That article by Kerry having a pop at FT

The piece used to be on that page - I assume Kerry took it down. I didn't save a copy.

It was all a bit "who with the what now?" since by the time I got to nylpm the rant had been taken down.

obviously the piece has been taken down so i haven't read it and can only guess at the tone of the piece, and yes if it is an 'attack' then i must admit i'm surprised it came from Kerry, who i always saw as 'part' of ft/ilm etc, rather than something from outside.

but freaky trigger is as worthy of criticism as the wire or jay-z or poptones or thrill jockey or jockey slut or careless talk costs lives. so, although

whenever you put anything in the public domain, there will be people who dislike what is done, and thats fair enough

i hope kerry comes back to/continues on the boards, she is an interesting poster

I hope so too and I want also to say that I didnt ask for or want the attack taken down and - even though I think the tone was very unpleasant - I certainly don't feel FT is immune to criticism. One thing her attack (unintentionally maybe) singled out is the extent to which FT can be seen as an anti-indie site which has never been the point at all, so I'm going to try my best to rein those elements back in now.

I must admit the whole conversationhas been a bit unsatisfactory without the original critique. Any criticism is constructive and when you have your head firmly rammed up the arse of the beast it is difficult to see how it may be perceived elsewhere.

but freaky trigger is as worthy of criticism as the wire or jay-z or poptones or thrill jockey or jockey slut or careless talk costs lives. so, although whenever you put anything in the public domain, there will be people who dislike what is done, and thats fair enough

Agreed. I was kind of interested in finding out what exactly the criticism was. Not meant as an FT diss, btw.

I wouldn't say FT is anti-indie, so much as that the indie-kids can't take a frikin joke. Remember those long "why do people like indie" threads, and fr. chrissake the massive keeps getting *more* indie as time goes on. Ah well, I hope Kerry sticks around ILE at least, where she's always a welcome & thought-provoking addition.

the perils of "internet journalism" i suppose, ho ho.

i felt a little funny posting my return rant, but something about the essay put a bug up my bum, for all the reasons i stated. the ft/nylpm crowd are among the first people to ever give my writing (outside of my banal, freelancing-for-pay writing) a fair shake, some decent criticism, and interest. i do feel some personal insult, since i consider many of the people who post to ilm - nominally - friends. (at least associates.) the underlying notions that a. it's some inner cabal of cloaked initiates laughing at the plebes and b. we don't understand the meanings of "scenes" are contradictory and ridiculous. at the same, tom can easily defend himself and doesn't need me mucking up the works; if you want to take it down, you can. i would have probably posted it here, except i couldn't get into ilm.

of course, according to the tenets of the article - that we're all "fanboys" (excuse me, "most of [us]"...that goes for you who post to ilm too), that we're defensive and brittle, that we lash out at what we don't understand, that we waste our critical energies on supposedly exhausted topics - everything i just said above is part of the problem and not part of the solution.

i also hope kerry comes back to the boards to talk about this and other things. i don't want this to seem like i'm personally attacking her. i also agree with gareth that ft/nylpm...even ilm being the public domain = they are not immune to criticism. whether or not that criticism is valid, of course, is in the eyes of the beholder.

a. it's some inner cabal of cloaked initiates laughing at the plebes

I have to admit, I sense this about ILM but not really FT. Part of it is this posting of AIM conversations, etc. It's like there is a sort of bloke-y inner circle that only a tiny amount of people are privy to.

The rest of the criticism (from what Jess has posted of it) I don't really agree with. But then it's really difficult to judge from a bit of paraphrasing. However, I don't think FT is anti-indie at all, though, so it troubles me that Tom is thinking of changing it based on one criticism.

i can see that nicole. and i do feel it to some extent. not that i'm "in" or anything...but there's always going to be some level of insularity when a large portion of the posters/writers hang out at the pub together. and i don't think there's anything wrong with that. sometimes ilm is a bit more snarky than i'd like regarding new posters (and i'm guilty of it myself.) but at the same time, i came in and remembered feeling cowed by something popshots said about nate dogg, as a joke. (even more funny in retrospect, since we know dave's not exactly being groomed to take over as vibe's editor in chief.) coming to a "web community" is a bit like the first day of school or a new job. if you don't take to the personalities (at least some of them) why are you here?

