to get people increasingly amped up about a complete non-issue?

"What is the reason for publishing something so inept by someone who doesn't even know the musicians they are writing about?"
I wasn't going to intervene on this thread, but since I've been summoned to appear as the publisher of this particular article, I suppose I have to. As I said in my own Editorial introduction to this piece at PT, John Gill's piece doesn't necessarily represent my own views on the subject. I would like to ask you though how you happen to know that Gill doesn't even know the musicians they are writing about. How remarkably telepathic of you, Andrew.
"Is the whole point just to get people increasingly amped up about a complete non-issue?"
That might well describe about 80% of all discussions on this website, in my opinion. I don't see Gill's subject matter as being any more of a non-issue than the Tilbury discussion.

"I would like to ask you though how you happen to know that Gill doesn't even know the musicians they are writing about"
Apologies for the strange shift to the plural there.. that's what comes of excessive use of Control C Control V cut and paste ut and past cut and pat and past seewhatImean

zzzzzzzzzz...

This thing is spinning out of control.

For the record, I wrote about Mats G after seeing his band The Thing and MG in another band at the Jazz em Agosto festival in Lisboa last year. I found his stage presence literally unwatchable in both settings.

I was there to review the festival for a British jazz magazine. It's something I've been doing for the past thirty years.

The reference to Archie Shepp, Evan Parker et al wasn't to compare them to Matsy Boy's crap band, simply to suggest alternative aggressive jazz noise that has some imagination, rather that White Stripes covers.

Phil's welcome to his frankly deranged opinion of the clodhopping Iommi and Black Sabbath: I've been on the road with them, and they really are further-right-than-Margaret-Thatcher fascists.

Some of you seem to have a problem with critics (none of you are exactly Noam Chomsky yourselves), which is fine by me: I'm just a bloke in earrings with his personal opinion after thirty years of journalism. But some of you seem to be unnerved by queers, for which I would advise you to lock your doors carefully...

JG

From John Gill:
"Some of you seem to have a problem with critics (none of you are exactly Noam Chomsky yourselves), which is fine by me: I'm just a bloke in earrings with his personal opinion after thirty years of journalism. But some of you seem to be unnerved by queers, for which I would advise you to lock your doors carefully..."

Nice assumption there John. Don't know who all you are talking about, but don't suppose someone is unnerved by queers (he or she may even be one) just because they are calling "bullshit" on your calling "bullshit" on the Thing. Again, my supposition is that the Thing is a bunch of guys having fun playing music, which is really the reason anyone starts playing music in the first place, isn't it? So, you can have your fun applying Barthes and whomever to whatever you please and they can have theirs playing whatever music they please. The difference, to me, is that they aren't criticizing someone else's creativity. I think it's only fair that a critic can also be criticized.

Regarding:
"Humanities degrees and cultural studies: Ain't got one, I dropped out to become a rock journalist in the era of punk. And why are some of you so scared of cultural/queer/gender studies? They're only theories, not papal fiats."
Not scared, just bored. As you said earlier, been there, done that. I've obviously read and seen too many articles about post-modern animist readings of medieval church stained glass windows viewed through the cultural filter of bisexual cannibal Papuan shaman to have any sort of sense of which of those theories makes sense any more. So forgive me for thinking it's often just clearer and easier to say I like or don't like something at the present time and leave it at that. I may change my mind later. However, I'll never change my mind on the Pop Group! After 25 years, still one of my favorite bands ever.

John,

You are a welcome energy here. Although I don't necessarily agree in detail with everything you have written, I find comradery in your general theme.

Over and over again on this and other forums we have discussed jazz's life expectancy. I have known a lot of musicians in my life, and let me say, especially jazz, it could use a good queer infusion. Many of the latest artists seem to stem from the "macho" vein, which is not necessarily wrong, bad, or even heterosexual (I know some pretty macho gays). It is just tiresome, the imbalance.

But is this not just a natural consequence? I know when a little sexual, macho energy enters my being, I have an easier time getting through my day. Somehow it derives energy from, uh, nowhere. Chinese medicine doctors would say it comes from the kidneys.

But yes, it would be nice to see more than just the rock-star mentality dominating the jazz and improvised music scene.

Howdy,
I was gonna avoid posting on this one due to my pro-Mats bias and personal connection (organized a few gigs for him here in New Orleans over the years), but there are a couple ridiculous points of Mr.Gill's that need to be addressed:

1. RE: Tony Iommi/Black Sabbath's political beliefs. Phil never said Tony Iommi should be elected to office or lauded for his political insight. Phil merely said that he thought Iommi to be an important musician to post-60's rock, which is undeniably TRUE whether one likes Black Sabbath or not. They are hugely influential. This is fact. Whether or not he votes to the right is his own damn business, and unfortunate though that might be we still can't deny his originality on the guitar. (see Joe Carducci's book "Rock and the Pop Narcotic" for a more detailed case for Sabs' place in the rock canon).

