Weblog Response: NYLPM

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://www.freakytrigger.co.uk/nylpm/

We used to have comments on NYLPM but I thought they were a bit pokey, so now we will have this instead. If you read something on NYLPM at any time and want to comment and don't fancy emailing us, then use this thread as a springboard for conversation. We'll put a link to it on NYLPM and update if and when the thread gets long and we need to start a new one.

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 29 August 2003 08:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Nobody touched this yet? Then I will. ;-) To address an end point at the end of this fine post, and specifically this assertion:

What used to compromise some areas of pop music was that in order to consume it you pretty much had to give money to somebody who you might have felt didn’t deserve it: that is no longer a necessity.

Agreed, and the larger point addresses issues of large capitalistic blocs in particular. But using this as a bit of a launching pad, to readdress a subject I've muttered on before -- nothing new in what I'm saying here, but I sometimes wonder if it's been engaged as thoroughly as it could be, not least by me -- money may not be a direct necessity for getting the music (though a computer, power and Net access is, and that does cost, however comparatively), but time is still. Substitute that word in for 'money' in the above quote and you see the issue and how the statement would have to be reworded, how time and how it is spent is a bit of an elephant in the corner when it comes to discussion of music even in the era of the heavenly jukebox (and its attendant Slsk queues and not-quite-high-speed connections and so forth). If money need not be given to those who don't deserve it, then what of time?

Where individual inclinations differ, refract and readjust, it's less a matter of promotion-via-discussion and more the impulses of a listener and potential commentator before anything is even said about a song, and I suspect few of us can claim to have been either the perfect 'tries everything' listener or even, in turn, a truly committed dilettante. Until someone figures out a way to directly download songs into your brain without having to actually go to the bother of finding and listening to them, people can and will judge their own available time and attendant desires accordingly when it comes to who 'deserves' it, from the mythical 12 CD person to the equally mythical hyperpopist avatar, and that's a matter beyond the control of Fed interest rates and pay raises. Utopia may have been found but it's turned out to be an Elysian Field custom designed for everyone's own mind rather than being one size fits all.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 31 August 2003 18:40 (twenty-two years ago)

I think the donation of time is unavoidable to find out what the music's like, surely?

― Tom (Groke), Sunday, 31 August 2003 22:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Well yes, but that's my point! And we all make our own decisions on that one. I mean, you're not going to race out and download something described to you as 'the finest indie music since Travis,' but someone else could equally come to the same conclusion about 'the best pop music since Steps.' ;-)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 31 August 2003 22:31 (twenty-two years ago)

You'd be amazed Ned - I downloaded and listened to the new Travis single, and then at once deleted it. I download lots of things based on name or title too. I probably am too profligate with my time.

― Tom (Groke), Sunday, 31 August 2003 22:58 (twenty-two years ago)

*shrug* Hey, everyone's their own individual judge! Like I've said, I've been enjoying silence as much as anything this year, and while I'm more in a listening mood now than I've been for quite a while, at the same time it's within boundaries, I just don't want to spend all my time doing that -- whether whatever I'm doing is any more 'worthwhile' I dunno, but I'm certainly feeling a lot better!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 31 August 2003 23:21 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm glad all the hours of American Idol chat on aim have paid off in a review from Fred!

― Larcole (Nicole), Friday, 5 September 2003 22:00 (twenty-two years ago)

DON'T write your nylpm posts at university when you are late for a lecture

DO bring a change of underwear

― mitch lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Thursday, 11 September 2003 11:13 (twenty-two years ago)

tom, i really like the idea of "popular", but is it possible to date the songs? or would that defeat the point?

― gabbo giftington (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 16 September 2003 16:48 (twenty-two years ago)

re: popular - bravo and godspeed

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 17 September 2003 07:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, I'll put a date on them. I was thinking of giving them marks out of 10 too - I've never done that before!

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 17 September 2003 08:20 (twenty-two years ago)

There we go.

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 17 September 2003 09:17 (twenty-two years ago)

I soooooo want to do an American version of this.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Wednesday, 17 September 2003 10:27 (twenty-two years ago)

I like these exercises in formalism. I look forward to reading this and to MD finishing 'Send in the Clowns'.