Nicole: it's not just this criticism, this has been something that's troubling me for a little while, the sense that what we want to do - celebrate and talk about the music we like, which happens (often) to be pop - has led us to celebrating it in oppositional terms. Which is replicating the exact same thing the 'indie kids' have done for a long time. That was a laugh for a while but if it's colouring people's perception of the site it should be addressed.

The other problem is that an aesthetic preference for pop is often seen as an economic preference for pop i.e. we think indie labels are rubbish and DIY is pointless and we love big corporations and all their works. Which isn't the case.

the inner circle thing nearly always happens on mailing lists/message boards anyway, because some people will always post a lot more than others, and it becomes a self-perpetuating thing.

and that's something i've been planning on writing two seperate essays on for a while (and maybe i should get off my ass and do it now)...the cognitive dissonance of knowing that by buying the music you love yr helping to fuel the multi-national grip on all art production yadda yadda. i'd love to review nothing but d.i.y. indie singles as their production choices would be a lot closer to the way i actually live my life, but unfortunately i'd be rather stultified by the fact that i would hate 90% of the music. (this should lead to some interesting discussion once i move to indie-rock central USA. good god.)

(i didn't read kerry's piece and usually i like her posts a lot, even when i disagree with them, but the inner cabal thing i remember getting at wire when i was editor,where it would drive me mad because i was frantic for new better writers and had to keep filling space with the same old same old BECAUSE THEY FILED!! someone once asked an nme editor why he had printed so much by j*lie b*rchill when he loathed her, and he said, her piece would be on yr desk first thing the morning you wanted it, exactly to length, nicely typed, no spelling mistakes... while the ppl he *wanted* to run stuff by never came by with anything)

((sorry i prolly insulted EVERYONE inadvertently there!))

Mark, you have made me cry.

Tom: are you then arguing that the pro-pop aesthetic is less about *the massive* and more about the fleeting moments of pleasure -- music for living a life and being happy? Perhaps there are two distinct pro-pop notions at work here, the personal and social, which is a sort of confusion-lending thing.

Jess: How does not buying "corporate" music relate to how you otherwise live your life. Do you wear handmade (i.e. non sweatshop) t-shirts and drink only fair trade coffee and have latin-american "fair trade" knicknacks on your shelves and refuse to ride in cars on principle because the oil and car companies are bad?

Sterling: I don't think I'm qualified to talk about "the massive" in a pop sense, is the thing, because I only know and associate with a fairly small part of it. To get much of a sense of the bulk of Blue fans, say, I'd have to be engaging with a teenage girl lifestyle much more than I want to (because I'm interested in what pop does for *me*, not them - though I'm sure occasionally I've slipped into that dodgy 15-year-olds-are-great territory). But I think the social element of pop is very important yes, more in terms of things like jukeboxes, radios, wedding parties, discos than in terms of fanbases and subcultures though.

I was just sort of working out my annoyances at things I've read, not so much on FT as ILM.

I get maybe 5-10 hits a day on my site, and would rather not have any more. It would have been nice if Jess had asked first before commenting on my rant as if it had been seriously submitted for publication. It wasn't. My friends and family read my site. I had no idea that I would be named, personally attacked, mocked and misunderstood. That's my personal turf, and attacks on it don't dignify a response. Sadly, I had regretted writing it, but the meanspiritedness and cynicism in the response, and Jess' total misunderstanding of what I meant only confirm my initial knee-jerk reaction. That's how I work - I start out with strong feelings and try to analyze them. I'm not going to go through it again : the negativity and readiness to judge others really bother me. Jess has no idea where I'm coming from and underestimates my intellect - that's exactly the problem with a lot of the posts I read. It was a rant. I'd like to know the mean-spirited person who even tipped people off that it was there.