But, just to clarify, Mats-G is not the Iommi of improv/free jazz. He is the Eddie Van Halen. And yes, i mean that as both non-ironic compliment (ok, i'm having a little fun at his expense too) AND as just plain ol' accurate evocative analogy, rock-crit style. I base this on a comment uttered by an audience member at Mats' first concert in New Orleans [solo, baritone mostly]) in 1997. The observer's comment regarded the impressive flash, technique, and - uh oh - showmanship of the performance. Maybe Don Dietrich or Jim Sauter would make more apt comparisons w/Mr. Iommi. The LP covers are similar sometimes, i guess.

2. If, during The Thing's gig that Gill saw at Jazz Em Agosto, he found their "stage presence" to be "literally unwatchable" then how did he SEE IT?!?

Very surprising that someone who covered the punk scene would take such offense at The Thing having some FUN and - oh dear lord - actually ROCKING THE FUCK OUT when they play. Most puzzling to me. If Gill doesn't like the music, then that's certainly valid if he would then describe the aspects of the music he does not like, but reading all sorts of other content into the music that just is not there strikes me as simplistic sterotyping...

So if we are to follow Mr. Gill's reasoning, all music played with volume and intensity is somehow a glorification or endorsement of violence...huh? Most of the time when i've seen Mats, Brotzmann, etc. i'm usually laughing in delight. Sounds joyful to me.

Hello to brother PG over in Austin!

Glad you caught my point, Rob. Iommi's politics are his own business; he's certainly never made an issue of them (Geezer Butler was Sabbath's primary lyricist). I had a feeling the analogy was pretty much totally inapt, but since I haven't heard Gustafsson I couldn't come right out and say so.

I unanxiously await Mr. Gill's self-righteous denunciation of the sartorial preferences of Elliott Sharp. And Michel Foucault.

Dan wrote: "I would like to ask you though how you happen to know that Gill doesn't even know the musicians they are writing about. How remarkably telepathic of you, Andrew."

No telepathy involved. Gill admits that all he's heard is the thing and "another band" at the festi9val in lisboa. He never responded to my initial question about what other mats he's heard. No telepathy involved.

Dan also wrote: "I don't see Gill's subject matter as being any more of a non-issue than the Tilbury discussion."

Isn't what we've learned from this collection of posts that there was no subject matter to Gill's "article"? And just to clarify further dan, if the point of gill's article wasn't to imply that mats' machoness is homophobic (or an elaborate coverup for homosexuality) WHAT WAS IT? To me, that's a non-issue. Not because it was not-specifically-about-music, but because it has nothing to do with any world. It is uninformed writing trying to load another issue onto his simple dislike of The Thing's music.

For you, the tilbury political discussion may be a non-issue because it doesn't relate to the music - fine. but don't defend your own poor editoring and disseminating of Gill's brand of trash 'criticism' by saying that discussions on this board are equally pointless. We are not edited. I genuinely have no idea what kind of editoring philosophy would make someone want to publish such a plainly idiotic article. Is that the best or most entertaining writing you can find?

Chill, Andrew. For the record I didn’t find John’s article “plainly idiotic” or lacking “subject matter” at all. I think his assumptions about Mats are a bunch of hogwash & also have reservations about his larger argument of “Macho Jazz” as a detrimental force undermining the health of the music as a whole. But I enjoyed reading the piece and appreciate his perspective, particularly the points regarding gender politics in jazz (a very real world topic IMO). John doesn’t dig Mats Gustafsson or Polar Bear, musically or otherwise. I could do without Dave Koz & Candy Dulfer on general principle & don’t necessarily see the need to back up my ire, ill-founded though it may be, with musical examples. Different strokes.

I heard someone's re-issuing the Thing's "She Knows" record with McPhee. Anyone know the status? That disc is straight dope.

"I heard someone's re-issuing the Thing's "She Knows" record with McPhee. Anyone know the status? That disc is straight dope."

Paal told me awhile back that Smalltown Supersounds was reissuing it along with the first one, the Don Cherry tribute. Smalltown was supposed to finish a new full length CD that pairs the Thing and McPhee with Cato Salsa Experience in time for their US tour. Seeing as how the tour starts next week... we shall see.

shout out to Rob in NOLA!. glad to hear you are well..

"I genuinely have no idea what kind of editoring philosophy would make someone want to publish such a plainly idiotic article. Is that the best or most entertaining writing you can find?"
Unfortunately I haven't had the pleasure of receiving any submissions for my magazine from you, Mr Wrinkle. But, just in case you change your tune and decide to be polite and civilised instead of boorish and insulting (which I could accept and deal with in the context of a private email rather than aired in public on the Web), let me assure you and the others who read this site that I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of featuring anything written by you now or at any date in the foreseeable future. You can keep your remarks to yourself, sir, and to quote Woody Allen, "Go forth and multiply - but not in those words."

oh dan, how thou hath pained me with thy snub. just so you know: i dont care a whipple's flit about you personally, but i do care about this music. and everyone i know that also thinks seriously about this music also thinks that the writing about it is generally on the level of terrible. you happen to be responsible for publishing a great concrete example of a piece of writing that makes thought turn around and go backwards so i wanted to know, from your standpoint, how/ where you viewed the positivity of this contribution to the critical environment surrounding the music.

