is this wrong (a thread for momus and momus fans)

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

when his last album came out, or newest one, i've still not gotten hold of the new fandangled jargon - i was asked to review it but i declined because of ilx connections and the invariable momus pulling apart the review on-line. KEY AND URGENT QUESTION: WAS THIS WRONG OF ME????

― doom-e, Monday, 23 June 2003 09:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Ask Marcello ;-).

― suzy (suzy), Monday, 23 June 2003 09:06 (twenty-two years ago)

oh god that was weighing heavy on me for months now! yes, yes, i turned it down. i said 'NO'.

― doom-e, Monday, 23 June 2003 09:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Of course it was wrong of you, you poxy fule.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Monday, 23 June 2003 09:12 (twenty-two years ago)

If you didn't feel that you could do it, then you did the right thing.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 23 June 2003 09:20 (twenty-two years ago)

i guessed it helped that i didnt like the album as well! bring back the folk songs and jacques brel covers, momus!

― doom-e, Monday, 23 June 2003 09:21 (twenty-two years ago)

i am a shameful geir-like rockist (only in ilx world, otherwise i am rather joyful).

― doom-e, Monday, 23 June 2003 09:22 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't believe anyone who has a relationship with a musician should be reviewing them, for so many reasons. (Yes, this does mean no one from the ILX should be reviewing Momus ever, but hey...)

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 23 June 2003 09:24 (twenty-two years ago)

At most places I've worked, the policy goes: if you've fucked someone, you can't review them.

― suzy (suzy), Monday, 23 June 2003 09:55 (twenty-two years ago)

dang. there goes half of london and croydon for me!

― doom-e, Monday, 23 June 2003 09:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Doomie, have you fucked Momus?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 23 June 2003 09:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Doomie, you may want to use protection:

http://www.kevland.com/japan/kawaii.jpeg

― suzy (suzy), Monday, 23 June 2003 10:03 (twenty-two years ago)

What if you are reviewing their sexual technique?

I used to be in a world that was too small for those principles (er Doomie's, not Suzy's) - in comics it got to the stage that you sort of knew everyone in British comics. Also, I wanted at least some of the comics I was editing to be reviewed in the critical mag I also edited. I gave them to a couple of our best regular columnists and guaranteed that what they wrote would be printed. It gets difficult. I think it comes down to this: if you didn't feel you could offer an unbiased review, you certainly did the right thing. If you were just chickening out of having to 'face' Momus online, that's another matter.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 23 June 2003 16:20 (twenty-two years ago)

honestly, i could not see where momus was going with that album - but i enjoyed the fact that he was experimenting with his sound. i don't like to write about transition albums, as it were, because if the continued exploration by momus, of that full sound, will probably reach fruitation nearer the end of that particular audio cycle. i wouldnt not want to be faint and damnin of something that is just beginning. waste of my time and the reader's time.

facing momus online? pah. do you know remember - momus do you like hitler - later to be immortalised in the reality show - swapping wives.

― doom-e, Monday, 23 June 2003 19:02 (twenty-two years ago)

If I were reviewing records for professional media I would be loth to review anything by any ILXOR poster, as my opinion of the record would be very coloured by my opinion of the poster. Of course, I could just do a Kate and write mainly about my imaginary personal relationship with the stars. but that way lies madness.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Monday, 23 June 2003 19:11 (twenty-two years ago)

One of the things I like about ILX is that I'm, generally, 'designated for derision' here. This is not how I'm treated by friends or fans, and as someone with no boss or bully in my life, it's probably something I need and miss. I enjoy playing with it, partly because I don't consider it just or correct. In other words, I am seen as 'eccentric' on ILX, but in fact it is the derision of me and my views that often comes off as more eccentric, and I enjoy that reversal. I think, for various reasons, anyone who tries to be 'original' rather than 'phatic' here invariably turns into a sort of uber-troll and gets 'designated for derision'. But that fact -- and the results can be painful -- cannot stop my ultimate loyalty from being on the side of 'original' rather than 'phatic'. (Shorthand for 'original' versus 'phatic' -- the camera versus the cell phone.)