What would have been "nicer" Kerry would be if you had actually posted your expression of discomfort on this board - so that it could be discussed and some good could have come of it - instead of running away, posting it on a publicly accessible weblog and then weeping and wailing when someone dares to call you in on it. This forum is not private/password-access-only; it is an OPEN forum, and if you want to change anything about it or are unhappy about the way it works you should have the courage to come HERE and tell US TO OUR FACES.

You post something publicly and then whinge because you thought it was "private." Don't dish out shit if you can't take it yourself.

I'd like to know the mean-spirited person who even tipped people off that it was there.

it wasn't a person, it was referrer logs that are publicly readable.

before this starts to get nasty, it may be worth noting that maybe Kerrys point are valid points. without having read what you have said Kerry, but guessing the general gist, i think it might be good to run this as an official Freaky Trigger piece (obviously both Kerry and Tom would have to think it was a good idea), if this is a bad idea, then thats ok, but i'd like to read the piece, and not go on these responses alone

This is making me sad, because I like Jess' writing very much b/c he is emotionally honest and lays that out and I like Kerry's posts and now everybody is fighting. Also, the internet is a public place, though, and anything on the internet is in a public fora, & Kerry, it would be nice for you to repost what you wrote so we can work it over as a community and deal, rather than letting this mysterious thing become more than it is through its shroud of secrecy.

Tom: I guess I'm still trying to figure out what you're saying... to some extent I think one of the only ways to know the pop massive is through the cultural medium itself, as it is to dispersed in every other fashion (cf. Benidict Anderson, Imagined Communities on literacy and the rise of the nation). Also, I recall ILX going into and out of slumps, depending on what's going on in the charts and our own musical universe. When lots of exciting things happen we'll all be posting like mad. In the meantime, things tend to get a bit introverted.

Kerry, did you forget about web site stat referrals? and how Tom has them on FT - anyone linking to the site - will show up and be found! Indeed FT stats are open access so anyone can see them.

Bullshit. As it is a personal site, it ought to be read with that in mind. I didn't post it publicly, because I don't like being the center of attention, and I don't care to waste time defending it. I thought it was something I could hash out with a few friends of mine. And I took care to not name names or 'attack' people behind their backs.

Kerry - you *linked to FT* in the piece and it showed up in my referrer logs. No tip-offs required. I assumed personally that if you didn't want me or others to see it then you wouldn't have done that: but no you didn't advertise or submit it and so in my initial link- back I didn't mention your name, or make any attempt to criticise you personally. NYLPM isn't moderated by me so any contributor can post what they like: Jess' reply is his own business (though he didn't name you either). Of course you've taken it down now but you mentioned FT by name and linked to it and didn't mention ILM once, so I think it was fair of me to read it as a direct attack on my own site - and one which contained plenty of sneering, personal and judgemental attacks on its writers.

If it hadn't been for the fact that I do respect you as a poster and admire what you post I wouldn't have felt stung by it: I'd have just ignored it. As it was I took it very seriously and thought about it a lot, and it's served a maybe-useful purpose by denting me enough to make me sensitive to the more constructive criticisms Marcello and Alexander Blair have offered in the last couple of days. If you do stand by what you said, though, then by all means feel free to reprint it here. Though I have to say I think it would make your accusations of negativity above look a little bit hypocritical.

'Bullshit' above directed at Marcello. I have no interest in publishing jack, it's not that important to me and I don't like this attention. I'm not stupid - I know about referral logs, but mine look quite different and I don't pay that much attention to them anyway. Putting out a rant which could easily be revised (and was) and was only up for a few hours is different. I'm sorry that some people don't have the sensitivity to recognize this.