If you don't think the music these people make deserves better journalism, c'est la vie. Enjoy the moot entropy.

"i dont care a whipple's flit about you personally"
Whipple's flit.. wow, I must remember that one. What IS a whipple's flit, by the way?
"but i do care about this music."
Well, congratulations! I'm sure that applies to everybody reading this, though. You're not alone, happily!
"the writing about it is generally on the level of terrible."
Perhaps you'd like to cite some other recent examples that have whippled your flit, Andrew..
"a piece of writing that makes thought turn around and go backwards"
How so? It's not exactly Carl Dalhaus Foundations of Music History, but what have you got against somebody else having their say?
"i wanted to know, from your standpoint, how/ where you viewed the positivity of this contribution to the critical environment surrounding the music."
I simply think it's a deliberately provocative piece of fun. To the best of my knowledge, Mr Gill isn't Professor of Music Theory at any major academic institution, nor am I, and nor are you. There are plenty of erudite analyses of new music out there on the Web and in specialist publications, if that's what you want. Or perhaps you prefer the solid boring congratulatory yawn-provoking album reviews that are par for the course in mags like Signal To Noise (unless it's Ben Watson who's writing them - and BY THE WAY even though he'd probably like to dribble my face down a stucco wall for what I wrote about his Bailey book, I'd be ready to publish a piece of hardhitting prose by Ben at Paris Transatlantic if he chose to submit one). Anyway, sorry if my little rag isn't to your taste. But please if you want to take issue with what I publish in such a forthright and (imo) negative way, send me a personal email. You know the address.

Wow......, I really think of both of you as undogmatic and openminded and willing to debate whatever opinion with sensable words. So keep doing that please......? (please.....)
Tell me if I'm wrong....
best
Cor

Just wanted to point out that neither "whipple's flit" nor any reasonable variation thereof merits a single google hit.

Cool! Hard to do!

Hmm, you know, it just occurred to me that pointless and incoherent writing is valuable as a stimulus to critical thinking and often more interesting than run-of-the-mill good writing. So from that angle I think it was good of Dan to run this Gill piece. But one thing I'm having trouble finding an answer to: does anyone know how many years Gill has been writing about music? I think that would be an interesting point to consider.

unwrinkled: "everyone i know that also thinks seriously about this music also thinks that the writing about it is generally on the level of terrible"

It would be helpful if you defined your terms. What do you mean by "terrible"? Better still, let's hear some concrete suggestions as to how the state of music writing can be improved.

Dan: “I simply think it's a deliberately provocative piece of fun”
I like deliberately provocative work too; however, I think it has to be founded on a deeper level of familiarity with the material it is provoking or analyzing than was the case here. I also think there was a much sharper undercurrent of dislike and desire for mats-eradication in Gill’s piece, and this prevents me from thinking about his work or his M.O. as innocent fun. I think musicians that work as hard as these people do and sacrifice as much as they do should be spared from half-thought attacks by people who distort (or don’t know) the musicians’ work in order to advance their own personal/ genderized agenda. [this is impossible enough in other areas of journalism, so perhaps it was way too idealistic of me to think that it wouldn’t happen here]

As far as addressing these issues in personal emails – I think plenty of private chatter goes on and not enough honest public debate. We all feel passionately invested in this music and while I may think negatoively about your decision to publish Gill’s piece, I don’t think it’s an attck on you personally to ask why you did. Obviously you think it is a good contribution to the culture of this music; I think it’s a detriment and an obfuscation. But maybe discussing our different views can lead to richer experiences with the music, and maybe more considered writing.

In terms of me possibly wanting “erudite analyses”, all I want is writing that can compete in the same ballpark attention-wise as the music. I also do like analysis – not musicological, but personal and experiential analysis: what does the music do to you? When? With what sounds?

Brian asked for concrete examples of how the state of the writing can mbe improved. Well, money sure would help, since it sure don’t pay to write about the stuff (or make it) so there’s not much competition. I don’t know about how to improve the “state” of the music, but I’d love to see a couple musicians edit a mag with some writing in it. We could probably all learn from how the musicians talk about and think about what they do. (This is idealistic I know). As far as individually what could be done, while I do like to fool my dog into thinking that I am the guru of all that is of the earth, I’m going to refrain from fooling myself into thinking that my suggestions will be noticed, much less heeded, but here are a couple: 1) give more physical details of what you hear and how it affects you 2) when youre affected, emotionally or otherwise, write about it 3) avoid wholesale relegations/ celebrations of musicians whose work you’re not deeply familiar with 4) write about unconsciously discovering connections to music in the past/ do not consciously try to find comparisons from the past. 4a) don’t use these connections or comparisons to judge the music; use them to get more inside it 5) feel free to write personally, especially if the music reminds you of things 6) don’t worry about hurting the feelings of musicians you know/ are friends with (it’s a small world I know, but honesty and passion should go hand in hand. And I think the devoted musicians will, in the long run, appreciate thoughtful criticism. [Cuz suggestion 3 is still in effect and critiquing individual performances/ records should not be a critique of someone’s life’s work]) 7) have more room to write longer things

I feel uncomfortably pedantic listing these things, especially to people overly familiar with the process of attemnpting to put thoughtful words together about this music, BUT I WAS ASKED TO!

