any enthusiasm about lou's new albums is shared by me, a long-time friend of any of his outputs(metal machine music put aside).
before i got myself a copy of "ecstasy" i read a newspaper comment on it, saying it was lou's worst album, except for "like a possum".
nonetheless i looked forward to listening to lou.
but, what shall i say? with the best of my will i've been listening to this album time and again, and it's getting weaker and weaker, perhaps the newspaper man was right...

i followed a similar trajectory with reed's music -- started with New York and ended with Magic and Loss, and collected a lot of the older stuff on the way. i first heard him on MTV (of all places!), the video for "Dirty Blvd". i was in middle school at the time, probably 12 years old, and i thought it was the coolest thing in the world that he was talking through the song.

I’ve only had the disc since August & it’s still sounding great to my ears. But who knows? Maybe the luster will fade in the coming years. Funny that that newspaper guy picked “Like a Possum” as the album’s prime cut as I found it to be one of the weaker ones overall: starts solid, but looses steam in the second half.

My other two purchases, the live ones, were mixed bags. Perfect Night Live in London is a stripped down, almost unplugged sounding, set with some dubious song choices (“Original Wrapper” anyone?). But there’s a passionate version of “Dirty Blvd.” to close it out. “Small kid stands by the Lincoln tunnel, selling plastic roses for a buck… traffic’s backed up to 39th street; the TV whores are calling the cops out for a suck.”

Animal Serenade suffers from long-windedness, occasional sloppiness, and a lot of wonky guitar synth from Mike Rathke. I haven’t really gone back to it since the first couple spins.

Before I ever heard Lou Reed, an older buddy whose taste I trusted described his vocals thus: "I can't really sing, so I'll just read you these awesome lyrics I wrote." I like Rock 'n' Roll Animal and its companion piece Lou Reed Live, and can tolerate The Blue Mask and Legendary Hearts, but that's pretty much it. (Never heard Live In Italy, the BM/LH-era disc, but might be willing to give it a listen.) He's massively overrated (not as overrated as the Velvet Underground, though).

There you go pulling out your prose .45 and killing an idol again, pdf. There's more to music opinion than pedantic polemics, at least IMHO.

There's a difference between being bad and being overrated. Reed has his merits (another favorite track I forgot to mention above was "Strawman" from New York, which features one of my favorite guitar solos ever, by anybody). But no one could ever possibly be as good as his partisans claim he is. Same goes double for the VU. I don't actually like any of their albums front-to-back, having listened to the first four a few times each over the years (mostly friends' copies; the only one I ever went out and paid cash for was the debut). And yet, review after in-depth feature after long rambling hagiography exists calling them The Greatest Thing To Ever Happen To Rock Music, Ever. Sorry, no. Even if they were, in fact, good (a judgment I dispute), there's no way they could possibly be that good. Nobody is. (See Schlippenbach Trio review currently on front page for another example of this kind of letter-from-the-fan-club-president idiocy.)

And before anybody goes Googling, yes, I have been guilty of this sort of thing myself in the past. That doesn't make it any easier to stomach in others.

Are you accusing me of idiocy, Phil?

Some things really are great, the Schilippenbach trio is 34 + years of disciplined work ethic into their career. It is not any kind of mystery that they are so great, and they are pretty much just as great as they should should be not less, not more.

They are hardly comparable with any pop icon even though Reed is hipper than most.
Still, it is unfortunately not very tough to imagine things like "discpline" and "work ethic" being lost on you.

And before anybody goes Googling, yes, I have been guilty of this sort of thing myself in the past.

And you’ll be guilty of it in the future, anointing artists & bands with your own stylized array of superlatives (ass-rapingly great, anyone?). Everyone has his or her personal pantheon. From what I’ve gathered, your’s includes Steely Dan, Motörhead & Napalm Death (the last two hyperbolically praised on your blog as recently as Friday), among others. None of those targets is bulletproof either. It’s no fun standing in the ruins of a glass house, shards sprinkled in hair, stone in hand.

Expecting us not to scream and run from the words "melodious power ballad" does seem a little naive...

while I continue to believe that Phil has arguably the worst taste of any critic ever (seriously), here's a rare case I happen to (partly) agree with him. Lou solo wasn't really ever very good, lyrics or music. Robert Quine helped on a few discs, but even most of those don't hold up very well. he's the Woody Allen of rock and roll, he has nothing to say and he's going to keep saying it once a year until he dies or until absolutely everyone stops caring, whichever comes first.

on the other hand, while they are probably slightly (slightly) overrated, the first and third Velvets records are far better than probably anything in Neanderthal Phil's iPod at the moment, and two of the best rock records by anyone from that era. I do think White Light/White Heat's somewhat overrated, with the exception of the brilliant "The Gift".

Naïve? Maybe so. Please explain how that particular phrase has the power to strike fear into the heart of the reader? And who is “us” exactly? Is there more than one person hiding under the moniker “judgeofthat”?

As far as Reed, I’m not trying argue that he’s above reproach. There’s plenty of his stuff that I don’t dig, solo and with the Velvets. As mentioned above, Animal Serenade feels bloated & shrill to my ears. But his importance in rock history is also something I wouldn’t refute. I’ve gotta agree with Narew on this one, Phil. Feels like you’re firing rounds just to hear the gun go off. Better to holster the sidearm and avoid shooting yourself in the foot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_ballad

Easy, Jon. Bags has been pie fight free for a month, let’s keep it that way. Besides, I thought I occupied the coveted spot on your mantle as “worst critic”. :)

Phil, another question to add to the queue… have you heard that Schlippenbach Trio disc?

I doubt I ever called you that, Derek. your taste is pretty different from mine and you're way way more tolerant than me, but within a specific artist's catalog, you're at least capable of differentiating between their better and worse releases.

Phil would do as well throwing darts at someone's catalog as he does currently, plus he manages to combine totally half-assed "reviews' ("I listened to this twelve disc box set for TWO WHOLE HOURS before selling it back to the store") with incredibly boisterous and strongly held "opinions'. it's amazing to me that anyone continues to pay him to write about music, which I suppose just goes to show you how far a "persona" can get you even when you're totally devoid of substance.

Thanks for link, judge. Fwiw, I wouldn’t compare Lou’s “power ballads” on this disc to those of Warrant or Skid Row. Different animals entirely. Maybe “rock ballad” is a better phrase as they're balladic in sentiment, but rock in form.

It's cool, but let me self-indulge and quote this piece of poetry from the site just because it's poetry:

"To emphasize the emotional aspect of a power ballad, crowds customarily hold up lit lighters during power ballads as a substitute for candles, since the latter are less commonly carried."

hehe, I almost cut and pasted that line here also, judgeofthat.

Whoa. Whoa! WHOA! What did I say about the cream-filled pie tins? These sorts of skirmishes are as predictable as the tides. You toss one pie; Phil lobs another back. And so it goes until one of you tires of the exchange & leaves the other with the last word. It’s boring. Play a competitive round of Halo 2 instead.

And Jon, thanks for throwing me a bone in that first paragraph, even if it was a plastic one. ;)

actually, Derek, I'd say the opposite: no fights here are way more boring. you want to ban me, feel free. otherwise I'm going to say what I want.

that being said, I wouldn't worry about Phil coming back at me too hard, I don't really think he minds that kind of criticism, which is one of the few professional qualities I can actually respect in him, that and his ability to sell himself to others.

Who said anything about banning you? I’m just asking you to reel back the personal insults/attacks. If you’re in the mood to scrap with someone, there are plenty of potential (& willing) opponents over at Jazz Corner. I’m not “worried” about Phil coming back at you. It wouldn’t be the first time you guys have thrown pies at each other. I’d just rather you didn’t do it here. Is that too much to ask?

I have to disagree with you Derek, all of us have been way lighter on PDF than he has earned what with him passing as much poorly researched dribble off as informed journalism on topics most of us here are pretty passionate about. If you really want to lighten the insults, Ban PDF and stop letting him write for bags - or at least stop letting him post the Kitschy joke articles.

>have you heard that Schlippenbach Trio disc?

I have not. But I can't wait for y'all to read my review of Twelve Tone Tales (which Nick Cain assigned me) in next month's Wire.

>topics most of us here are pretty passionate about...stop letting him post the Kitschy joke articles

None of the articles I post here are jokes. On the other hand, there's nothing funnier than other people's passion.

I'm not attacking him personally, I'm attacking him professionally, something he's made a "career" of. big difference.

so yes, it is too much to ask, in my opinion.

Oh cripes, here we go. I think it’s safe to say most of the people here are passionate about what they post, Jon & Phil most certainly included.

I have not. But I can't wait for y'all to read my review of Twelve Tone Tales (which Nick Cain assigned me) in next month's Wire.

Let me guess, you pan both volumes with a piping-hot cast-iron skillet? I don’t readWire, so maybe you could paraphrase your piece here? Also, you didn’t answer my first question regarding above claims of idiocy?

>Let me guess, you pan both volumes with a piping-hot cast-iron skillet?

Actually, I liked 'em a lot. It's the perspective I brought to my appreciation that I'm sure will delight and amuse. And if I thought you were an idiot, I would never have put your work into Marooned. I was referring there more to the whole "better than 90 percent..." discussion that ensued.

Well that’s good to hear & I stand happily corrected on my earlier assumption (looks like I can put the Boston cream I had hidden behind my back away too). But please don’t tell me you try to compare the Schlippenbach set to the latest Nachtmystium record.