This 'tough love' crap is exactly the sort of macho exclusionary behavior I can't stand. Jess, why do you treat your 'friends' as if they're human but I'm not? It's that sort of shit that bugs the crap out of me - your response *was* elitist and exclusive.

If it's a personal site then IT SHOULD NOT BE POSTED PUBLICLY! Write it in your diary or something so that no one else can read it if you want it to remain confidential.

And the fact that you haven't got the guts to have a go at us in our faces speaks volumes. Anyone can slag anyone else off behind their backs; that's just cowardice.

If you don't like the way FT or ILx operate, then, as I've already said, these fora are open to everyone; if you're dissatisfied, it's up to you to come on here, make your discomfort publicly known, and up the ante. Otherwise I can only but echo what Tom says; if reading FT/ILx makes you feel bad, then just don't read it. It's as simple as that.

first things first: sterling, don't be pedant (even if yr just having a go with me.) i know that at least 60-70% of my life is enthrall to the machinations of Bad Men Doing Bad Things For Money. but that doesn't mean a. i enjoy the thought of being in bed with them due to a. my own laziness and b. lack of alternatives -and- b. i don't try to avoid actively engaging in the activity when i can. the cop out of "oh, blah blah you're not doing EVERYTHING d.i.y./whatever so what room do you have to talk?" doesnt fly with me. it's used either a. by armchair highschool socialists in photocopied punk zines or b. people like us trying to justify taste in pop. ;)

kerry: i apologize for my return post, if your original piece was truly not meant to be seen by a mass audience (or, more succinctly, us.) i only commented on it, because tom had linked to it (not to turn this into "well, he started it!"), and therefore i assumed it was fair game. (and made an ass out of blah blah.)

that said, i still found the tone of the thing really offensive in places, hurtful, and wrongheaded. at the same time, obviously, you have brought up issues - directly or indirectly - which have led to discussion of the site(s) stances and practices. which is never a bad thing. and i also agree - in theory - with some of what you said.

i'm sorry you viewed as a personal attack (funny, since so much of yr original post read as same.) it was not intended that way. i'm going to delete the original post from nylpm. i have enjoyed yr posts in the past and hope to continue to, even if we're at loggerheads. and thats about all i'm going to say on thread.

And I speak as someone who has been guilty of much, MUCH worse on these boards in the not-too-distant past, so I know what I'm talking about.

Well, gee...I was starting to feel regretful, but I do find the idea that I have hurt the feelings of a webzine absurd. Tanya Headon, anyone? I knew that I was being irrational, which is exactly why I did not bring it to a wider audience. It's not about cowardice, Marcello.

I check my referrals quite a lot the day after I put new pieces up to see if any fan sites etc. have picked up on them, or if there's any weblog comments I ought to reply to. Should I have linked to your piece, Kerry? I don't know - I still think so, but maybe if I hadn't had the kind of day I had and the kind of reaction I did I would have just e-mailed. But I can't tell which personal sites are 'private' and which aren't. I didn't want anyone to reply really, except maybe you - I didn't want a big ILM thread about it either or I'd have started one myself.

"This 'tough love' crap is exactly the sort of macho exclusionary behavior I can't stand. Jess, why do you treat your 'friends' as if they're human but I'm not? It's that sort of shit that bugs the crap out of me - your response *was* elitist and exclusive."

this came in while i composing my reply...so i guess i should comment on it, if only to say i'm confused as hell. unless it's referring to my "first day of school/work" post. i'm not saying i think this sort of "web community hazing" is a -good- thing! but it is what it is. i'd love to live in a perfect world where (first of all i had the guts to) i could walk up to a group of people and immediately ingratiate myself and act like it's old times. but it ain't gonna happen. it's the nature of the board-style: this board lends itself to arguing and therfore accusations of elitism. and it's only going to get moreso as it grows. tom made the distinction in another thread it used to be about a. talking with a group of friends about music they all loved and as it grows its turned into b. people with a lot different tastes and better arguments, although not as tight- knit. frankly this sounds like a -good- thing to me. ilm would be a pretty boring place if we all sat around and agreed with each other (but i also agree with tom that the place could use a few more signs that people here actually "love" music.)