"money sure would help, since it sure don’t pay to write about the stuff (or make it) so there’s not much competition."
Where would the money come from, I wonder? Who pays me for putting 3+ hours a day 7/7 on the website? Why do I do it? How about love for the music too? Not much competition? Try The Wire, mate.
"1) give more physical details of what you hear and how it affects you"
Back to Nat Hentoff blow-by-blow description, then?
"2) when youre affected, emotionally or otherwise, write about it"
Scuse me for being churlish but that seems to be precisely whatn Gill did in his article.
"3) avoid wholesale relegations/ celebrations of musicians whose work you’re not deeply familiar with"
Naming no names, naming no names...
"4) write about unconsciously discovering connections to music in the past/ do not consciously try to find comparisons from the past."
I find this very confusing. Why should an unconscious discovery have any more intrinsic value than a conscious informed search for comparisons? You'll have to provide me with a concrete example of this, I'm not at all convinced.
"4a) don’t use these connections or comparisons to judge the music; use them to get more inside it"
As I wrote above, are you campaigning for a more music theory approach? A real analysis? Define your terms. "Get inside it" sounds vague and woolly.
"5) feel free to write personally, especially if the music reminds you of things"
Well (chortle) surely that's what Mr Gill did, isn't it? He wrote personally that The Thing reminded him of skinheads. It's fine to encourage people to "write personally" but don't slap them down when they do and come up with something you don't happen to like.
"6) don’t worry about hurting the feelings of musicians you know/ are friends with"
Could you tell us the names perhaps of some musicians of your acquaintance who you've openly criticised in print? What about musicians you DON'T know? Is it OK to have a go at someone if his/her name isn't in your address book? (In which case Gill is perfectly entitled to write what he did about Mats, no?)
"I think the devoted musicians will, in the long run, appreciate thoughtful criticism."
How long's the long run, Andrew?
"7) have more room to write longer things"
Jeez, I think we're erring on the long side anyway. I can certainly see why Mike Parker likes you so much, Andrew.
Once more, I'd like you - since you openly advocate debating this in public here at Bags - to provide us with a list of articles / reviews from recent publications (print, online) that you both like and dislike, and your reasons for so doing. I categorically refuse to subscribe to your idea that the writing on the scene is "terrible". And, amusingly, the article you took offence to seems to correspond rather well to several of the criteria you mention on your checklist above.

The money equation is a strange one.

If more cash (Bill Gates, we need you to flex your mighty philanthropic muscle - or do we?) were to be pumped into the, for want of a better word, 'scene', it probably wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to the nature or quality of the writing. To write well about any of the musics covered - and covered well, IMO - in such as Bags, Paris Transatlantic and The Wire, you need years of in-depth knowledge and commitment. Nobody who does this is under the illusion that they'll be well-remunerated for their efforts. It is, in other words, a labour of love. Consider the hours that Dan puts in to make PT a must-read every month. Occasionally he'll be given a few juicy carrots, and sometimes someone like unwrinkled will lay a stick across his back. Neither is likely to sway him in his commitment.

Are there highly skilled, knowledgeable writers just waiting for a fat cheque to be waved in front of them, whereupon they'll spring to their laptops and start clacking out magnificent reviews and articles? I suspect not. Would publishing new (and more) mags lead to greater in-depth coverage or just wider coverage? Probably the latter. Would there be an extensive readership for this much-expanded industry? Likely not, non-mainstream musics will always have limited appeal.

It’s hard to see what a cash influx would achieve apart from Buddha smiles all round.

I don't think anybody should be surprised that most writing about music isn't terribly good. As Spinoza said, "All things excellent are as difficult as they are rare." Do people really think that Bagatellen, the Wire, Paris Trans, STN, Dusted and the like are, like Lake Woebegone, places where all writing is above average? (Though, I note, according to these mags, pretty much all music is superlative.)

Anyhow, I'd give Andrew Porter as an example of someone who wrote deeply, provocatively, insightfully, and knowledgeably about music. That kind of writing takes a lot of time and trouble, however, and the stuff I've read by Porter all appeared in the NYer.

i'm sorry dan i think we just disagree and should accept it. i give up. i dont think answering any of your queries would lead to anything but more awareness of a disagreement. it's probably just me and my small group of friends that think that so much writing about this music is terrible.

While i do in certain point agree that some writing about improv, jazz, etc ... is not good (since i write about it in my country i belive that we 're all in this together) i still think it's a generalization and would for fuck sake want to know which ones are the bad ones also. Why not point fingers on the ones who are doing that directly? It's the same issue as lately in so called EAI circles where i constantly read that among the vast pool of sound artists there are some who might be called dilletants. And it stops there, without names involved. Please i would like the list w explanations also in that area, not for the sake of ''the list'' but to start a propper debate about it with facts and disagreements not just empty generalizations. Please fire yr guns or stop this bullshit ...

John Gill. I very much enjoyed your piece over at PT. It's always fun to see a "gendered" treatment of music and its varied poses. You did a fine job. and thanks for publishing it, DW.