Well at least this time you'll be writing about a real artist (oops, sorry, musician) instead of a bunch of second division hacks with weird hairstyles. From Smegma to Melvins.. who else are you planning to pitch as a Wire cover star: The Fugs? (Actually I'm green with envy, having only done a Wire cover story once - Phill Niblock - but then again Phil & I have cough cough slightly different tastes ;-)

Keenan did Smegma, Phil did Pere Ubu, although it's easy to confuse them since both bands were at their best sometime around the Carter administration.

Oh yes haha silly me.. time for some breakfast.

I take what I'm given. The Melvins, like Patton and Schlippenbach, were an assignment, not a pitch.

"If you’re in the mood to scrap with someone, there are plenty of potential (& willing) opponents over at Jazz Corner."

Hey now, Derek. Keep him.

Pere Ubu was an assignment, too.

Yeah, most of those Wire full-lengthers tend to be. The three I did this year were: Niblock, Toral & Kurzmann. I pitched Malcolm Goldstein and Kyle Bruckmann - Malcolm they weren't interested in (so it's coming out in the next Signal To Noise), and I'm still waiting to hear on Kyle.
What did you choose as album of the year for them, Phil? (Back against the wall, I opted for the Loren Connors box on Family Vineyard.)
Meanwhile, Derek, play Tyler Durden a bit - recap the rules of Fight Club and then stay out of the action, unless it's to intervene to save someone from a broken neck. We're big kids now, we can scrap quite happily with commas and colons without resorting to guns and bombs.

Here's my full Top 10 for them (listed alphabetically, rather than in order of merit, as always):

TOP 10 OF 2006

CELTIC FROST, Monotheist (Century Media)
ORNETTE COLEMAN, Sound Grammar (Sound Grammar)
DECAPITATED, Organic Hallucinosis (Earache)
DEICIDE, The Stench Of Redemption (Earache)
THE MELVINS, A Senile Animal (Ipecac)
NACAO ZUMBI, Futura (Trama/Circular Moves)
NACHTMYSTIUM, Instinct: Decay (Southern Lord)
RAZOR X PRODUCTIONS, Killing Sound (XL)
V/A, Total 7 (Kompakt)
DAVID S. WARE, BalladWare (Thirsty Ear)

Fight Club, now there's an overrated book/flick if ever there as one.

That’s good advice, Dan. While we’re on the subject, how’s about you open up PT to reader comments?

OK, now there's another list I've gotta see: Jon's 10 Worst Reviewers of Improvised Music. We know Phil's at the top, but....

just to be clear, Phil transcends just "improvised music", he's top of the overall pops!

Thom Jurek's got to be right up there too, no one else comes to mind at the moment.

"how’s about you open up PT to reader comments?"
No way, José! I've got my time cut out enough as it is writing the shit without having to play cop / umpire / sergeant major! I admire you enormously for doing what you do on Bags, but there's already a forum for readers' comment on PT (which noone uses, as it happens), the Letters Page.
What is Total 7, Phil? A compilation of early 50s electronic music from WDR Köln (just joking..)?

>What is Total 7, Phil?

It's the latest in a series of compilations from the Köln-based Kompakt label. I reviewed the previous volume here. (Weirdly, they credited it as a review of Kompakt 100 by Total 6, rather than as a review of the Kompakt 100 and Total 6 compilations.

Dan:

What rather puts us off writing to PT is that you expect us to write a LETTER, for heavens' sake!

Can you not establish a more 21st C mode of communication?!

but there's already a forum for readers' comment on PT (which noone uses, as it happens), the Letters Page.

That's because you almost never print anybody's letters!

***They are hardly comparable with any pop icon even though Reed is hipper than most.
Still, it is unfortunately not very tough to imagine things like "discpline" and "work ethic" being lost on you.***

Lou Reed's career dates back to the early sixties. I suspect "discipline" & "work ethic" are something he is familiar with. Maybe referring to Lou Reed derisively as a "pop icon" indicates more about the attitude of the listener than the music itself. For myself, I prefer not to judge music based on the number of people who are (or are not) aware that an artist exists.

Aha! Just as I suspected… what’s good for the goose ain’t good for the gander. How’s someone supposed to scrap properly in surroundings as static and circumscribed as a “Letters Page”? Only kidding. I think you’ve got the right idea in keeping PT comment-free, Dan.

And thanks to acidflower for steering this thread back to the original topic, though I think that “work ethic” jab was directed at the amirably magnanimous Phil, not Lou. I’m not sure I’d call Reed a “pop icon” either. Cat Stevens? Now there's a fellow who fits that mantle swimmingly.

I marked 10 years as a freelance music hack in November, and celebrated my 13th wedding anniversary back in June. I've got discipline and work ethic comin' out my ass.

You are regular Schlippenbach Trio all by yourself. Congratulations.

"That's because you almost never print anybody's letters!"
Many of the people who write in ask their comments to be kept off the record. I would not post an unedited letter anyway - I don't want the site filled up with emoticons and nonsequiturs - so I write back and suggest an edited version of the letter. ("Letter" btw meaning "email", Graham..)
"Can you not establish a more 21st C mode of communication?!"
If by that you mean some kind of kiddie playground like IHM, which is the new music "journalism" equivalent of seven year olds swapping Pokemon cards, I'll remain resolutely 20th century, thanks very much.
..
Meanwhile, I was curious to know what the relation was between writing and marriage, Phil. Discipline and work ethic aren't words I normally associate with conjugal bliss.. you make it sound more like a workout in the local gym. Phil Freeman, the Duffy Deeter of new music journalism, haha! (A compliment.)
Talking of Fight Club, I haven't read the book, but enjoy the film. What's wrong with it, rawne mrsha, of whatever yr real name is? Too racy & pacy for you? Pitt and Norton are both superb in that movie. Sure, Tarkovsky it ain't, but we can't sit around listening to Schlippenbach trio records all day, can we?

"If by that you mean some kind of kiddie playground like IHM, which is the new music "journalism" equivalent of seven year olds swapping Pokemon cards, I'll remain resolutely 20th century, thanks very much."

hehe.

Well, Nad Ruwbranot, what’s wrong with Fight Club? The first two words that come to mind: stupid & pretentious. But the worst thing about it is the ridiculous final act, silly beyond words. Norton's done far better work elsewhere & Pitt, well let's just say he's A-List only in salary. Black comedy blended masterfully with social commentary? To that I say: “Man tits!”

Discipline and work ethic aren't words I normally associate with conjugal bliss..

Huh? Marriage is some of the hardest work there is; big reason why it yields such deep & lasting rewards. You may be living the no-muss, no-fuss Ward & June Cleaver dream, work-free, but I’d bet most of us aren’t.

IHM is about 100,000x more informative, open-minded, wildly diverse and venom free than pretty much any music site I regularly visit. Yeah it's really a drag that there are so many young contributors.

no question. it's a discussion board, obviously not a publication, and thus you need to wade through silliness at times, but it's easily the best music board I've ever been a part of. it's clearly not supposed to be "journalism", but I could take contributors from there and easily put together a decidedly more clued-in reviews section than the Wire's, if that was something I was actually interested in doing.

Thought that would put the cat among the pigeons, haw haw..
Stupid & pretentious.. that would just about sum up 98% of most films released in the past decade, it seems to me. It could also apply to quite a few of my favourite French nouvelle vague films. So I don't mind that!
Yes, Jon puts his finger on it when he says the IHM isn't a "publication" - Paris Transatlantic is, fwiw, and will remain so. I don't have time to "wade through silliness".. but then again, what the hell am I doing here?

I don't suppose you guys have seen this --

http://cgi.ebay.com/VELVET-UNDERGROUND-NICO-1966-Acetate-LP-ANDY-WARHOL_W0QQitemZ300054910309QQihZ020QQcategoryZ306QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

but then again, what the hell am I doing here?

Why, promoting your publication, of course. :)

IHM - I'll take my democracy where I can find it these days.

Lou Reed - I like his music when in the right mood.. but it sure seems to lean heavily on his persona to work. As if you have to like Lou Reed in order to like Lou Reed's music.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/arts/music/13reed.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Revisiting a Bleak Album to Plumb Its Dark Riches
By BEN SISARIO
Published: December 13, 2006

Lou Reed refers to it with an understatement that borders on dismissal.

It was just another one of my albums that didn’t sell,” he said dryly at a West Village cafe recently.

But get him talking a little — and a little talk is all one can expect from Lou Reed — and it becomes clear that “Berlin,” his bleak, Brechtian song cycle from 1973, which he is performing in full for the first time at St. Ann’s Warehouse in Brooklyn for four nights beginning tomorrow, is a treasured high point in a what has been a lifelong project of pushing at the aesthetic boundaries of rock ’n’ roll.

[....]

the Mattin/Axel Dorner version is way better.

Amen. Mattin's best album all year (though with only 18 days to go there's still probably time for him to release about six more, the way he's going..)

Yeah, maybe, but would there even be a Mattin/Dorner version w/o a pre-existing Reed one?

"Yeah, maybe, but would there even be a Mattin/Dorner version w/o a pre-existing Reed one?"

I don't see why not, all they did was copy the cover and title. I don't think the contents have any connection to the original. plus, you know, they actually live in Berlin...