― David. (Cozen), Wednesday, 17 September 2003 10:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Do it Mike. And then, when you're both finished, compile them into books.

― Ricardo (RickyT), Wednesday, 17 September 2003 10:35 (twenty-two years ago)

"Finished"

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 17 September 2003 10:38 (twenty-two years ago)

ok, yes, good point

― Ricardo (RickyT), Wednesday, 17 September 2003 11:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Jess - I don't get the 'fucking indie records' part of your Junior Boys, can you maybe explain it a little more?

― David. (Cozen), Wednesday, 17 September 2003 20:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Tom, on the "Popular" blog there's two copies of the latest review. It's a great idea for a music blog and it will be fun to see how it progresses.

― Nicolars (Nicole), Thursday, 18 September 2003 11:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Thanks Nicole!

― Tom (Groke), Thursday, 18 September 2003 11:28 (twenty-two years ago)

two weeks pass...

Fred is too lenient to the Britney single - it is wretched.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 7 October 2003 20:58 (twenty-two years ago)

I am dying to hear the Kylie single after your review Tom. Sadly soulseek isn't working. Soon though. Is it REALLY better than that one? And that one too?

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 7 October 2003 21:04 (twenty-two years ago)

The hidden secret of the Kylie single is that I'm not all that big a Kylie fan, so of course I would think it was better than those ones. OK, that one *is* great but I've heard it too often now.

You can get it straight off the web at mp3sfinder.com Ronan.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 7 October 2003 21:06 (twenty-two years ago)

I reckon the Britney single is great! "Slow" is good too, but it's no "Love at First Sight".

― edward o (edwardo), Tuesday, 7 October 2003 23:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah it's excellent. I don't think it's better than "Can't Get You Out Of My Head" or "Love at First Sight" but it's much better than a too-minimal electro track from Kylie has any right to be.

― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Tuesday, 7 October 2003 23:57 (twenty-two years ago)

the kylie track sounds much how i expect the mythical dfa-britney collabo to sound.

― gabbo giftington (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 8 October 2003 01:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Am I the only person who still feels warmly towards the chart, as a place where the average punter can make some difference? That seems a crucial difference from the corporate-zeitgest-capturing measures Alex T proposes (and the ranked-by-airplay horror of the US chart). Though a ringtones chart is a fine idea.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 13 October 2003 09:08 (twenty-two years ago)

I can sympathise with the average punter making a difference thesis -- but that should make it the people's chart, not the official chart! But there are lots of other charts which do measure requested songs, ringtones, etc., but usually only aimed at a tiny market. It's long been accepted that urban music is underrepresented in the chart because not bought from chart return stores. If the 'official' chart were renamed the 'official 'teenagers with cash to burn, some obsessive indie fans and a few old freaks' top 40' I'd have no quibbling.

But I'm also curious about people's desire to have A single, authoritative, British chart: when elsewhere they might be perfectly happy to accept that the world exists in all kinds of multifarious ways, and that culturally, British lives certainly resist totalisation into one national narrative.

― alext (alext), Monday, 13 October 2003 09:16 (twenty-two years ago)

I do wonder sometimes what would happen if The Official Chart Company (the main reason why it's called the Official Chart I suspect) did a random telephone survey each week and asked people for their 3 favourite current songs. I think at a stroke you'd bring back rising and falling records etc etc and it would 'catch the national mood' if there was one to catch. (I think it would also be mostly rubbish.)

Of course there isn't a single chart! There's the Official Chart Company's chart, there's the Pepsi one, the Network one (if these are still different), various 'specialist' ones - there's never been one single chart. There is the one that gets played on Radio 1 and is the most 'generally accepted' but before Radio 1 there was a myriad. Like the Network and real ones though they tended to diverge near the top.