It'd be funny if there was an out-music analogue of Tigerbeat. Maybe it could be Aardvarkbeat or Pangolinbeat or something, and it could be all about the dreamy musicians and their hair and clothes and physiques, and which ones are "butch" or "femme" or whatever, with tittering sexual innuendoes and Roland Barthes too of course!!!

What do you think, John Gill? It's got everything you like and could be hiply/smugly ironic and genderbendery and you wouldn't have to bother writing about boring musical stuff which as everybody knows is just dancing about flapjacks anyhow!

It really could be funny, if it were done right. Hmm ....

Greetings,

John Gill,

I sincerely enjoyed reading & gaining insight on your perceptions. Though I believe considering The Thing (or Mats Gustafsson) macho or reminiscent of "skinheads" is a bit unfair. I do not believe all music with a loud aesthetic choice is entirely masculine. Albums such as Machine Gun, Meditations, The Garage, or Spiritual Unity evoke emotions that are perhaps not present among the musicians personalities themselves. But hey, what do I know?

Regards,

Alexander

Jesus mary and joseph!

One homo and an iMac causes havoc in the websphere!

Thank you to Alexander and others for supportive comments, but, really, the rest of you ought to get a grip. And Lukaz ought to learn English...

To repeat, as a pal of Throbbing Gristle and someone who single-handedly started a riot at an Einsturzende Neubauten gig (no one came back at that) I have no problem with loud or aggressive music. I just want it to say something new.

Black Sabbath are fascists, pure and simple. I don't care if they don't put it into their songs, but I don't think you'd need the help of Roland Barthes to decode 'Iron Man'. It's enough that I had to sit in a hotel room with them while they expounded their repulsive opinions. Where I come from we have a saying: The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi.

I actually looked away the two times I had to review Matsy Boy's performances at Jazz em Agosto. For the record, the second was with tedious turntablist Otomo Yoshohide, who was doing John Cage's 'Cartridge Music' fifty years after John Cage did 'Cartridge Music', and 'Cartridge Music' was boring the first time around, which was in part Cage's point.

As a journalist, cleaving to Whitney Balliett's classic "sound of surprise" definition of jazz, I look out for the different, the new, which is why I find the sonic assaults of Norway's Shining, for example, hilarious and thrilling. Conversely, I find Dave Douglas usually pretty dull. But I revere the Art Ensemble of Chicago, and was heartbroken at the loss of Lester Bowie. Then again, much post-modern jazz - that twat who did the Goldberg Variations with scratch DJs a decade after scratch DJs became passe? - is risible.

A word of warning, though; all your ire is only making me more and more intent on slapping Matsy Boy the next time I get near him...

JG

[John Gill] "And Lukaz ought to learn English..."

Whilst I otherwise don't have the remotest interest in this conversation, I do take offence at that comment. How's your Slovenian John?

"For the record, the second was with tedious turntablist Otomo Yoshohide"

actually Yoshihide, one of the few most consistently compelling live musicians in the world today, and your loss.

and your comment about Luka is even more inane than your original piece and your followups here, which is saying something. so congrats on that!

[John Gill] "And Lukaz ought to learn English..."

I agree with you that i don't express my thoughts clearly enough through foreign language (although if i would read yr remark in radical way i could call you a fascist also, but since i don't see it in that way don't bother). Anyway my last post was not aimed at you directly but to Unwrinkled and others who are making some general remarks & opinions without concrete examples or facts. And it doesn't matter if i don't agree with you on many things from the article i still enjoyed reading it. For example yr take on Simon Frith may be true from where you come from but from where i come from (Slovenia) Frith's role was quite important for a development of sociology of music on our university and more importantly for only good music criticism there is in our country (and the situation here if much worse than situation that is under discussion here) regardless if he really is ''sad old upper middle class tedious Oxbridge snob /.../ Simon''.

Yr comment on Otomo Yoshihide may be valid from historical point but to me it only shows a music criticsm which has been there for too long and should stop it's activity since ''we have seen it all before'', without even trying to see things in the context of present situation.

"And Lukaz ought to learn English..."

I would like to have Lukaz's fluency in english !
And mpreover his knowledge in music is great, as I can guess...

Maybe should we turn this board into slovenian or french !

"Yr comment on Otomo Yoshihide may be valid from historical point"

no.