If that's the case, then how exactly is their Berlin a version of Reed's Berlin?

it's not, it's part of Mattin's new concept of recycling old album covers/titles for his records, the newest being Hijokaidan-King of Noise for his Proletarian of Noise record.

my point was that the Reed record is pretentious tripe, even for Lou, and the Mattin/Dorner record is one of the better improv releases from this year, but it was a more interesting point at seven words than when you made me explain it in multiple posts.

let's face it: phil freeman is totally overrated. he might not be as good of a writer as shakespeare or l. ron hubbard (of cryptopsy), but he leaves his Maximum Rock 'n' Roll reviewer peers left standing. the fucker can sell promos out of his ass!

lou reed top 10:
1. Metal Machine Music (not over or underrated - just right)
2. "the blue mask"
3. "waves of fear", particularly on the live video release where quine's solo blows away the one on the album
4. guitar solo on "i heard her call my name"
5. lyrics of "i can't stand it": "it's hard being a man living in a garbage can" . . .
6. the completely dellusional and binaurally recorded methamphetamine improv comedy/ranting on the Take No Prisoners 2LP
7. "kill your sons"
8. "sister ray" (if anybody says this piece of music is "overrated", i'll slice your fucking nose off.)
9. "no money down" video - macabre shit
10. "don't talk to me about work" video/song - totally "underrated".

fuck everybody,

ww

p.s. buy my fucking free jazz quartet record next week so i can afford therapy to stop saying bad words.

Good man Weasel, that's the festive spirit.. One great new album, ten Lou Reeds, three F words and a Par-tridddge In A Pear Tree

"but it was a more interesting point at seven words than when you made me explain it in multiple posts."

Actually, I don’t think it’s that interesting a point, but I do appreciate you taking the time to explain it.

What's with everyone gunning for Phil? And WW's placement of "MMM" in the pole position isn't any surprise, is it?

i suppose i don't care very much about "surprising" people . . .

Where I come from "gunning for" means "supporting".. but I assume you mean "shooting down". I wouldn't worry, I think Phil can take care of himself OK. Though it might be fun to be a fly on the wall if they ever meet face to face, probably at some horrendous Norwegian church burning band's 50th anniversary concert. Call it Hetfield and The Norse, haha..

Weasel and I have met face to face at least three times that I can recall. And we always get along great, until I slip up and fail to praise him in exactly the language he himself would have chosen. But at least he's reading my stuff...

Been awhile since i posted here so hello to all the usual folks. (Quienes mas macho?)

I pretty much agree with Weasel's list whole-heartedly, but on the way to work this morning WTUL was playing "Foggy Notion," which sounded great so I'd have to add that as one of Lou's best moments. One of his finest "ostritch guitar" rhythm/straigh r'n'r tunes.

The amphetamine stage-banter on "Take No Prisoners" truly has to be heard to be believed. It's like unintentionally great stand-up comedy. Definitely enough reason to keep one off the meth'...

WW - how can i get yr free jazz disc? Really wanna hear it... Also would be great to get you down here to NOLA to get in the ring w/me and Donald Miller... We had a great trio gig w/Tatsuya Nakatani this past Friday. I think you and DM would be roaring together...

the weasel walter quartet disc "revolt music" (w/ damon smith, henry kaiser, aram shelton, john gruntfest and randy hunt) will be out on the 19th. preorders are taken at http://nowave.pair.com/luttenbachers/merch.html . . .

phil freeman . . . i have met you 3 times and it was always more than pleasant. it's not you i dislike at all: it's your writing. i'm sorry to say it, but since we're going to let it rip, here it is.

the luttenbachers live review you wrote . . . ugh, dude. seriously, are you so blind that you can't see how backhanded that thing was? maybe in your mind what you wrote was "praise", but in reality, that shit was so non-plussed and derogatory it was unbelievable. frankly, it's difficult to tell that you even like the band from a review like that.

seriously, i don't expect positive, glowing reviews from anybody - friends or foes - but i believe that what you wrote may have done more bad than good. like, if you were that unmoved by it, just fuckin' say so. the net effect from that review was "the writer thought the show was okay, but he thinks the drummer isn't "as good" as two random heavy metal drummers even thought the drummer isn't a heavy metal drummer." DUH, phil. thanks for the "praise".

with praise like that, who needs bad reviews?! i'm not going to tell you what or how to write, but i found that review insulting. you claim to like my band, but your writing says "i don't like this band. i'm not impressed". if that's what you think, just fuckin' go ahead and say it! it's not going to make me lose sleep.

ww

I doubt you would even want a positive review from PDF, if I got a good review from him I'd have to consider pawning my bass.

I doubt you would even want positive review from PDF, if I got a good review from him I'd have to consider pawning my bass.

All you have to do is follow three simple rules:

1) Never underestimate your opponent. Expect the unexpected.

2) Take it outside. Never start anything inside unless it's absolutely necessary.

3) Be nice. If somebody gets in your face and calls you a cocksucker, I want you to be nice. Ask him to walk. Be nice. If he won't walk, walk him. But be nice. If you can't walk him, one of the others will help you, and you'll both be nice. I want you to remember that it's a job. It's nothing personal.

I want you to be nice until it's time to not be nice.

Is that all it'll take, Damon? Shit, if I knew it was that easy I'd have done it long ago.

begins typing...

Michael -

What if someone calls my mother a whore?

I hope you lads are pursuing this little spat in the privacy of your own email boxes, as it doesn't seem all that appropriate to trade epithets here.

Dan -

Both Michael's post and mine are quotes from Road House. You would know this if you weren't such a cinematic illiterate. (I'm kinda surprised Patrick Swayze doesn't have a Jerry Lewis-sized cult in France, actually.)

Phil--right boot

ô pardonnez-moi I had no idea you were so au fait with the nuances of the septième art.. I've just been wasting my time all evening watching Alain Delon in Monsieur Klein (Joseph Losey 1976) but as it doesn't feature Patrick Swayze or any other noted thespians I'm obviously so out of touch with, I suppose it's only understandable that I should have failed to grasp what you were on about..
So, as I say, have your little spats with Weasel privately and leave uncultured thugs like me to wank quietly at home to their Jerry Lewis movies :))

hi all,
sorry to hijack this thread but awhile ago here at bags there was a link for a photographers website that had a book of photos of norwegian black metal musicians, any one know where it is?

Not just a puzzle, like some su doku or double-crostic, nor even a challenging game, like chess or go, my man Schau is an artform. His confab puts even Antony Blanche's to shame.

I am now flummoxed.

Mr. Walter, I checked your web site out of curiosity and noticed that you have posted--for promotional purposes, one can only assume--several quotes from reviews written by Phil Freeman. Given your expressed disdain for his writing, isn't it hypocritical of you to use his reviews in such a manner? Or am I missing something?

Thank you,

Hector Bivirino

Zing!

hey, back to Lou Reed -

has anyone noticed that the cover of "Ecstasy" bears an eerie similarity to William Shatner's "Transformed Man"?

and i'm really not liking how in the photo it appears that Lou is having an orgasm...Not a P.O.V. I ever wanted to have...

Finally got a copy of "Inspiration & Power" recently and the Takayanagi 'Mass Projection' track makes a nice companion piece to Lou's solo on "Heard Her Call My Name" and of course MMM. In my top 10 for the year the #1 is all the Takayanagi stuff that finally became available this year (Eclipse, Mass Hysterism, Lonely Woman Live, Action Direct, etc.). Been on a big listening kick with those discs lately.

Maybe this'll get things back on music and off the spat-in'...

hey antboy, could the photographer you are looking for have been Peter Beste?
D.
http://www.peterbeste.com/

First off, I want to commend the folks responsible for this site - it's such a great resource for new music writing. I've been a regular reader for a while and have appreciated the intelligent prose and illuminating discussions thereof.

But down to "business": Mr. Bivirino, you have me quite confused. I went to Mr. Walter's website and the only Phil Freeman quotes I could find was the recent Wire review as a blog post on the Luttenbachers' myspace page. I'm failing to see any hypocrisy here. In fact, it looked to me like Mr. Walter posted it to get feedback from others about its praiseworthiness. Were there other Freeman quotes on his site that I didn't see, I wouldn't see any hypocrisy in using them. I don't see Mr. Walter saying that he finds Mr. Freeman's opinions worthless or offensive, but merely the way that he seems to equivocate or camouflage what praise is purportedly given.

As has been pointed out many times on this site, there is a dearth of writing about the types of music to which this site is devoted. Pragmatically, one works with what one has, even if it's a luke warm review. Granted it might take a bit of paraphrasing and strategic use of ellipses, if the others (which I can't find anywhere) are similar in tone to the recent Wire review, and perhaps that's where Mr. Freeman is being charitable.

Honestly, I could see Mr. Freeman making an argument for the Wire review being positive, though considering the connotations of some of the language therein (of which after 10 years as a freelance critic, I would imagine Mr. Freeman would be aware) - it does not translate as such. This may be praise, but it reads like the faint stuff applied with tar. Considering the many years of hard work Mr. Freeman has put into writing about music, I'd imagine him quite capable of writing a glowing review that reads like a glowing review, if he wanted to.

That he didn't, I can only assume was because he didn't want to - presumably because his opinion of the band wasn't glowing - there were things about the music and/or performance he wasn't into. I'm struggling to come up with an alternative - dictates of the magazine's style guide (no, I've seen glowing prose in The Wire, that can't be it), fear of ridicule for lavishing praise on something that's not a "known entity" (that seems silly, as The Wire, like most music mags is fond of proclaiming "the next big thing you haven't heard of), a mean editor that did a major rewrite?

At any rate, thanks for a great read, and I'll resume lurking!

Sarah Lockhart

http://nowave.pair.com/luttenbachers/truth.html
http://nowave.pair.com/luttenbachers/systems.html

These are what I was referrring to. I am kind of new to this, but I was under the impression that Weasel Walter *is* The Flying Luttenbachers.

If I'm mistaken, I apologize.

Hector replied:
http://nowave.pair.com/luttenbachers/truth.html
http://nowave.pair.com/luttenbachers/systems.html

These are what I was referrring to

- There they are - a bit more positive than the live review in the Wire. I'm still unclear on how this is hyprocritical.