I think I resist totalisation in other areas because it seems more tempting or 'common sensical' - ideas that 'everybody' cares about how England do at football or that everyone in the nation is horrorstruck at the latest tabloid moral panic are worth resisting because they are close enough to the truth to be dangerous. The idea that The Charts represent some kind of national narrative is perverse enough to be quite appealing: nobody actually believes it, not even Wes. It also is one of the master narratives which celebrates rather than hides or smooths over different opinions - it's entirely acceptable to care about 'the charts' and hate what's topping them.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Monday, 13 October 2003 09:29 (twenty-two years ago)

But isn't there a difference between hating what's at the top, but having to lump it because it's the government and the populace elected them -- or rather, because a significant minority did, and hating what's at the top of the chart when there's a million other charts which might be more relevant to you? I guess the BBC is the other factor here, and that The Official Chart couldn't get away with calling itself 'official' if it was on Channel 5. So maybe my complaint is (yet again) about the way the BBC projects itself as 'the voice of a nation' when it clearly could never be. But I can see why there is something quaintly appealing about the obvious and blatant disparity between the claim and reality. However, does the appeal of this derive from a love of absurdity for its own sake, or some kind of nostalgia for either a personal or a communal moment when it just *might* have been -- or at least felt -- true? Strangely, I wonder whether the fact that the BBC becomes more and more ridiculous the more the culture industries fragment make it MORE rather than less important. But maybe that importance is based not on its claim to unify things, but in the way it still provides space for narratives which will not be heard in the false transparency of the commercial media. The voted for chart would indeed be awful -- and I like the idea that some kind of technical / mechanical (ie nos. bought, which doesn't imply nos. of copies actually ENJOYED!) criterion can be used to replace either popular or critical opinion in terms of ranking records. But I also know that the way technical questions are framed makes them as ideological as critical judgements... flip flop, as sinkah might say.

― alext (alext), Monday, 13 October 2003 11:11 (twenty-two years ago)

My appreciation of "Slow" was greatly enhanced by seeing the video on CD:UK on Saturday. It's still not as good as the new Holly Valance though.

― Nick H, Monday, 13 October 2003 13:09 (twenty-two years ago)

The Observer Music Monthly article that Tom mentions at http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~tewing/2003_10_12_singlesa.html#106640518895336839

I enjoyed reading about Charlie Busted's indie-love. sparklehorse?

― Alan (Alan), Wednesday, 22 October 2003 11:56 (twenty-two years ago)

I wrote a big piece about that and Blogger ate it - I couldn't really be bothered to start again. Bit disappointing I thought, great cover though. Too many bogus parallels with Britpop, not enough selling the excellent music to a (probably) sceptical readership.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Wednesday, 22 October 2003 12:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Thanks to Geeta for linking to the Dave Q review in VV!

― Nicolars (Nicole), Tuesday, 28 October 2003 04:15 (twenty-two years ago)

two weeks pass...

haha!

― brutal (Cozen), Tuesday, 11 November 2003 11:49 (twenty-two years ago)

haha + epiphany!

― brutal (Cozen), Tuesday, 11 November 2003 11:52 (twenty-two years ago)

I like Stevie T's The ABCD of Pop.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 11:26 (twenty-two years ago)

so do i it's brilliant

― pete b. (pete b.), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 11:36 (twenty-two years ago)

yes as i said.

― athos magnani (Cozen), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 12:20 (twenty-two years ago)

two weeks pass...

It seems that Kate Ryan is actually Belgian.

French speakers - what is "une catin"? Is it something dirty?

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 27 November 2003 13:40 (twenty-two years ago)

i much, much prefer the Kate Ryan single before it, Desenchantee (they're both Mylene Farmer covers, btw). still, my girlfriend doesn't agree so Tom it's probably best you judge yourself!

― Mind Taker, Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:41 (twenty-two years ago)

yes, Tom, I should have pointed out on the Europop thread that Kate Ryan is a poster person for Sabam (a company which I think used to be connected with Sabena before that went belly-up)

In standard French, the noun 'catin' means whore.

― Jeff W (zebedee), Thursday, 27 November 2003 17:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Crikey it was dirty!

I have downloaded Desenchantee MT, will give it a listen later.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 27 November 2003 18:01 (twenty-two years ago)

So What's the rudest word? The rudest word I know would be "You're an asshole and I just can't get rid of you unless I'm a surgeon"

― cEdie, Friday, 5 December 2003 06:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Dave Q's Scorpions review is the best music piece I've ever read.

Anyone see TheAllNewTOTP tonite? Defend the indefensible : Sting. Twat. Defend the Indefensible : Tim Kash - gurning simpleton.

I liked Victoria Beckham's first track.

Tom - I am still going to write a piece on Darts (the game, not 'Daddy Cool'!). I am back now -Back For Good. Exams all over and done with, until the resits.