"For the record, the second was with tedious turntablist Otomo Yoshohide, who was doing John Cage's 'Cartridge Music' fifty years after John Cage did 'Cartridge Music', and 'Cartridge Music' was boring the first time around, which was in part Cage's point."
Ah dear John, newcomer to Bags that you are, you don't yet realise that this is a red rag to a bull as far as Jon Abbey is concerned. I would like to have some clarification on this though.. where is it written John that Cage intended Cartridge Music to be boring? And Jon how is Otomo's work - when he actually uses the cartridges of course - all that different from Cage?

come on, Dan, do you really think a half-assed comment like John's deserves a well considered answer? I get that you'd like him to keep writing for PT, so you're going to defend him, but you could answer your question to me as well as I could. hopefully Mr. Gill's future pieces for PT, if any, will be a bit more insightful and a bit less superficial.

on a related note, I was thinking last night that contemporary music journalism is one of the rare fields where "thirty years of experience" is more of an obstacle than anything else, as it's almost impossible to keep up with what's really going on for that long, and even harder to maintain one's interest level and enthusiasm.

the best example is the self-appointed Dean, Robert Christgau, who's been covering music for close to 40 years now, and has had virtually nothing of interest to say for the last 15-20 of those. there are exceptions, I'm sure, for instance I don't know how long Marcello Carlin has been writing, but he's still very compelling reading in 2005. I'm not especially familiar with John's work previous to this, but his above rave recommendation of Paul Schütze in combination with his dismissal of Otomo pretty much tells me all I need to know personally about his taste.

in an effort to learn a bit more about Mr. Gill's work, I clicked on Derek's link to Amazon in the initial post. after seeing his own comment on his book, I clicked on the reader comments he has made there, seven reviews, excerpts from three:

"As a critic of thirty years standing"
"And I've followed them for more than 30 years as fan and critic."
"and I speak as a critic and someone who has been listening to this band for over thirty years"

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2HJBWRKCHYK55/ref=cm_cr_auth/102-8448092-7718521?%5Fencoding=UTF8

[Dan] And Jon how is Otomo's work - when he actually uses the cartridges of course - all that different from Cage?

[Mike] But Dan, how is Michel Doneda's work—when he actually blows into the reed of course—all that different from Charlie Parker?

"But Dan, how is Michel Doneda's work—when he actually blows into the reed of course—all that different from Charlie Parker?"
Tu te fous de ma gueule ou quoi?

Blimey, now I'm getting beaten up by Warburton too.

Cage said, and this is a direct quote, that he had nothing to say and was saying it, and if you've heard or seen 'Cartridge Music' you'd know what he meant. Read his books.

Yoshohide tells me nothing new about music that Cage didn't tell me 30 years ago. In that, he could be said to be 'new' music's answer to the Glenn Miller Orchestra.

And, quite simply, Paul Schütze is a genius. I will brook no argument on that matter... and so is Steven Brown...

It might or might not amuse you to learn that some of your dismissive comments - while I'm grateful for the kindlier ones - have so far not lost me a nanosecond of sleep...

JG

"And, quite simply, Paul Schütze is a genius."

Of course, I will not argue such a peremptory statement.
But if so, what about Jean-Luc Guionnet's work on organ ?
Did you listen to :
TIRETS: http://www.hibarimusic.com/e/catalog/hibari05.html
PENTES:
http://www.abruitsecret.com/francais/jlg_(fre).htm

PS : Of course, I don't agree with your judgment on Otomo :-)

John Gill: "Yoshohide tells me nothing new about music that Cage didn't tell me 30 years ago."

You're misremembering Cage - thirty years is a long time, and you don't seem to have re-heard/read him in recent years. Your naked assertion that "'Cartridge Music' was boring the first time around, which was in part Cage's point" is completely unsupported by Cage's writings and interviews. Much of what you have to say is nonsense (albeit sometimes entertaining nonsense), but your woefully misguided comment about Otomo really takes the biscuit. And this thing about earrings . . . do they inform your writing in some way? Why keep on mentioning them? They're relevant to your self-image but irrelevant to your argument - if, indeed, you have an argument. Instead of making wild, scattergun assertions, why not hone in on some particularity and thoroughly address it. If earrings are the point, by all means write about them, but please leave music out of it, you haven't got a clue.

I wear earrings too. My wife likes them a lot.

[John] Cage said, and this is a direct quote, that he had nothing to say and was saying it, and if you've heard or seen 'Cartridge Music' you'd know what he meant. Read his books.

[Mike] I don't see how this statement could be used in any way to support a belief that "'Cartridge Music' was boring the first time around, which was in part Cage's point". Somehow I suspect you're among those who have dishonored Cage by propagating caricatures of his ideas—reading his books and then proving yet again that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

[John] Yoshohide [sic] tells me nothing new about music that Cage didn't tell me 30 years ago. In that, he could be said to be 'new' music's answer to the Glenn Miller Orchestra.

[Mike] You should be careful not to make generalizations about a musician based on one performance (I know many of us, including me, are occasionally guilty of this). If you were familiar with even 20% of Otomo's [Otomo is his surname; Yoshihide is his given name] work, you'd never make such an absurd statement, because he's a diverse and blatantly innovative musician. By the way, music is supposed to be enjoyed, not taken as a demonstration of novelty. It's unlikely that any serious listener of contemporary music would be unable to find at least a few works by Otomo that they could enjoy very deeply.

Pardon my intrusion, but has Mr. Cage been doing some writing from the grave of which I am unaware? Unless I'm mistaken, he's not written nor has he been interviewed for some time. Could it be that Mr. Marley has a special conduit to the hereafter?

What Cage said and wrote is on the record. I've drawn from it, Gill has not.

Phil: "I wear earrings too. My wife likes them a lot."

Glad to hear it, Phil. I'll bear it in mind whenever I read one of your reviews and adjust accordingly.