Hector replied:
http://nowave.pair.com/luttenbachers/truth.html
http://nowave.pair.com/luttenbachers/systems.html

These are what I was referrring to

- There they are - a bit more positive than the live review in the Wire. I'm still unclear on how this is hypocritical.

Mr. Walter seems to hold Mr. Freeman's written opinions in contempt, except when they can be used to promote his music.

Hector:
Funny how this argument we're having mirrors the initial argument over the semantics of Mr. Freeman's praise!

But let me reiterate - from what Mr. Walter wrote, I don't see anything that says he has contempt for Mr. Freeman's opinions - merely the words he chose to express his opinion in the Wire review in October, which seemed at odds with Mr. Freeman's protestations of consistent praise. The examples that you cite, do read as more positive with lesser degrees of non-committal and condescending verbiage.

From my reading of the discussion, it appears confined to the October review in the Wire (at least on Mr. Walter's end), which I don't see Mr. Walter using as an argument for the greatness of his music.

Regardless, it looks like (from the context of the site) that the entirety of all the reviews of the respective albums were included, which to me reads more like a compendium of what has been written about it, perhaps for the record, that the records were reviewed in The Wire, a publication of record, is a promotional tool in and of itself.

And therein lies the dilemma - one relies on published criticism of one's music in order to "succeed." If one receives uniformly negative criticism from a particular writer, then it is easy to simply ignore that person. If one receives negative criticism that specifically points to what the writer dislikes or finds lacking in one's music, it is easy to address. However, if one receives criticism that seems ambivalent or sends mixed messages without being particularly clear as to the source, it is frustrating, and I can totally understand Mr. Walter wanting Mr. Freeman to use a colorful phrase from the American vernacular, "shit or get off the pot."

It seems to me he likes him just so long as he writes something complimentary, but what do I know.

I'm just going on what I've read, but it seems to me that it isn't about complimentary - it's about honestly stating an opinion that translates as such to the reader. Mr. Walter's prose seems pretty clear in this regard.

meta-Bags, the next generation!

Welcome to Bags, Sarah, and thanks for the kind words regarding the site. I hope you'll choose to continue to do more than lurk here in the future.

Ain't nothing wrong with meta discourse, pretty much everyone who posts here has traveled that particular road at one time or another. Though I suppose I shoulder more guilt than most.

I like Phil Freeman coz I can actually remember which artist's under discussion while reading one of his reviews. Others often just blow by. His writing for the Wire, though, is just like Warburton's, or anyone's writing for the Wire. "Yeah, I did listen to a lot of records when I was young," the artist confides with a chuckle. "It may have influenced the way I hear music." But probably the Wire have a style police that change every feature into such very harrypotterish prose/psychology.

I think you only need read Phil's hilarious review of Alex von Schlippenbach in the latest issue to be reminded of our considerable differences in terms of background, Rim. I have no idea to what extent Phil's Wire reviews are edited / changed by the people at Wire HQ (Nick Cain on CD reviews, Rob Young, Chris Bohn on longer features), but mine normally appear without many changes. Maybe Phil has a different story. As far as "yeah, I did listen to a lot of records when I was young", well, thanks for implying that we're past it, and that we presumably don't listen to as many nowadays as we used to (certainly not the case for me). But as goes "it may have influenced the way I hear music" well OF COURSE it damn well influenced the way I hear music, and I imagine Phil won't disagree with that. You mean to say the records we listen to DON'T influence the way we hear music? Read Freeman's books and just about anything I've ever written.
And if you think a magazine with an identifiable editorial style is Harry Potterish, that's fine by me. But anyway, if you want to engage in a seasonal bout of Wire-bashing, that's fine by me too. I'm looking forward to Volume 7 even if you aren't.

i publish ALL reviews i can get my hands on in the luttenbachers site, good, bad or lukewarm. it's an archive.

mr. bivirino - it makes me angry to get a review in a make-it-or-break-it publication like The Wire written by someone who has repeatedly publicly professed that he "likes the band" and then have it read like he "doesn't like the band very much". do you see how that might drive me fucking nuts?

there are other people who write for the mag that would be capable of writing something with more substance, whether or not they "like" it. i would prefer this. can you ban a writer from reviewing you? i think not. it's too bad. i would rather have somebody intelligently trash my music than get another one of these pointless phil freeman reviews. he's actually wasting my time and it's insulting.

phil's review was so intellectually lazy, it was obviously written in about 30 seconds. it says NOTHING. reading it makes you doubt he was even in the room. i would love some actual criticism - there was none there. in the review i smelled a tiny paycheck and a comp to see blind idiot god and that's about it.

do you see this contradiction? i'm saying, shit or get off the pot - or, let somebody else write reviews of my music, preferably someone who isn't going to compare it with irrelevant music or just regurgitate the onesheet.

ww

I think it shows a lot of self-confidence in one's work to put up negative as well as favorable reviews on a website. I was stunned when I saw a very negative review I wrote of a Scott Fields release on his site. It's ballsy.

Hey Dan, I really think you and Phil and anybody are doing their best writing on the web, for free. The Wire seems to make you more, well, violently conventional. And that was meant as a switch in perspective, musicians do "confide" a lot in that publication, mostly completely banal stuff way short of murders, more about listening habits, influences. The writers themselves don't confide, and the harrypotterish thing about it is: he confides with a chuckle, he dreams with a gleam in his eye, she shrugs this off saying I don't care. Hey I've listened to something now I've become a musician. Let's treat this all as a sort of derangedly criminal call and response thing ...

Mr. Walter, I'm sorry I mistook your archive for a promotional tool.

I think you overrate the importance of reviews, at least as regarding improvised music. There are no "make-or-break" publications. From what I can tell, everyone's "broke."

What's the big deal? Phil Freeman's one guy. Let it go. You just end up looking bad by complaining.

It's entirely possible to have a generally positive feeling about something, and still recognize things that you don't particularly like about it. The world is not black and white, especially when it comes to appraising art. I'm no expert on Mr. Freeman's work, but I think it would be to his credit if he recognizes this and expresses it in his work.

Just for fun (a Christmas present to all my fans), here's that aforementioned Wire review:

Alexander Von Schlippenbach
Twelve Tone Tales Volume One
Twelve Tone Tales Volume Two

Intakt
A confession: I don't understand twelve-tone theory. I looked it up on Wikipedia once, but by the time I got to the retrograde inversion, I was already yawning. And while this may well mark me as barely one step above a bug-eating ape, I don't care. Neither should any prospective listener allow self-doubt to keep them from exploring this pair of solo piano CDs. They sound great whether you approach after years of brow-furrowing study, or hear them after being raised to adulthood alone, in an unlit basement with absolutely no instruction in rudimentary human social skills, let alone the niceties of improvised and 20th century classical musics.
Schlippenbach sticks to keys and pedals throughout; no string-plucking or foreign objects to throw off anybody less than fully versed in avant garde pianistics. Occasional high-speed workouts like "LOK 03," which closes Volume One, are balanced by the title track and its three variations - each is as graceful and beautiful an exercise in balance as a cat crossing a ladder between two skyscrapers. The standards that close the set offer a 20 minute comedown from the occasionally stark heights scaled during the previous 90-100 minutes. They also serve as reminders that Schlippenbach can swing pretty hard when he wants to.

The thing is, I'd bet the ranch that the music on those discs isn't twelve tone at all. So the cute comments about retrograde inversions, bug-eating and unlit basements are kind of off the point. The niceties of improvised music simply don't include serialism.

From the liner notes: "The Twelve Tone Tales before the four groups of pieces each begin with an invention composed with twelve tones related only to each other. Their improvisational extensions in the paraphrase (and, in some cases, the second invention) also relate to the same twelve-tone row...the pianist introduces compositional principles from New Music into the flow of the improvisation, turning structure into a process..." I did the honest thing, and listened to it before I reviewed it; you should listen to it before commenting on my review.

As someone once said: "Zing!"

By the way, some stuff was edited out of that review, and the one of the new Conrad Schnitzler 3CD box; if you want to read the versions I originally submitted, click here.

Remind me to publish a review of some Metal album (a genre I know next to nothing about), and preface it with a proud declaration of ignorance, and let's see how the Metalheads react. They seem to be a pretty sensitive bunch when somebody attacks their turf. I'll say this, you've certainly got balls Phil, but I think you're doing a profound disservice to these albums, von Schlippenbach's music in general, and the people who read The Wire in search of informative writing. You should also ask permission from Tony Herrington before you publish anything commissioned by The Wire here or elsewhere, btw. He's quite touchy about that. However, I don't think many people would recognise it as a Wire review to start with. This is the kind of stuff you wrote in your book a few years ago; I thought you'd outgrown it. Apparently not. Please go do your homework next time - and researching a review for what is arguably the most influential new music rag on the planet doesn't mean falling asleep in front of a Wikipedia page.

Wow, you guys are real ugly. Trying to build up sufficient peer pressure to effectively blacklist Phil Freeman? Not even to get his piece of the pie, but to be of service to me , the reader of the Wire, and to the musician, of course. Scuze me while I puke. And all the while one just has to go over to the very well edited and highly redeable Paris Transatlantic to see that as an editior DW will publish pieces that are more funny than informative, that are more provocative than well-researched (John Gill anyone). And he should, if you don't do that, if every review is an informed newspiece, your mag is dead. As DW knows full well.