But I do sometimes worry that the 'designated for derision' thing might spill over into views on my work. I mean, if Samuel Beckett had been on here and annoyed me with his views on pigeon fancying, how would I feel sitting through his next play about 'giving birth astride the grave'? Wouldn't I, in reviewing said play, be very tempted to say something like 'Mr Beckett is an adequate purveyor of bleak scenarios of existential anguish. But his views on the correct insulation of dovecots are completely wrong-headed, in my view. 5/10.'

― Momus (Momus), Monday, 23 June 2003 19:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Is that a continuum, Momus (see: cell-phone cameras, fr'instance)?

― Cozen (Cozen), Monday, 23 June 2003 19:55 (twenty-two years ago)

The cellphone camera is to cameras what AIM is to ILX.

― Momus (Momus), Monday, 23 June 2003 19:57 (twenty-two years ago)

(Momus, answer my question in the desktop wallpaper thread while you're here, will ya?)

― Cozen (Cozen), Monday, 23 June 2003 20:00 (twenty-two years ago)

momus, it was not derision of your work, and hell, i'm in the unpopular league on ilx - right between calum and five spots below you. i enjoy what you were doing but not enough ... because i can see where it was going - which would be reason enough - but yeah, i had to fess up. i do feel that it's more *personal* though - i don't know you, or john, whose review of same got killed in the nme. i found it odd that i actually felt *guilty* and thought that it would be an interesting thread. i neither despise you or john. nor do i know you or john. but i certainly felt guilty when both of your works came to me for review.

― doom-e, Monday, 23 June 2003 20:00 (twenty-two years ago)

I very probably wouldn't have known about John's work unless I'd come here. That's not to say I'd buy a Mountain Goats album (what do you think I am, some kind of puritan masochist?) but I do have him down on a little list somewhere of 'good songwriters', no matter what disagreements we've had onboard.

― Momus (Momus), Monday, 23 June 2003 20:09 (twenty-two years ago)

no, momus, see, i have nothing against the body of work you've created nor the same of john, both of you have perfected or in the process of perfecting, talents.

the thing is *why* should i feel guilty because john's live review got killed or yours did as well? i shouldnt. i usually don't take it personally.

― doom-e, Monday, 23 June 2003 20:13 (twenty-two years ago)

believe it or not, i set incredibly high standards when i do the written reviews. i research, i put in alot of effort but with momus and the mountain goats that effort tripled. the effort to understand tripled. it was just an odd response, that is all. i mean, i'm friends andrew *nn*s and i did a primal scream review, but i suppose, he didnt have the baggage of ilx. the intensity of ilx? dunno. same with the biff bang pow liner notes. i just found it an interesting juxtaposition. and no, i don't think critics who frequent this board should ever hold john or momus on-line personas against the music.

― doom-e, Monday, 23 June 2003 20:18 (twenty-two years ago)

I wouldn't worry about it, Doom-e. The more people who don't like my record who turn down the opportunity to review it, the better!

(Cozen, re: wallpaper, I don't know the model's name, I'm afraid, but she's been in tons of TV and poster campaigns in France this year.)

― Momus (Momus), Monday, 23 June 2003 20:18 (twenty-two years ago)

but momus, by the third colloboration with that fellow you are working with,it's going to be fucking genius!

― doom-e, Monday, 23 June 2003 20:20 (twenty-two years ago)

semi-berlin period david bowie, type thing happening... it took me ten years to understand and 'get' the berlin period! but i sort of see it along those lines.

― doom-e, Monday, 23 June 2003 20:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Momus, you know I like you plenty but I think we need to clear something up: you happily designated yourself for derision, don't you think? And you enjoy it and take it politely, which is good for everyone. But let's be clear on the source: you do tend to take deliberately provocative or challenging positions for the sake of changing the discourse -- the "derision" role isn't one we've assigned you, but one you've evolved into in a manner that strikes me as basically symbiotic and maintained by both sides. (And note that if you're not being deliberately provocative or challenging or something akin to a devil's advocate, then we're deriding you because you're just largely flat-out wrong, even if it's in an interesting or productive way.)