Tell you what: if Gill can come up with a statement from Cage is which he says the intention of Cartridge Music was to be boring, I'll wear a pair of daimante earrings for a week in his honour.

Haha! And I'll wear lipstick to my gig here in Gay Paree on Thursday night!

Cage also said that if you find something boring, it says nothing about the thing in question; it says only that you've found a way to be bored.

And that if you find something boring after a minute, pay attention to it for two minutes, then four, eight, 16, etc.: eventually you will find it to be very interesting. However, I suspect that John Gill is a counterexample to this.

nous ne sommes pas épatés

Wow, words make such filmsy slings & arrows, when do we start in with the pillorying and rotten vegetables?

I was thinking last night that contemporary music journalism is one of the rare fields where "thirty years of experience" is more of an obstacle than anything else, as it's almost impossible to keep up with what's really going on for that long, and even harder to maintain one's interest level and enthusiasm.

That interesting, if controversial, view is consonant with something one of my heroes, George Moore, wrote in his "Memoirs of My Dead Life" (1906):

"...one knows very little of any generation except one's own....I am the youngest of the naturalists, the eldest of the symbolists. The naturalists affected the art of painting, the symbolists the art of music; and since the symbolists there has been no artistic manifestation--the game is played out. Whey Huysmans and Paul and myself are dead, it will be as impossible to write a naturalistic novel as to revive the megatherium....When Monet is dead it will be as impossible to paint an impressionistic picture as to revive the ichthyosaurus. A little world of ideas goes by every five-and-twenty years, and the next that emerges will be incomprehensible to me as incomprehensible as Monet was to Corot."

I wonder what others think about this--especially the old codgers....

well, I'm an old 33 and I agree, except in the rarest of cases.

..and I'm a dashingly young 42 and think it's a cool quote too. Old codgers? Geroffofit. "You're only as old as the woman you feel" - Groucho Marx
Thanks for putting that Cage quote in, Mister Bourgeois. I haven't bought the lipstick yet, and it doesn't look like I'll have to :)

you should wear the lipstick anyway.

If it doesn't make you prettier in one minute, look in the mirror for two minutes; if it doesn't look better in two minutes, look for four minutes &c.

Or you could play it - no-input mixing lipstick, shade optional.

john gill: "[...] Andrea Dworkin, who by the way happens to be a heroine of mine."

I hope that's a joke...

'"[...] Andrea Dworkin, who by the way happens to be a heroine of mine."
I hope that's a joke...'
I rather doubt it is, somehow.

sorry to have to go back to this thread about the state of the the writing about this music, but after I read lukaz ultimatum to talk about specific pieces and writers or shut up, I agreed that there may be benefit in going into detail, at least as to why I was so radically disenchanted. So for writers I tend to enjoy – Bill Meyer (excellent interview w/ John Butcher a couple issues ago in STN); Duck Baker and Stuart Broomer are usually great. And I love the old bananafish style writing. I don’t like thurston moore and whoever else writes for arthur. I think Kurt Gottshalk review of Fred longberg holm’s dialogs in STN tells me nothing about the music or about it’s relation to fred’s other solo cello work. I don’t think Raymond Cummings’ review of The Necks and Radio massacre int’l in the same issue of STN is very good either.

I should probably just let it slide, but since I’ve now had more than 15 minutes to think about the kind of writing I would like to see – I’d also like to see more radical statements about the implications of the music rather than rehashings of what the people involved in its production have done in the past (thoiugh sometimes this is inextricably related to past projects). I’d like to see a whole lot less comparing of the music to contemporary theory or philosophy. And maybe that’s the biggest thing that upsets me: musicians and albums get thrown around - without sustained analysis - as examples of this that or the other philospohical episteme. And that’s by people within academic instutions who are, however meagerly, getting funded to write/ think such things. (Or maybe I’m just bitter that I don’t have that opportunity)

it’s most likely that I just projected my own distaste for casual references to outstanding music onto the audience at large. which is really not fair considering that the first thing I ever read in PT was gill’s piece, and the most I remember of reading the wire years ago is the thought that bruce carnevale must be a jaded moron intent on actively misrepresenting the new music he hears (which won’t ever live up to the formative music he loves but won’t tell us about.)

and since this website is the first time ive been introduced to a (virtual) community of people knowledgabel about this music, I wrongly assumed that others would have the same reaction to gill’s idiotic writing (just my opinion): that it was representative of a larger trend.
ultimatey I just really wish I had the time to devote to giving this music the writing I think it deserves, and that I see all too rarely. (while it may be debatable whether money would help the state of the writing, it would sure as hell help me refuse other jobs that I have to take.)

"And I love the old bananafish style writing."

So do I. I dig their crazy writing. And their choice to write articles on less known musicians.
But very difficult for me to unbderstand. A hard reading exercise :-)

I was told that Bananafish was finished. Is it true ?

Another good magazine is The Sound Projector.

Well Unwrinkled now you're talking- thanx for sharing that. As for Gill's writing and his further comments i think it is not idiotic but very arrogant, kind of self-sufficient and for me when a critic comes to that stage (know many of them in my country), he should stop doing his job or at least reconsider his role as a music critic ...