The above review is snappy. It's full of self-love and of love for the music (and good thing it was edited the way it was). It says, in effect, something simple you could never say in prissy prose, that Schlippenbach really kicks ass. I personally happen to bring along sufficient knowledge on Schlippenbach, but he's too cerebral (and sometimes historicist) for my taste, so he's kind of off the map for me. Should I stumble across a second review that says even the monkeys must love this music, I will relisten. I'm serious.

Phill has a right to do his thing, create his persona and write lazy , poorly researched reviews. Still, by making those choices he must understand that kind of thing is not going to endear him to anyone serious about the music.

He has been called on it publicly enough times to make it quite clear he is choosing to not do his research and continue to degrade the music by passing off the crap he writes as serious journalism, like the the above review.

Not all of his work is bad, there is a perfectly serviceable Frank Wright review in the Dec. Wire.

We all make our choices, Phill made his, I make mine. He can't expect a warm welcome at a place like bags anymore than Weasel or I can expect a cover feature in the Wire from him.

I'm not trying to blacklist anybody, Mr Horne, least of all Phil Freeman, who's a lot more fun to read than a whole bunch of fawning Keith Rowe groupies over at IHM. I was just surprised that a) he decided to reproduce a Wire article here without asking for permission from the publisher b) and seemed sufficiently proud of the review to want to do so.
Without wanting to reopen the John Gill can of worms again, I'm the first to agree with you that there's a place for humour in this kind of publication (if I only wanted to run serious hardcore music theory analysis I'd be writing for PNM or JMT). Gill's piece - two years old & still making waves! I must have done something right! - was certainly controversial, though hardly provocative (except perhaps to Mats Gustafsson). Maybe the fact that you felt threatened says something about you and your attitude to music.

Two years old? One year old, sorry.. just feels like two years old.

I'll take your word for it, Sir.

And I've been quoting the Gill thing just because I thought it might ring a bell; not a ripple here, sorry.

I work as a reader for a contemporary art book publisher. Now almost every artist wants their thoughts to come across exactly as they meant it. Of course, every artist is much greater as an artist than as a thinker of thoughts on the works they do, so many texts will turn out not exactly inspiring, trying to cope with what the artist would have said themselves had they been able to do so (pc turns against me here, let it pass).

In the end, having a horde of monkeys screaming "this is the shit, this is the shit!!" at the top of their lungs is the best, because they'll eat it. And I really wonder why there should be a "correct" way of doing things, why must the reviewer be a thousandfold superior to the consumer (and hey, I want footnotes, tons of them, on Bags).

The Rowe groupies are also posting here, I think . . .

"The Twelve Tone Tales before the four groups of pieces each begin with an invention composed with twelve tones related only to each other. Their improvisational extensions in the paraphrase (and, in some cases, the second invention) also relate to the same twelve-tone row...the pianist introduces compositional principles from New Music into the flow of the improvisation, turning structure into a process"?

Sorry, Phil, that's not serialism either--at least not as understood by its creator. Starting with a 12-tone row and "Relating" to it as you go on (whatever that would mean, exactly) isn't nearly sufficient. I'm sure it was fun for the improviser and a kind of tribute to Schoenberg (&, of course, a pretty way to impress buyers/listeners/reviewers, but not really 12-tone, liner notes notwithstanding (no matter how Braxtonian).

See, you don't really need to hear the CD to make comments on a record sometimes--you just need to have some knowledge of the subject matter you're writing about. However, let me quickly say I'm not in the blacklisting camp, wherever that may be! As I said, the unlit basement remarks were cute. And I'm generally content with entertaining in the record review world. I was just sayin'...

BTW, I agree that it is the "honest thing" to listen to a CD before reviewing, but of course, I wasn't reviewing it. I actually agree with your position that one doesn't have to know anything about serialism to enjoy or dislike a piece of 12-tone music: it's just that you seemed to think, because of the title or the notes or something, that these discs must be 12-tone. It's as if somebody put out a disc called "15th Century Slavonic Dances" and the reviewer says, "I don't really know anything about 15th Century music or Slavonic music or dance music, but I like this anyway: it kicks!" and the musicians were actually playing American rock music and just picked that title because they thought it was funny. I'd agree with that reviewer that he was in a perfect position to like it, but his remarks are still off the point.

>by making those choices he must understand that kind of thing is not going to endear him to anyone serious about the music

People "serious about the music" already have writers they can go to for pages-long, scholarly-yet-fawning exegeses. I don't write for them; they know it, and I know it. I am a consumer guide. I tell you that I listened to a record, and either liked it or didn't. Furthermore, as in the review above, I tell you that all you need to enjoy any record is a functioning set of ears. Music is entertainment. If it doesn't entertain you, it's not doing its job.

>he is choosing to not do his research and continue to degrade the music by passing off the crap he writes as serious journalism

No, I'm not. First of all, music cannot be degraded by what someone writes about it. Second of all, you are inferring, for no reason I can determine since I've given no hint that I want you to, that I wish to be considered a "serious journalist." I do not. I wish to be considered a guy who listens to records, or talks to bands, and writes down what he thinks afterward. I have some ideas and some pet theories, which I explore. But "serious journalism," the mix of scholarly affect and fawning praise (because make no mistake, casual reader, what all musicians want is for writers to suck up to them in the most lavishly hagiographic terms manageable) is of no interest to me. I don't read it, and I would never want to be caught committing it.

Funny; this same breakdown - between "serious journalists" and the howling mob who have the temerity to merely register their opinions - exists in American political journalism right now. The network and major-newspaper correspondents, who've spent years honing their sycophancy and their coolly dispassionate he-said/he-said approach to the crimes of our nation's elected aristocracy, are feeling very threatened by pissed-off groundlings who can tell that it's all a sham and are starting to draw loud attention to that fact online. So there's a lot of talk in political circles about who counts as a "real" journalist, and funnily enough, it's never bloggers. It's always the folks who went to good colleges and have spent years palling around with the politicians they now pretend to investigate. Same thing in the world of "serious" (remember Peek Freans cookies? Sing it with me: "improv is extraordinarily serious music...if you're a grownup or plan to be one, you'll know what we mean") music; the musicians demand "serious" journalists because...well, mostly because if there's no money in what they're doing, the minimum they deserve is some goddamned respect from the peanut gallery!

FWIW, I mostly agree with what Phil has just said, except for the implication that "serious writing" must be hagiographic. Just because it's not something that interests you doesn't mean it has to be shit. There's good and bad "serious writing" just as there's good and bad entertainment/review type writing.

Wow, in my short time here, my respect for Phil Freeman has increased drastically, in inverse proportion to those here who continually bash him. I can only wonder why he subjects himself to the abuse, but my hat's off to him for doing so. I must admit I've not read much if any of his writitng apart from what I've read here, but certainly comes off well in the above exchange. Maybe having authored a few books and actually getting paid to write has given him enough self-confidence to face down critics who've not reached a similar level of accomplishment (it's to his credit that he does not cite that elephant in the room).

Any of you guys old enough to remember Lester Bangs? Probably not.

"I am a consumer guide. I tell you that I listened to a record, and either liked it or didn't."

Yeah, well, everything I've ever heard of Scandinavian Metal I've disliked, but I don't think that gives me the right to diss it in print without finding out more about what it's about. If you're a consumer guide I'd say that should make you even more careful about what you say.

"Music is entertainment. If it doesn't entertain you, it's not doing its job."

If that's all music is for you Phil, there's really not much we have to talk about. Try asking some of your heroes (William Parker, David Ware for example) what they think music is about.

"First of all, music cannot be degraded by what someone writes about it."
Indeed not, but the reputations of magazines who publish reviews like yours can be.

"I've given no hint that I want you to, that I wish to be considered a "serious journalist." I do not."
Why do you take every available opportunity to tell us you write for The Wire, then? You seem mighty proud of the fact. If there was ever a magazine that took itself (too?) seriously, it's The Wire - are you sure you've found the right outlet for your talents, Phil? If you just want to be a consumer guide why don't you join Ben Watson at Hi Fi News?

"what all musicians want is for writers to suck up to them in the most lavishly hagiographic terms manageable"
What gives you the right to speak for ALL musicians? You certainly don't speak for me, so you should withdraw that "all" right now. Or keep it for the fans who read your blog.

Dan, I don't know why you need to keep taking side shots at IHM. the level of discussion there over the last few years has certainly been far more interesting than it has on Bags. page through the new 'the hated music' archive at some point if you get a chance, a lot of good stuff there. I could easily take some shots at a few of your PT writers if you'd like, but I'm resisting.

Phil wrote:

"I am a consumer guide. I tell you that I listened to a record, and either liked it or didn't."

yeah, I get that this is your goal. my point is that you're awful at putting records into any sort of context, even just within that artist's own work. everyone who writes about music is a "consumer guide" to one degree or another, but you're a remarkably unreliable one. I'd say you should stick to focusing on metal, but my friends who are really into that say you're really bad about that too.

and Hector, do you really need to chime in this much? yes, we know Lester Bangs, we've read hundreds of columns by Lester Bangs. Phil is no Lester Bangs, who actually had something to say. Phil doesn't.

Maybe having authored a few books and actually getting paid to write has given him enough self-confidence to face down critics who've not reached a similar level of accomplishment.

That’s certainly no canary-in-the-coal-mine when it comes to comparative writing talent; plenty of hacks get paid & have book deals. But I’m with you in the pro-Phil corner. People who have problems with his Schlippenbach review should be slinging slop at the Wire brass who published it. I mean the Wire is “arguably the most influential new music rag on the planet,” right? Riiiiiiight! I think the operative word in that sentence is “rag”.

A few questions for Phil though

First, how is your statement of intent below any different from the rubric of 90+ percent of your fellow music reviewers?