― Dr. C (Dr. C), Friday, 5 December 2003 20:36 (twenty-two years ago)

yay dr c!! (i bet u aced them)

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 5 December 2003 20:53 (twenty-two years ago)

erm I think I might have, what's the word...*flunked* one of them, mark.

― Dr. C (Dr. C), Saturday, 6 December 2003 18:49 (twenty-two years ago)

― mark s (mark s), Saturday, 6 December 2003 19:38 (twenty-two years ago)

how sure are you of this Dr C? I sometimes used to feel awful after some exams and then it turns out I did really well.

anyway: YOU'RE BACK!!!

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Saturday, 6 December 2003 20:59 (twenty-two years ago)

tom needs to make more snide editorial comments in our posts.

― fiddo centington (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 6 December 2003 21:00 (twenty-two years ago)

haha i wasn't sure if that was tom! ("eat shit"?!)

― raphael diligent (Cozen), Saturday, 6 December 2003 21:05 (twenty-two years ago)

haha dave q DEF needs to make snide comments in our posts

― fiddo centington (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 6 December 2003 21:06 (twenty-two years ago)

the first was def tom.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Saturday, 6 December 2003 21:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Neither were me. But don't let that stop everyone ripping off Dave's idea.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Sunday, 7 December 2003 21:44 (twenty-two years ago)

haha!

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Sunday, 7 December 2003 21:52 (twenty-two years ago)

The version of "Radioactivity" on "The Mix" is the best track on a great, great album.

― gobemouche, Tuesday, 9 December 2003 22:52 (twenty-two years ago)

('apology' to tom: i am in violation of my contract and havent posted anything for at least a month - i do still wanna be part of the team but my computer not so much. until i backup everything and reformat, using blogger is v. difficult.)

― mitch lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 23:03 (twenty-two years ago)

three weeks pass...

OK, back and running after the Christmas break. I'm sure you're all sick of 2003 rundowns but here's FT's - it should have been an article but we're still waiting for BTC0nn3ct to move our domain name to Steve's server :(

To be posted in chunks of 5 tracks at a time, this week.

http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~tewing/singlesb.html

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Monday, 5 January 2004 00:38 (twenty-two years ago)

lumidee is hott damn straight.

nice to see 'my love is like... wo' love too - have you seen the video? wo!

― cozen¡ (Cozen), Monday, 5 January 2004 00:47 (twenty-two years ago)

(didn't FT switch from BT yet? - cz when I try and access it at the moment I'm getting BT's "no one home" page)

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 16 January 2004 12:27 (twenty-two years ago)

You are??!! Excellent! That means it might actually be switching.

I'm not sure what to do next mind you.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 16 January 2004 12:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh except it shouldnt be going to BT at all if its switched.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 16 January 2004 12:43 (twenty-two years ago)

well my own bookmarks may simply need updating, but the internal links from nylpm shd surely take me to the correct sites?

maybe it isn't switching yet and it's just a standard BT bug-out

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 16 January 2004 12:51 (twenty-two years ago)

No the internal links shouldnt work yet - we've not republished even if the domain has moved. What I *think* should be happening is a standard error message rather than a BT not found.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 16 January 2004 12:53 (twenty-two years ago)

*bates breath*

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 16 January 2004 12:58 (twenty-two years ago)

OK, the switch HAS gone through. What needs to happen now is for the domain name freakytrigger.co.uk to point at the URL on Stevem's site (which I have forgotten but it's in an email somewhere). I am not sure how to do this bit!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 16 January 2004 13:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Basically you will still administer the domain name from your BT user admin page, but the domain will now forward to my server instead of the webspace you were using provided by BT. I don't really understand IPS tags and their purpose (haven't usually required them for simple web-forwarding procedure in the past) so kept thinking you would need to actually transfer the domain name to another host (i.e. not BT) but this needn't be the case.

― stevem (blueski), Friday, 16 January 2004 13:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Hmm well the thing is I don't want to even have a user admin page with BT, I want to stop giving them my money (and give it to you instead Steve!) but I will see if they can do a forwarding.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 16 January 2004 13:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Right, we're gradually getting there I think - no FT for a few days though probably.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 16 January 2004 14:54 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, 24-48 hours :(

― stevem (blueski), Friday, 16 January 2004 16:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Steve, did youy ever post the "top 5 singles of 2003" list?

