PFM Mag Fields review

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Why did Plagenhoef make it like a blog entry? Pointless, self-congratulating writing.

― Roberton, Tuesday, 11 May 2004 20:07 (twenty-two years ago)

have you never read pfm before?

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 11 May 2004 20:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, but he's usually just staid and to-the-point. This was embarrassing.

― Roberton, Tuesday, 11 May 2004 20:14 (twenty-two years ago)

i thort it was funny.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 01:12 (twenty-two years ago)

i didnt get it.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 01:14 (twenty-two years ago)

It's seems to be Scott's confession that he has been a teenage girl blogger all this time, strongo, but I couldn't quite follow it either so I could be wrong.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 01:19 (twenty-two years ago)

SCOTT Should come here and explain...making it a blog didnt prove a point

― Alenn4, Wednesday, 12 May 2004 02:56 (twenty-two years ago)

i think that the pfm crowd's conception of a "blog" is at wide varience with ours, is the thing!

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 03:12 (twenty-two years ago)

it was mainly an excuse to make up funnyish media quotes anyway.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 03:12 (twenty-two years ago)

YEAH BUT They didn't do anything, the funnyish media quotes...i don't get the "joke," they added nothing...people with blogs talk about the magfields? SO?

― Alenn4, Wednesday, 12 May 2004 03:34 (twenty-two years ago)

I can't see how this is any worse than any other gimmick that's already been used in reviewing this album.

― edward o (edwardo), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 03:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't know if it worked* (or if I even like it!) myself - esp. because I don't usually do those sorts of reviews - but it was meant to parody the reaction to the liz phair record, since the mag fields thing is arguably a more musically 'abrupt' change/approach for merritt than the other was for phair (just minus things like presence of the matrix and interviews about wanting to sell records -- the things that really bothered LP's detractors more than the actual music, which didn't seem out of character for her to me at all). At first it was going to be one fake review but I didn't think ppl would get that it was a joke (based on letters, they still didn't), so a blog was just a way of compiling 'quotes' (and sort of acknowledging that the review wasn't very timely by eZine standards - the LP had been out for a week). The name was from a couple of writers (NYT, Guardian) but I fear it looks like I thought it was inherently 'funny' to pose as a girl or something.

*haha, having to explain it means it didn't - will go back to "staid" for the streets next week!

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 11:31 (twenty-two years ago)

can i just say that, even though i think this didn't work, i am glad PFM now has someone like scott reviewing stuff like the streets.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 11:35 (twenty-two years ago)

will go back to "staid" for the streets next week!
shame. I want to read "Simone"'s take on 'A Grand...'

― zebedee (zebedee), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 11:43 (twenty-two years ago)

ha I thought "'staid' for the streets" meant that being staid was the indie way of keepin' it real

― Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 11:58 (twenty-two years ago)

it's difficult to read so it obviously must be bad shockah

― Nick Sylvester, Wednesday, 12 May 2004 12:12 (twenty-two years ago)

sorry, we'll all try to "get smarter".

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 12:13 (twenty-two years ago)

"you guys don't like it so you must mean it was difficult to read 'cause you couldn't have actually understood it and not liked it"

― Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 12:19 (twenty-two years ago)

I love Scott to death but I thought it was horrible; I was really shocked and also a little embarassed when I realised it was his.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 12:20 (twenty-two years ago)

i mean, it's not like we're bashing ott or brent knee-jerkily here. we all love scott.

x-post.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 12:20 (twenty-two years ago)

admittedly if I wrote for pfm I'd assume the worst every time I saw an ilm thread about a review

― Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 12:22 (twenty-two years ago)

i dunno, i have written some real duffers over the last 12 months, but i think the difference is that they never left the editing stage.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 12:23 (twenty-two years ago)

which perhaps sez more about ryan than scott.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 12:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Strongo OTM.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 12:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Midn you, Todd's let me get away with fucking murder on numerous occasions, doens't mean he's not fantastic.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 12:27 (twenty-two years ago)

well i have honestly come to feel a strong editor is the best possible corrective for your work. i would have felt totally different three years ago.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 12:28 (twenty-two years ago)

i am going to stop posting to this thread now because i don't want to pile on scott with "theoretical" discussion. you're a good writer scott! keep reaching for the stars!

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 12:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Strongo OTM again.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 12:30 (twenty-two years ago)

strongo + Nick: thx for keeping my feet on the ground!

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 12:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Any time, Scott!

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 12:36 (twenty-two years ago)

now give me fifty push-ups.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 12:39 (twenty-two years ago)

You little bitch.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 12:41 (twenty-two years ago)

WHAT IS YOUR MAJOR MALFUNCTION PVT. PLAGENHOEF

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 12:41 (twenty-two years ago)

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE REVIEW!

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 12:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Scott's review >>>>>>>>>> this thread. And that's saying something.

― Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 13:23 (twenty-two years ago)

You're just jealous because we don't love you.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 13:30 (twenty-two years ago)

i have a little love for him in an oscar sort of way.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 13:32 (twenty-two years ago)

I have images of you doing a Gwyneth Paltrow speech now.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 13:33 (twenty-two years ago)

i am not having chris martin's baby

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 13:34 (twenty-two years ago)

"And I'd like to thank *blub* Chris Ott, oh god I love him *blub*, he's been *blub* such a help in all of this..."

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 13:35 (twenty-two years ago)

"I think all mothers, even poor ones, should give up work when they drop a sprog."

― gwyno pregnantington (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 13:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Scott's review >>>>>>>>>> this thread. And that's saying something.

OK as far as I can tell there are two ways to read this line:

"Scott's review is greater than this thread, and that's really saying something, 'cause this thread is really great, so Scott's review is truly truly great" OR "Scott's review is awful, sure, but it's still much better than this thread."

Am I right in believing that there really isn't a third way of parsing that: that, rhetorically, "and that's saying something" either means we rule or Scott sux? Scott does not suck btw

― Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 14:00 (twenty-two years ago)

maybe Chris has just never said anything before?

― zebedee (zebedee), Wednesday, 12 May 2004 14:03 (twenty-two years ago)

AGAIN This review was awful. The reasons you made Scott, they're backpedaling.

― Roberton, Thursday, 13 May 2004 02:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh shut up.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 13 May 2004 02:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, I was a little disappointed in the review, too, as much as I like Scott. It might have been interesting if the fake-excerpts were intended to be read as a parody of, or at least a commentary on, the publications they were supposedly from -- rather than just seeming sort of arbitrary. It could've been a nice way of saying, Look, there are a lot of different ways to approach this album, some predictable, some contradictory, but that's criticism for ya, hey? Which would be a cop-out but at least it'd be entertaining. I mean, best part of the review for sure is "(god, I miss SFJ)"!

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 13 May 2004 04:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually forget what I said about the cop-out and the "that's criticism for ya." I'm just realizing, that's not Scott's point about this album AT ALL. But I still think it would be more fun if there was more of an element of spoofery with the fake excerpts.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 13 May 2004 04:48 (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.