I am a consumer guide. I tell you that I listened to a record, and either liked it or didn't. I tell you that all you need to enjoy any record is a functioning set of ears. Music is entertainment. If it doesn't entertain you, it's not doing its job.

I don’t see anything revelatory or revolutionary about it. If those are your only goals then what sets you apart? Why should I give a shit simply whether you like a record or not? You’ve gone on record denouncing the importance of other people’s opinions when it comes to enhancing your own music appreciation. Why should I care about yours, particularly when describing/contextualizing the music is of obvious secondary importance in your reviews?

Also, I’m not sure how fair it is to accuse other writers of hagiography. A lot of your metal reviews are riddled with the stuff.

Anyway, my sack of rotten vegetables is empty and a pilloried Phil makes for an easy target. As I wrote above, I really am pro-Freeman & admire his willingness to wipe the tomato pulp/squash juice from his brow ridge & meet his accusers head-on, jewel-encrusted broad sword in hand.

the level of discussion there over the last few years has certainly been far more interesting than it has on Bags.

Diff'rent strokes, I guess. I find this place a lot more *interesting* than IHM.

I could easily take some shots at a few of your PT writers if you'd like, but I'm resisting.

Fire at will!

yes, we know Lester Bangs, we've read hundreds of columns by Lester Bangs.

Who is the mysterious “we” in this sentence & why do you feel the need to “chime in” on their behalf? Since I’m very familiar with Bangs work, I suppose I’m included; but just so you know, I’m perfectly able saying so on my own.

There may be a wealth of rubbish to wade through at IHM before you find the good stuff (and thats the case with any forum) but give me the vitality and open mindedness of IHM ahead of Bags any day thanks. But yep its diff'rent stokes...

Excuse me, but I was under the impression this was a public forum. Then again, I've read enough of John Abbey's posts on Jazz Corner to know he considers himself King Shit of Turd Mountain on all matters musical. And enough to know that if he dislikes something, it's probably good. As a matter of fact, I think I will check out one of Mr. Freeman's books. If John Abbey hates him, he's probably a great writer.

>I don’t see anything revelatory or revolutionary about it.

That's because there isn't anything revelatory or revolutionary about it.

>If those are your only goals then what sets you apart?

Nothing but the way I turn a phrase.

>Why should I give a shit simply whether you like a record or not?

Who said you had to?

>You’ve gone on record denouncing the importance of other people’s opinions when it comes to enhancing your own music appreciation. Why should I care about yours, particularly when describing/contextualizing the music is of obvious secondary importance in your reviews?

There's no reason in the world to care what I think about a record. I never tell anyone they should care what I think; I merely ask editors of my acquaintance, "Hey, would you like me to write down what I think about [album title here]? In a nutshell, I think [this and this and this]; if you pay me, I'll elaborate." More often than not, they say "Yes, please." I do this because it's fun; their reasons for printing it are their own. I occasionally think they publish me because they know it'll piss off prigs like Jon and Damon, but I can't be sure, because I don't ask.

I occasionally think they publish me because they know it'll piss off prigs like Jon and Damon, but I can't be sure, because I don't ask.

That’s as good a goal as any, I guess. Thanks for answering my questions; I guess I was reading in hubris where there wasn’t any. Keep on keepin’ on.

And to Richard Pinnell: I don’t think IHM has the corner market on “vitality and open-mindedness”, there’s plenty of that here as well as elsewhere, IMO. If anything, there’s a level of open-mindedness here that allows folks to be as close-minded as they wish to be, for better and worse.

I've checked out IHM only occasionally, but what has concerned me about what I've noticed there is that it seems like there's a narrower range of opinions commonly expressed than one finds here. I therefore wonder (seriously--this isn't meant as an attack) to what extent Jon and Richard prefer that site to bagatellen because the percentage of posts agreeing with their take on music/the world there is considerably higher than it is likely to be elsewhere. That isn't a bad thing, and is certainly not unnatural. Most sane people will prefer to hang with people who see eye-to-eye with them on the matters likely to be discussed.

To clarify my slightly vague post, I wasn't trying to suggest there is no open-mindedness here, a lot of people I have a lot of respect for write and post at Bags and I was not suggesting IHM has any kind of monopoly, but for me there is a freshness and energy there that isn't shown elsewhere, thats all.

You are quite possibly correct Walto, though I have personally had more online disagreements with people at IHM than anywhere else so thats not entirely the case. I'm also not at all sure that Jon's take on music is always so close to mine either, though I could see how it might appear that way at a cursory glance.

"I've read enough of John Abbey's posts on Jazz Corner to know he considers himself King Shit of Turd Mountain on all matters musical. And enough to know that if he dislikes something, it's probably good. As a matter of fact, I think I will check out one of Mr. Freeman's books. If John Abbey hates him, he's probably a great writer."

well, you clearly haven't read enough of them to be able to spell my name right. but by all means, buy any or all of Phil's books, you sound like his ideal audience.

"I've read enough of John Abbey's posts on Jazz Corner to know he considers himself King Shit of Turd Mountain on all matters musical. And enough to know that if he dislikes something, it's probably good. As a matter of fact, I think I will check out one of Mr. Freeman's books. If John Abbey hates him, he's probably a great writer."

*CLASP*

If I may make a naive interjection, I refuse to open a website called "I Hate Music", simply because I Love Music.

So I await some enlightenment on the part of the people behind it.

do you really approach everything that literally, Graham?

Well Jon, yes! Doesn't hate mean hate? If words don't mean what they OBVIOUSLY mean, then we're all in a heck of a stew, no?

I'm not being disingenuous, I swear, but I'm curious as to just why people treat someone so consistently nasty and intolerant of opposing viewpoints as this John Abbey fellow with anything approaching respect. He certainly seems never to return the favor.

um, Vinnie Bivirino, I show respect to people who deserve it, whether or not I agree with them.

as far as Phil goes, it has nothing to do with opposing viewpoints, I simply don't think he's any good at his job. Phil isn't shy about sharing his opinions, and neither am I. that's it, not sure why you're more offended about that than he is.

Graham, I guess if the name really puts you off that much, maybe it's not for you. clearly it's populated by music fanatics, though.

Jon:

Fine, I'll wait till the music fanatics discover the difference between Love and Hate!

"I'll wait till the music fanatics discover the difference between Love and Hate!"

it's a thin line, as we all know.

And you are arbiter of whom deserves repect, eh?

What a horse's arse.

>as far as Phil goes, it has nothing to do with opposing viewpoints, I simply don't think he's any good at his job.

This is because, like most people who make music or sell records, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the critic's job actually is. The critic's job is to listen to the record, and respond. Just as there is no wrong way to play music, there is no wrong way to respond to it. And no one piece of music is worth more study than another, except on the basis of personal preference. There's no such thing as "serious music" unless you're willing to start openly categorizing things as "frivolous music," preferably within earshot (and arm's reach) of their creator(s).

"This is because, like most people who make music or sell records, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the critic's job actually is."

my background is in journalism, thanks, I worked at Time for ten years.

"The critic's job is to listen to the record, and respond. "

ok, fine, I can live with that as a simplistic reductionist statement. but IMO, the kind of superficial listening you too often brag about doing, combined with your inability to put music into any larger overall perspective, makes your "responses" relevant to pretty much no one but yourself. your main skill, as I've said here before, seems to be selling yourself to editors, so kudos on that.

Hector Bivirino = Phil Freeman

DUH

as my final comment on this before i get on with my life, phil and his alter ego are totally missing my point, as usual.

i do not want hot air blown up from my ass from phil or anybody. this accomplishes nothing.

what i want is an intelligent opinion on my work - good, bad or neutral. i simply cannot get this from phil freeman.

ww

See what Lou Reed did to all of us? This should be a Han Bennink thread.

>inability to put music into any larger overall perspective

Not inability; unwillingness. Unless the form explicitly dictates it (cover versions, etc.), context is superfluous. In a long-form piece, it's okay to talk about a record in the context of the scene from which it springs, or about the artist's desire to one-up his teacher, or whatever else. But a record review is a review of that record, not the body of work thus far. Records are discrete objects, and should be reviewed as such.

My lord what a mess. Phil Freeman, I know nothing about you other than you wrote books about Miles and free jazz--neither of which I read (sorry, I'm too old and have read far too many words on both those subjects over the past half-century)--but you're obviously doing something right, to get such pretentious pantloads like some of these guys so upset. Keep it up, whatever it is.

Gentlemen:

It's Christmas, no? Good will and so forth? So let's not forget what Bennink & Brotzmann taught us 20 years ago. "Ein Halber Hund Kann Nicht Pinkeln".

Mr. Freeman wrote: And no one piece of music is worth more study than another, except on the basis of personal preference.

- certainly there are pieces of music that lend themselves to more study than others, in that further study often leads to additional information gleaned, or hell, actually stand up to repeat listens. I am referring here to study of the musical elements. One could spend a lot of time studying the sociological effects of and fan response to simplistic pop music, and in that sense, they are "worth" study - but study of different aspects.

Phil Freeman: There's no such thing as "serious music" unless you're willing to start openly categorizing things as "frivolous music," preferably within earshot (and arm's reach) of their creator(s).

- I'm sure there are plenty of us here, besides me, that are willing to do so.

All of this just goes to show that a thread will continue to thrive as long as there’s slop to be slung.

The critic's job is to listen to the record, and respond.

That’s a pithy summation, but I think it leaves a lot out. Part of the response process is describing and commenting meaningfully on what was heard. A simple: “I listened to this & I like it” just doesn’t cut it no matter how many clever turns of phrase are used to pad the opinion.