― Raymond Cummings (Raymond Cummings), Friday, 16 January 2004 17:15 (twenty-two years ago)

NEW HOME!

http://www.freakytrigger.co.uk/nylpm/

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 18:49 (twenty-two years ago)

The rough guides are a fantastic resource!

― El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 18:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Utterly fantastic indeed! I still despair at never being able to hear them all, though! *cries*

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 19:28 (twenty-two years ago)

bah it haf vainshed again

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 20:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Hey Ned, did you see my DM rough guides?

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 20:09 (twenty-two years ago)

I have not seen them yet and I R sad. Where are they?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 02:14 (twenty-two years ago)

What the heck is that doll, & why is his beerbath significant?

― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 02:28 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.freakytrigger.co.uk/nose/

PopNose. Bookmark it if you want to, or something.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 16:16 (twenty-two years ago)

BT sign comes up on that link.

― Phoebe Dinsmore, Wednesday, 21 January 2004 16:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah it won't have propagated everywhere yet - though if Popular is showing up for you and that isn't then something's wrong.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 16:21 (twenty-two years ago)

No, Popular isn't showing up on my blog link either. Will I have to change it?

― Phoebe Dinsmore, Wednesday, 21 January 2004 16:35 (twenty-two years ago)

No not at all. We've moved from BT's awful old server to Stevem's wonderful shiny new one is all, but all the links are the same. It's just that now every other server has to recognise that the domain name points to one set of IP numbers rather than another set. This is taking longer for some people than others - I've been able to see it since last night, some people got it earlier, others haven't yet. It might be another 24 hours or so.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 16:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Site is back up now after some major issues with the server this week.

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 22 January 2004 13:35 (twenty-two years ago)

It is???

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 22 January 2004 13:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh, it is. I can't get into it via FTP to hide the things we discussed hiding though Steve!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 22 January 2004 13:38 (twenty-two years ago)

working on that now

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 22 January 2004 13:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Um the blogs aint publishing either.

― Sarah (starry), Thursday, 22 January 2004 13:41 (twenty-two years ago)

i feel like the Promotions Officer for the Titanic

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 22 January 2004 13:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Women and MP3s first!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 22 January 2004 13:47 (twenty-two years ago)

OK should be working now. No Popnose for a while though, sorry.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 22 January 2004 14:54 (twenty-two years ago)

six months pass...

ok revive!

I thought many ppl on ilm might wanna have a look at the arguments on nylpm in the past week or so. Its quite a bit to work through but it starts with ewing on morley:

http://www.freakytrigger.co.uk/nylpm/2004_07_01_nylpm_archive.html#109077300412210850

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 2 August 2004 08:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Best bit was the sinker-reynolds cross-sniping.

― Jacob (Jacob), Monday, 2 August 2004 09:39 (twenty-one years ago)

one year passes...

[spam deleted --mod]

― Asa, Tuesday, 2 August 2005 19:01 (twenty years ago)

Every single word in this thread title screams "this thread was started in 2001," I am surprised it is from 2003.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 19:08 (twenty years ago)

"response" is so 2001!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 20:08 (twenty years ago)

It is!

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 20:47 (twenty years ago)

9/11 CHANGED EVERYTHING MAN

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 20:52 (twenty years ago)

No, no, I'm serious: weren't there all sorts of ILX threads entitled "Article Response" and the like back then?

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 21:02 (twenty years ago)

This is true, yes...

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 21:04 (twenty years ago)

[spam, it die]

― wan1980, Monday, 15 August 2005 12:58 (twenty years ago)

one month passes...

...

― ati80, Wednesday, 21 September 2005 22:55 (twenty years ago)

[spam begone]

― Chirilei, Thursday, 29 September 2005 22:54 (twenty years ago)

two months pass...

spam

― Download free cingular ringtone, Wednesday, 30 November 2005 08:03 (twenty years ago)

spam

― Download free cingular ringtone, Wednesday, 30 November 2005 08:15 (twenty years ago)

one month passes...

[spam]

― Eric, Tuesday, 24 January 2006 09:09 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.