Article Response: Sticks

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Sticks, by The Pinefox.

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 19:07 (twenty-three years ago)

Please Note :-
The page cannot be found - The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

etcetc. is this just me?

― toby (tsg20), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 19:16 (twenty-three years ago)

(duh just read the download this thread so please ignore.)

― toby (tsg20), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 19:18 (twenty-three years ago)

Oops, try again!

(no toby it was my fault)

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 19:18 (twenty-three years ago)

Come on Pinefans!!

― Tom (Groke), Thursday, 6 February 2003 11:09 (twenty-three years ago)

I may like the caprice of this almost more than I like the actual piece. It essays the problems of writing about instrumental music: the gap between the allusion of the mind's ear (to Carver, Eliot, Endor, Yeats) and the actual structure of instrumentation, melody, arrangement (and how to make this dramatic or interesting without [or despite] musicology)... but I'm not sure if it resolves them. But he's a superlatively sensitive critic, willing to follow where the mood/muse leads him, and this is characteristically beautifully-written.

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Thursday, 6 February 2003 11:35 (twenty-three years ago)

I liked the writing, and would like to hear the music, but unfortunately after reading the article a few times I have no idea what the music is or who it's by. Can someone enlighten me?

― Sam (chirombo), Thursday, 6 February 2003 11:47 (twenty-three years ago)

The original article mentioned neither artist nor song; editorial compromise meant that the song name - "Driftwood" - was inserted as a sub-heading.

I suppose I can 'reveal' that it's by Lloyd Cole.

― Tom (Groke), Thursday, 6 February 2003 11:50 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh bugger - was that the whole point of the article? Sorry.

― Sam (chirombo), Thursday, 6 February 2003 11:54 (twenty-three years ago)

No dont worry Sam! The Pinefox-image is of someone who's always on about Lloyd Cole, and I took the leaving-out as a nice little joke about that.

― Tom (Groke), Thursday, 6 February 2003 11:56 (twenty-three years ago)

Tom E: it's not called 'Driftwood'. (Possibly you were thinking of the Travis song?) It's called *'Backwoods'*. Could you make the alteration?

― the pinefox, Thursday, 6 February 2003 16:07 (twenty-three years ago)

OH NO!! Well it just adds to the mystery or something.

Oops.

I'll do it tonight!

― Tom (Groke), Thursday, 6 February 2003 16:30 (twenty-three years ago)

Great article - really makes me want to hear the track. A quick check on Amazon tells me it's on 'Etc...'. Is the rest of the album any good too?

― James Ball (James Ball), Friday, 7 February 2003 09:37 (twenty-three years ago)

I wonder if the time it takes to read the article is identical to the track length which is 94 seconds. In my opinion the rest of the album is nice and pleasant but cannot stand up to the promise the first track makes.

― alex in mainhattan (alex63), Friday, 7 February 2003 09:53 (twenty-three years ago)

This is fantastic stuff PF. I'm not much interested in the record, but your writing is wonderful. And you used the word 'highway'!

― Dr. C (Dr. C), Friday, 7 February 2003 12:18 (twenty-three years ago)

Thanks, doc.

Does "Etc" live up to the promise of "Backwoods"? Off the top of my head: yes. But "Backwoods" could still, by those lights, be the best and most intriguing thing on the LP. Maybe it is.

Tom E: I see that you have still not changed the title from the essentially irrelevant "Driftwood" to the almost undeniably relevant "Backwoods". This seems to me regrettable. I would appreciate it if you could do it.

― the pinefox, Friday, 7 February 2003 22:16 (twenty-three years ago)

A joy to read, for all the reasons JtN nails, and some extravagant but right turns of phrase. The only line I didn't like was "He must have been proud of that; I couldn’t have come up with it" for a few reasons. There is no elegant and rhythmic way of writing "couldn't have" - "could not have" is probably the best, most even, of a bad lot. But why say it anyway? I like the one The Pinefox track I have heard, but even so your not coming up with it is not necessarily striking or high praise.

Also, you make it sound better than I'm prepared to believe that it might be!

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 7 February 2003 23:04 (twenty-three years ago)

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