But a record review is a review of that record, not the body of work thus far. Records are discrete objects, and should be reviewed as such.

Sez who? I can think of very few artists who go from one project to the next without, at least in part, looking back (& sometimes forward) on their own work and the work of others. The concept of an artist’s “body of work” isn’t a bullshit construct. Records are only “discrete objects” in a tangible sense; their contents are hopelessly complex blends of elements, influences & the like. Talking about records in hermetic isolation is provocative in theory, but in practice it usually results in the critic missing the boat.

I think Phil’s Schlippenbach review above is a great example of this phenomenon. Sure, it’s a positive piece, but what does it really tell the reader other than that Phil liked the discs? Not much, and as a consumer guide entry it fails in conveying what specifics about the music the reader might find enjoyable too. I mean, “each is as graceful and beautiful an exercise in balance as a cat crossing a ladder between two skyscrapers” is a colorful analogy, but what does it mean really? And “Schlippenbach can swing pretty hard when he wants to”… that’s a revelation? The old bugaboo context tells us that, no, it’s not.

Anyway, Phil’s been a good sport about all of this & I think he deserves a high five for his unflappable congeniality.

>certainly there are pieces of music that lend themselves to more study than others, in that further study often leads to additional information gleaned, or hell, actually stand up to repeat listens. I am referring here to study of the musical elements. One could spend a lot of time studying the sociological effects of and fan response to simplistic pop music, and in that sense, they are "worth" study - but study of different aspects.

Pop music is far from simplistic. Writing a pop song is hard work, and there's been just as much formal innovation in pop music, particularly in the last decade or so, as in improv or non-idiomatic whatever, if not more.

>commenting meaningfully

What constitutes meaningful commentary? Be as specific as possible.

"It's Christmas, no? Good will and so forth?"

Indeed. All the best, everyone.

pdf: Pop music is far from simplistic.

sl: some is not, agreed, hence the modifier, otherwise it would have been redundant. On the other hand, if you are arguing that no pop music is simplistic from a musical standpoint, then I'd like to see your argument for that.

In defense of Phil and all that he's written, my vote for record of the year is one by Mike Sammes "Music for Biscuits":
http://trunkrecords.com/turntable/biscuits.shtml

Lost tapes found, restored and finally issued.
Who the fuck said pop music has to be dumb or worthless? Who said this music has no weight to it?
Who said there's no sense or purpose here?
Like anything else, it's all in the ear of the beholder...

What constitutes meaningful commentary? Be as specific as possible.

Assuming your question is serious & not rhetorical: To me, meaningful commentary is personalized description that brings forth insight into whatever’s being commented on. Ideally it should resonate with both the writer and the reader and reveal something new about the subject while also reflecting on what’s already known (our old friend context).

To reference a specific example from your Schlippenbach review again, I don’t find the comparison of the balance exhibited in the title track variations to that of a cat crossing a ladder between two skyscrapers to be all that insightful (meaningful). It’s a clever image, sure, but I’m still unclear as to what it says/reveals about the music or your reactions to it. What about the standards finale constitutes a “comedown” from the music previous? Is it the fact that the repertoire changes to standards, or specific shifts in the playing that lead to this result? Are those the only spots where Schlippenbach “swings”? What makes you think someone needs to be “fully versed in avant garde pianistics” to appreciate “string plucking” or “foreign objects”? And the first paragraph strikes me as a needless flogging of a straw man, the egghead twelve tone theorist, to make the writer look like a heroic proponent of populist taste. But maybe I’m reading too much of my own bias into your prose? The review raises questions, but they’re more about the writer who wrote it than the music under scrutiny.

Back to the directive in your question: Lots of specific examples of “meaningful commentary” can be found in Jason Bivins’ recent Nels Cline review and loads of other reviews on this site (some of yours included).

My namesake has written:-

"i do not want hot air blown up from my ass from phil or anybody. this accomplishes nothing.
what i want is an intelligent opinion on my work - good, bad or neutral."

Weasel Walter takes the position (that I've seen expressed by many people--here, and elsewhere) that a judgment that this or that piece of music is "good" or "bad" is entirely subjective. But his posts clearly indicate that he also holds that what is or isn't "an intelligent opinion" or a "good" or "serious" record review isn't subjective at all, but something that ought to be agreed upon by all. That Phil's reviews are pap is, to WW, a patent fact.

FWIW, I think both of those positions are mistaken. What is good or bad music, on my view, isn't entirely subjective any more than what is a useful, intelligent, well-written, entertaining review. However, what constitutes solid music criticism isn't entirely objective. Neither of these sorts of judgement is black-and-white--purely objective or purely subjective.

As I've said, my own take on Phil's reviews is that they're often fun to read, and you don't have to guess his take. It's also true, however, that they don't provide much else, info that some other reviewers (who may be less fun to read and/or more opaque) do provide. I therefore give Phil a (gentleman's) B-/C+ as a reviewer (and this is not an Xmas present!).

(Any other of the reviewers here wanting to know their grades before end of term may contact me privately.)

Walto: You come close to what I think is the key to the issue. The simple listener puts his money where his mouth is, by buying a CD which he hopes he will like.

The reviewer does the opposite. He is paid to write whatever he (or his publisher) sees fit to print about a particular CD. Neither of them puts his hand in his pocket.

Two vastly different worlds, methinks. If every reviewer had to pay for what he reviews, we would see a seriously superior standard of reviewing.

Hot damn, Prof. Horn is posting his end-of-semester grades, an event I always anticipate with bated breath. I don’t think it’s fair, however, that Phil’s marks are made public while others have the option of private notification. A more equitable policy would be to post them all here for everyone to peruse, at least that’s my vote.

And to respond to Graham, if I had to pay for every disc I reviewed I wouldn't have two ducats to rub together. Where I do pay is in the intangibles of time & energy devoted to the process.

"If every reviewer had to pay for what he reviews, we would see a seriously superior standard of reviewing."
No you wouldn't, because we'd only buy things we want to hear and are therefore predisposed to like. Most of the albums I've bought this year are things I haven't written about. With a few exceptions, inc Scott Walker's Drift.
I would say rather "if every reviewer were paid correctly for what s/he reviews [with the rider that the commissioning editor has and exercises a right of veto over the inclusion of the finished review] , you might see a superior standard of writing."
Anyway, it's Christmas morning here, & I've got other things to do than sit here & wait for Prof Horn's end of term results (you can send me my grades privately, Walt) - Pokemons, Asterix, Dragonball Z, Kapla, Petit Nicolas and Bionicles here I come. Merry Christmas y'all.
Bah humbug etc etc

The reviewer's sole responsibility is to serve his readers. All else is obfuscation.

The corrolary is, of course:

The musician's sole responisibility is to the listener.

Critics should not write for musicians any more than musicians should play for critics.

That dictum looks good in print, but what about writers' & musicians' responsibilities toward serving themselves? If I was writing solely for readers, I probably wouldn’t be writing. I do it for my own edification/development/entertainment as well. I also think both parties have responsibilities toward the entities that disseminate their work, if applicable.

It all flows from honesty. You serve your reader by expressing yourself honestly. In the process you serve "the entity that disseminates, etc.," and scratch that "edification/development/entertainment" itch.

In any case, my initial point was about "reviewing" for publication, not critical writing in general.

Cool. Incidentally, I've been enjoying (& sometimes disagreeing) with your work at Jazz Times over the past 6 or so months. I pulled the trigger on a $5 subscription through a Mosaic Records promo this summer. It's a more interesting mag than I initially thought. Reminds me a bit of a print AAJ in terms of all the angles it covers.

Thanks, Derek. I'm very happy to be working for JT. That it publishes as much of my work as it does certainly demonstrates a willingness to present a wide range of (frequently unpopular) opinion.

Chris Kelsey Gave me a not so good review (Although it was in Jazz Times), but I have no problem with his writing.
His reviews seem to be well researched and competent.
PDF has never given me a review (I do try to keep my cds out of his hands by sending them directly to writers I feel are good).
I can take criticism and writers need to be able to also if they are going to dish it out for a living (or partial living).

There becomes a point where things become subjective, and other points where they are not.
A better analogy would be with musicians who take a naive/unstudied approach. It is possible for that to pan out in the end, often times it just doesn't.
The point many of us are making is that it is not really panning out for PDF.
He gets facts wrong, lacks knowledge and historical perspective.
That works in the begining but there needs to be improvment.
It is like a 20 year old coming on the scene with a lot of energy and just going for it, it is great as long their level of playing does not stay the same for the next ten years.

Sorry, couldn't resist, DW vs pdf, and it's the selfsame review, give and take a few pretentions: I have no clue, but bear with me...

One of the most remarkable things about the body of work Keith Rowe has released in recent years is how damned difficult it is to review. He's not alone in totally redefining the entire vocabulary, technique and aesthetic of an existing instrument, but whereas it's not all that hard to trace some kind of evolution in the work of, say, Jason Kahn or Axel Dörner, Rowe's work remains stubbornly resistant to analysis. In fact, it's impossible to analyse it in any conventional way. As any Music Theory major will tell you, analysis involves the representation of what a piece of music consists of – its basic material and the transformation and development thereof – in condensed (usually graphic) form, the better to understand its internal workings. A musicologist, on the other hand, will seek to examine the work in a larger context, as part of the artist's entire oeuvre, or as representative (or not) of an existing genre / trend. Both theorists and musicologists would find Keith Rowe's work is frustratingly hard to pin down. It has no interest whatsoever in traditional musical parameters such as pitch and rhythm, which means you can't transcribe it with any accuracy, and while serious EAI heads (for whom this review is superfluous in any case, as they tend to rush out and buy anything Rowe does without question) might detect some kind of evolution in it in terms of the kit being used, the fact remains that this latest duo with Oren Ambarchi sounds similar enough to the one that preceded it, 2001's Flypaper on Staubgold, as to render more or less redundant any question of stylistic evolution, at both the theoretical and musicological level. As the French say, "c'est une évidence", which I guess Phill Niblock would translate as "it is what it is". We're left with a simple, bald description of the music (not that it's easy to describe), and even that fails to do justice to the nuanced and beautiful sounds these two musicians create. The upshot of it all is that if you know Rowe's work, you'll love this; and if you don't (though goodness knows how you've managed to pass it by for so long), Squire is as good a place to start in as any.