The nature of the web, is an open access technical platform to communicate info - a perception of private is negated once a link to another part of the web is made - your "private world" becomes open, seen and connected.

If you mentioned a website but not linked to it, then it would have remained private, and unless someone found the comments via google in a few weeks time (Kerry, your website/webpage is indexed by Google - the largest "public" information archive on the web)- it would have remained private to your intended audience.

Kerry I wasn't hurt because I [heart] my webzine, and I was only hurt for an hour or so anyway. I was hurt because it was somebody I respected attacking it (and yes because I'd had a rollercoaster day and was feeling vulnerable, more fool me).

BTW I Hate Music has been a comedy column for over 18 months now - I don't see how it's relevant.

Jess: I'm not saying "don't do shit" just pick *meaningful* things to do.. i.e. i see listening to music like wearing clothes... my choices don't change the world. Other choice I make, well they can.

I thought it was something I could hash out with a few friends of mine.

Why not send it as a private e-mail to them? I'm honestly curious here.

sterling: yeah, i know. but on some level, i'm still infected with "it -all- matters." frankly i think it's just personal bullshit dredged up by the fact that - perhaps ironically - since i stopped engaging with punk/indie as a subculture my personal politics have gone to shit. it's tangentially related of course, but the parallel is obvious enough to drive the point home for me. it also didn't help that when i was living in nyc i was engaged with a "scene" (merely through the association of dating someone) which was all about conspicuous consumption and politically/social vacuous. (fashion, in case anyone was wondering.)

Right. The linked-to piece has gone, and Jess' thing has gone and now my link and apologia has gone too and I think that should be the end of the whole wretched thing.

Why not send it as a private e-mail to them? I'm honestly curious here.

I dunno...why do people have weblogs? Do they mail every entry of their weblog to their friends?

I think that far too much is made out of this and it's being taken far too seriously. I wrote it and pretty much forgot about it. It's not destroying my life or hampering my creativity. I simply felt annoyed and got it out of my system. I like to let people be themselves : if I feel annoyed by something, that doesn't mean it should change or that I even want it to change.

Also, Tom, I can see that you took this personally and I want you to know that it really didn't have all that much to do with you. For that I'm sorry.

Also, I would have linked to ILM instead of FT, but 1) it was down, and I figured that people close to me would figure out what was really irking me. 2) I wanted to throw off this one dude who follows me all over. I mean, he could be reading this right now, but actually linking to it - he might perceive that as an invitation. Really, if I thought a bazillion people were going to read it and feel hurt by it, I wouldn't have linked to it. And I think the things Nicole said above were fairly accurate.

Despite what Jess said, it would be very easy to come here for a "first day" and never come back. I mean how many people here are actually at their most friendly when talking about music? I doubt I am. It's pretty unavoidable. I think I was afraid of ILM for months, or at least not willing to bother with it, because there is a perpetual impression of some kind of collective knowledge.

That is to say, it seems as though the ILM regulars have hundreds of things they could say "and we know all about that don't we" to. I'm not going to use the C word but that's how it is I think.

As for FT being anti-indie, well I suppose I should admit to taking a dig at this a few times on various ILM threads. But you can't make yourself (or yourselves I dunno) like something that you don't, or want to write about something that you have no interest in.

On the other hand if people are/were submitting indie-centric stuff to FT would it get eh.....printed. (don't know the net term for this).

FT doesn't have much written about country or metal or dance either I guess. Like I say, if it's not there you can't have it.

I mean I might as well finish by saying that as one of the people who knows least about music on ILM, I still enjoy it. I think it's just not easy to have that acknowledged for you at first.

Ronan: C-word = cockfarmer?