That said, I do remember enjoying the first argument I had with you on here, because part of my brain was going "How funny, you're arguing with Momus! And oh my god he is so totally wrong!"

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 23 June 2003 20:22 (twenty-two years ago)

you happily designated yourself for derision, don't you think?

Oh, sure, I accept that. I mean, what is a Momus, after all? He's someone who is designated for derision in the sense that the other gods have given him the official title 'God of Mockery'. And yet, surprise surprise, when he mocks the gods (Aphrodite makes too much noise with her feet, even if her body is okay) they deride him and kick him off Mount Olympus.

― Momus (Momus), Monday, 23 June 2003 20:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Mount Olympus = Creation, surely? ; - )

this thread goes out to john as well. i was gutted both times.

― doom-e, Monday, 23 June 2003 20:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Momus = Momus
Zeus = Tom
Athena = Mark
Hephaestos = Alan
Aphrodite = Emma
Poseidon = Doomie
Hades = Jess
Hera = Ally
Ares = T Millar
Apollo = Felicity
Pan = J0hn D4rn3!ll3
Artemis = J Blount
Hermes = Gareth
Dionysos = Nickalicious
Hecate = Suzy
Eris = Trife

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 23 June 2003 20:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Cerberus = Calum.

― Cozen (Cozen), Monday, 23 June 2003 20:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Was there a tedious long-haired god? I'll have him.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 23 June 2003 20:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Ha, actually Ned, you should be Artemis!

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 23 June 2003 20:43 (twenty-two years ago)

(Obviously gender is mostly not an issue.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 23 June 2003 20:44 (twenty-two years ago)

"Sex," not "gender," which reminds me: Mark S = Tiresias.

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 23 June 2003 20:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Ha, actually Ned, you should be Artemis!

Genius! :-)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 23 June 2003 20:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Mark S = Plato, surely? or Aristotle.

I want to know what thoughts were running through his mind as he sat alone at the back of my show at the Whitechapel Gallery last week, keening his critical scythe with a book of obscure film criticism.

― Momus (Momus), Monday, 23 June 2003 20:49 (twenty-two years ago)

How very flattering. Bring on the young nymphs.

― felicity (felicity), Monday, 23 June 2003 20:54 (twenty-two years ago)

ha, my first ever post on ILE was on a Momus thread "Bang Kerpow the BBC something or other as I vaguely recall or something". Amusingly, as I type this "I can see Japan" has just come up on random play. There was no point other than exposition to this post.

― Matt (Matt), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 01:07 (twenty-two years ago)

note to self: don't send doomie a cd for review (only for pleasure)

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 05:43 (twenty-two years ago)

It's not bloody fair, I wanna be a God.

― jel -- (jel), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 06:58 (twenty-two years ago)

momus, though you have done the derision thing on purpose maybe, it only comes down to about 4 posters that have you pegged as that. i think most people here like momus the poster, and would think ilx poorer for your absence. i think a lot of people think that 'ilx' doesnt like them or whatever, but every person here has some others that dont like them so much, so you're not any different in that i'd say. archetypal ilx poster i'd say (though i guess you probably dont like me saying that, i dont mean it in bad way though, honest!)

anyway, i havent heard 'oskar tennis champion', but i think it is a fantastic title

― gareth (gareth), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 07:14 (twenty-two years ago)

jel:

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/math5.geometry/unit10/10056.gif

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 08:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Is that, in visual form, your review of my Whitechapel show, Mark?

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 10:23 (twenty-two years ago)

momus, though you have done the derision thing on purpose maybe, it only comes down to about 4 posters that have you pegged as that.

I can think of ten posters off the top of my head that would agree with this description of Momus (though see below)

i think most people here like momus the poster, and would think ilx poorer for your absence.

If you're implying a choice between "consider Momus to have a thing about being on the outside" and "would like Momus to stay around", then you have learned well from him :) I can and will hold both positions.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 10:44 (twenty-two years ago)

im not applying a choice. of course both positions apply, i dont think anyone would disagree with that

― gareth (gareth), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 11:13 (twenty-two years ago)

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