A confession: I don't understand twelve-tone theory. I looked it up on Wikipedia once, but by the time I got to the retrograde inversion, I was already yawning. And while this may well mark me as barely one step above a bug-eating ape, I don't care. Neither should any prospective listener allow self-doubt to keep them from exploring this pair of solo piano CDs. They sound great whether you approach after years of brow-furrowing study, or hear them after being raised to adulthood alone, in an unlit basement with absolutely no instruction in rudimentary human social skills, let alone the niceties of improvised and 20th century classical musics.
Schlippenbach sticks to keys and pedals throughout; no string-plucking or foreign objects to throw off anybody less than fully versed in avant garde pianistics. Occasional high-speed workouts like "LOK 03," which closes Volume One, are balanced by the title track and its three variations - each is as graceful and beautiful an exercise in balance as a cat crossing a ladder between two skyscrapers. The standards that close the set offer a 20 minute comedown from the occasionally stark heights scaled during the previous 90-100 minutes. They also serve as reminders that Schlippenbach can swing pretty hard when he wants to.

First of all, using "pretention" as a barb is the just the ignorant masses defense against intelligence. Ignorance isn't cute or cool, it is just lame.
Secondly if you can't find a marked difference between those two reviews, then you will likely never get it.
For one thing a person cannot go down to their used book store and find several books what keith Rowe is doing like you can on 20th century composition techniques, much less have the explanation handed to you by Google or Wikipedia.

Should be "about what Keith Rowe is doing". Sorry.

"rim horne" . . . yeah, whatever. another anonymous shit disturber. great. you're really adding to the discussion, idiot.

those two reviews are incredibly dissimilar. one deals with actual context, the other one says "i don't know shit, but i like this."

guess which one seems more intelligent? but then again, this "bug-eating ape" writer is so far up his own wazoo with this gonzo rock-n-roll dorkwad persona thing, intelligence doesn't seem to be his goal. he has succeeded!

I am Hector Bivirino, and I did not make the above post.

First up, I AM Dan Warburton and I did make this post! Happy New Year to everyone, including real and false Hector Bivirinos. Thanks Rim for quoting the Rowe review in its entirety (I'll even excuse you for not asking for permission, haha); but the point I was trying to make is summed up by what Damon says above, so I don't think there's much to add. The review's central idea - the impossibility of analysis - also connects with earlier reviews of mine on Keith's work with which you're no doubt familiar.
The Schlippenbach is another kettle of fish altogether: firstly, there are precedents to discuss in solo piano literature (Schlippenbach's own for starters), issues relating to the album's glorious head-on confrontation of "European" - serial, academic - and "American" - jazz, standards, old and new - and a whole lotta background to go into regarding AS's own studies (hell, the liner notes do all your work for you - who needs Wikipedia??). I regret that Phil chose not to do that, but that's his choice. My observation was and is that his review was doing a disservice both to the music and musician, and also to the magazine that commissioned it. FWIW, I'll be writing something on these two albums myself next month in the other place.
Oh, and if "hector bivirino" is not "Hector Bivirino" he has no right to call Rim Horne and anonymous shit disturber, does he? Come on out from behind your pseudonyms and stand up and be counted!

Perhaps the lowercase bivirino is operating under the assumption that the uppercase Bivirino is not actually a Bivirino but Phil Freeman using a pseudonym, as suggested before. While not the "authority" that Wikipedia is, a google search for "Hector Bivirino" yields nothing but his comments here.

Great! then I, too, can be Hector Bivirino. Always wanted to have a collective identity.

Hm, compared to you treetops folk I'm on a diet of worms, but the whole thing struck me as a bug-eatin' ape type of conceit because it is based on the assumption that there's no evolution (hey Dan, thanks for stayin' with the metaphor) in Rowe's work, while to the casual listener he seems to be changing a lot lately, say from a bearskin to a cushion to a bare-legged man in a nightgown, or from the relative safety of thick textures to the openness that is between (yeah, that's a record where every damn review stressed the impossibility of the task, I wonder why? If I say I catch my breath because both musicians reject firm ground and go on a tightrope with nothing but their own voices to tread upon, now that's perhaps a silly image, but it's comparatively easy to grasp what makes that record so special, because it noticeably is just that, no?)

I read what Dan wrote as no linear or obvious evolution, not that Rowe has not evolved. There are similarities to his earlier work and what he does now but not a blantantly obvious line.
There is also a bit of a situation where he now has the collaborators to work with ideas he has had for years.

I don't find Rowe's work tough to get as a listener but the task of putting it into words would not be so easy.
Anyway, the last thing Bags needs in another Keith Rowe discussion!

I seriously doubt Phil Freeman would hide behind a pseudonym, much less someone else's.. He seems to be quite able to take it on the chin and in good spirits, though I may be wrong.
I think there is an audible evolution in Rowe's work if you compare Weather Sky & Between for example, but I didn't find it all that evident in comparing Squire and Flypaper (which I returned to with great pleasure, having not heard it for ages). I suppose Keith aficionados like Jon, or others who enjoy the wonderful luxury of being able to listen to his albums ten, twelve or fifty times, will disagree. (Please say so. That's what we're here for.) To broaden the discussion, I came across this quotation from Rothko:
"The progression of a painter's work as it travels in time from point to point, will be toward clarity.. toward the elimination of all obstacles between the painter and the idea.. and the idea and the observer.. To achieve this clarity is inevitably to be understood."
That recalls Keith's remarks in his interview with me about playing with Sugimoto:
"DW: How did you find working with Taku Sugimoto?
KR: I found it very easy. It goes back to AMM, I think, and an understanding of economy. Reflection, philosophy. It isn't necessarily a question of what you do. As Michelangelo would say, "Drawing is making a line around your thoughts." Your thoughts have to be very clear. My thoughts are very clear; Taku's thoughts are very clear."
I think Keith's thoughts ARE very clear, and they have been for a while now - but compare the way Sugimoto has evolved since those remarks were made (January 2001) with the two Rowe / Ambarchi albums.

This is truly sad. I'm a 64 year-old former English teacher and free jazz fan who recently rediscovered the music of his youth via the internet. I came to this site looking to engage others in conversation about issues confronting lovers of creative music, and I've instead encountered a mob of ill-mannered children. I thought I'd left that behind when I retired from teaching.

"Hector Bivirino" is indeed a pseudonym. I'm new to this stuff, but I thought the use of pseudonyms was acceptable on sites like this. In any case, my real name would mean nothing to any of you, unless you attended certain Irving, Texas public schools from the early '70s through last year. I am most assuredly NOT Phil Freeman. I will also look elsewhere for information and discourse. This place seems to be nothing but a refuge for some of the most bitter and mean-spirited people I've ever encountered.

Not so sure about "a mob of ill-mannered children", more like a "loose confederation of warring tribes" (to quote Yes Minister). I can't speak for any of my other worthy constituents but I certainly don't feel mean-spirited and I'm not at all bitter. Sorry to see you go, but if go you must, bon voyage ;)

the reason that review isn't one of Dan's better efforts is mostly because of the crucial piece of info it doesn't contain, which is that Squire was recorded in 2002. I told Keith/Oren at the time that I thought they should kill the plans to release Thumb and Honey Pie and just go right to the Squire recording, but that advice wasn't heeded. Keith's post-2004 music (when he drastically changed his setup) hasn't been especially well documented yet, but Squire clearly belongs to the prior section of his work, and would have sounded decidedly better in 2003, IMO. anyway, Brian O.'s review here, while brief, is certainly more on point:

http://www.bagatellen.com/archives/reviews/001480.html

Jon: Could you elaborate a little please on how Rowe has changed his set-up since 2004? For a listener such as myself who rarely would get the chance to see him live, my ears are curious to know how these different sound-scapes are created. (I have most of his recordings, so I'd be able to relate your comments to the discs).

I couldn't ask for a more loyal readership than the fine folks around here. I've got plenty more comin' in '07, so keep loitering by the newsstands! (We'll see if the Wire takes my feature pitch for a 25th Anniversary look at Napalm Death...)

Graham, in late 2004, Keith literally cut down his guitar to a "cubist" one (I believe only the third time he's changed guitars, once in the early eighties, once in 1999, and this time), and added a much more powerful shortwave radio and a laptop. there are good pix of this floating around, maybe Richard Pinnell can link to one later.

he's always in some degree of minor flux with his setup, but this was a radical departure, as you can imagine, and he's still tweaking it. what's amazing is that in 2004, he had totally mastered his current setup, and seemed to churn out jawdropping show after jawdropping show (the duo with Beins on ErstLive 001 is one, also the solo sets in NYC in May and September of that year were both particularly memorable). but for him, it was too comfortable, and so he felt compelled to move on.

one reason I'm especially excited to hear the new Perlonex/Rowe release (which should get here tomorrow or Monday) is that it's from fall 2004, just before this shift. the only real post-shift recording thus far, unless I'm forgetting something, is 'between'.