Gill is just foregrounding another issue that typically gets left off the map of discussions about music. I liked his piece. It was humorous and brought the gender question into the center for a change. If you're looking for another kind of criticism, look elsewhere. It's not his purpose in this piece to address the kinds of questions enumerated above nor should it be for such a feature. It's wrong to expect all forms of criticism to cover all dimensions of music in a review--aesthetic, gender, social, technical, etc. Take it for what it is and what it was trying to do.

Hey Jacques - Bananfish is officially over, though it sure feels good to keep picking up the old ones.

http://www.midheaven.com/bin/search.cgi/datedartist=bananafish

for ordering and for denoting that #18 was "The final issue"

not to flog a dead horse, but during the closing of the Houston show, the Thing broke into Sabbath's Iron Man! Mr. Gill may be onto something.

The Thing's Texas shows were phenomenal. the audiences went nuts. I highly recommend seeing them on the rest of the tour.

Mats is a kind, artistic person with a post-punk style.
In his essay John Gill smears Mats based on his appearance. Only a lame editor would publish such a thing. Betcha Warburton will be backstage at Mats' next Paris gig handing him his latest cd.

Joe is right.
Im not interested in the sexual orientation, clothing, stage manner, or appearance of musicians:im interested in whether they make compelling music.
Mats,happily, does. This kind of discussion is rather tasteless, a reaction which ,i wager, would be shared by other contributers to this site if we started making judgements on their clothing,appearance and sexual orientation.Anyone who doubts this might like to read the outraged responses on previous threads by those who have had their musical tastes attacked.
They are irrelevent to the music.

OK Joe so I'm lame, my editing is lame, my writing is lame, I'm a funny little two faced etc etc? (I'm quoting your private mails to me, guitar hero, since you seem to want to go public.) Happy? Want me to take my fucking pants down and smack myself while we're at it? Do you think the readers of Bagatellen might like to see a photo of me being bullwhipped, or something? If all you're going to do is visit every goddamn thread on this site and dump a heap of SHIT in it I'm OUT OF HERE. You can have Bagatellen to yourself, mate. You want to trade insults man you send them direct to me and I'll give you as good as you dish out - leave them off this site, please. This is not having fun, this is being gratuitously nasty. And Nate was right - VERBOSE.

Joe, I’m all for freely-voiced dissenting opinions, but let’s keep the shit civil. Respect is a two-way street; you can’t very well expect it if you’re not willing to give it. If you want a punching bag, pick me instead.

Thanks in advance for your understanding & cooperation.

Nothing Joe said hasn't been said or implied by others. Why freak out on him? His post seems alot more civil than Dan's

Who’s freaking out? It's a simple request & I’m getting a bit tired of the whole egg-tossing contest across threads, not to mention scraping the dried yolks & pieces of shell off the Bagatellen masthead.

Hmm, I personally admire Dan's writing a lot in the majority of cases and as lame as Gill's piece is, I don't think it reflects badly on Dan for publishing it; it was obviously of interest to many of us and I'm glad he published it and let readers think through the topic for themselves.

That said, Joe's post in this thread was neither "gratuitously nasty" nor "verbose". It was a cleanly stated and reasonable opinion. If anything, I think it's Dan and Derek's responses that were slightly gratuitous. I mean, why even respond at all to simple post like that?

You are all fine, admirable people as far as I'm concerned. Even Gill and Schütze (I used to like his stuff in high school) are okay by me.

Thanks, Mike. Hopefully your heartfelt call for brotherly love will be heard & heeded.

Someone please ask Mats what he thinks of that article. Please.
Seeing as you are all experts on what is civil.

Mats found out about it about a month after it was published and emailed me at once. He was understandably surprised and angry - more surprised than angry though - and keen to get in touch directly with John Gill. So I forwarded him John's email. I don't know if Mats took it any further. "How does he know I'm not gay?!" was one of the lines of his email to me. He also printed out a copy of the text and gave it to his daughter's godfather, who IS gay, and who found it "hilarious". Mats refused my invitation to write a formal letter for the PT Letters Page, and expressed no desire to have the article changed or removed from the site. Feel free to check directly with him, Joe, if you like. You have his email address.

DW:

Like I said, Mats is a kind guy.
Why didn't you mention that in this thread instead or writing all of the other stuff you wrote? His input puts an end to the argument against him.

As far a criticism of your editing goes, I think "lame" is pretty mild. Is this how you always respond to criticism?
Sound familiar? Or was I just too general with my swipe? Maybe you're only lame sometimes. I don't know I haven't read everything you've edited.

Amazing how little criticism you can take. If my comment had been a rave instead of a pan?, . . . well you know thw rest

I already had his e-mail.

"Why didn't you mention that in this thread instead or writing all of the other stuff you wrote?"
Because he didn't mail me until early December, after all the above had been written, Joe.
"Is this how you always respond to criticism?"
Only from you, mate!
"Maybe you're only lame sometimes. I don't know I haven't read everything you've edited."
Well you know where to find more!