Easily the best way onto ILM is to google something you *do* know lots about and then get into a fight, I think. I don't find this web board particularly friendly, no, less so than Usenet used to be (despite lack of flamers and trolls, or maybe because of that lack - they had a unifying tendency).

I would love more stuff on country and dance and metal and lo and behold have been "commissioning" stuff on all three so fingers crossed we'll see it.

(Kerry - points well taken. I was upset but like I said not for that long, and cross for maybe a bit longer, but even the most surprising or harsh criticism is useful in the long run.)

C word was canon. If you knew that then I make an ass out of myself but anyway. I'm pretty sick of that bloody word, I just amn't literate enough to think of good alternatives.

Note I typed that last post at 3.30 and it is now 7.45 and it posted itself due to my technophobia when I reconnected 5 minutes ago so I wasn't trying to stir up the debate again.

Oh yeah and I didn't mean know about in the sense of musical knowledge per se. I meant "know" in the sense of collective value judgements which have been made here in the past, or whenever. Hence C word paranoia, I don't want to thrash this out all again.

Wow, I totally agree about the "being here for one day and getting flustered" thing. You should have read the e-mail I sent Tom about a year and a half ago! I read it the other day for the first time since I sent it, and I was really embarassed. Tom, if you remember that, I'm sorry - a belated thank-you as well for giving me such an even-handed and understanding reply. That certainly played a huge part in me returning to these boards so often, and even though I can't post nearly as much as I'd like to be able to, I'm always lurking.

was not anyone totally inspired by kerry's flaneurs piece and the accompanying link? flaneurs = total fucking classic.

If nothing else this thread has been immensely interesting and, I think, valuable, despite the frayed tempers.

I get the impression - and have for some time - that the "FT aesthetic" and the "ILM pro-pop aesthetic"* are: a) conflated when they shouldn't be; and b) not nearly as unified as critics (and occasionally defenders) present them as being. For example, how does my status as a semi-regular FT-contributor and broadly pro-pop position square with the fact that I love and value "scenes", the very things that Kerry apparantly assumes FT sneerily disregards? I've never gotten the impression that there was some standard party line on these sorts of issues. Certainly there's enough internal disagreement on NYLPM itself to negate such an impression.

Kerry's own disclaimer suggests the level to which FT and ILM are often confused. More telling though was Marcello's piece though, which used The Strokes and Poptones as examples of groups that are unfairly dismissed under the FT aesthetic. Now the rest of Marcello's article I found really interesting, but this just baffled me, as it struck me that a majority of FT contributors have seemed to come down on the side of The Strokes (myself included, though not as strongly as Tom; it's still an MP3 experience for me) and have done so for quite a while.

As I remember, the majority of the criticisms of The Strokes on ILM has been along the lines of "second-rate VU rip-offs", which is far too rockist a criticism for anyone of the pro-pop position Marcello outlines to ever make ;-) (As for Poptones, well, the only time I can recall any FT or even strongly pro-pop person bar Marcello talking about them was when Tom very reasonably took the Doompatrol challenge.) The assumption that any consensus of opinion expressed on ILM necessarily comes from the same quarter, and furthermore that this represents the FT aesthetic, is absurd. Tom's hardly editing our posts!

Admittedly Marcello was talking from his own personal application of what he considered to be the FT aesthetic, but the very fact that he can do this and not feel the need to distinguish that from some more stringent application indicates how amorphous, or even illusory, such an aesthetic is.

But then again, if you confuse FT and ILM it's easy to see why this happens: time and time again ILM is accused of being some sort of conspiratorial force designed to eliminate discussion of a certain type of music that in reality is the best music of all, be it Killing Joke, Crowded House, whatever. It doesn't matter whether the criticisms of said greatest music have come from pro-pop segments, anti-pop segments, neither or both; when it's your favourite band (or style, or scene) that's being attacked, they all seem to be a unified force of indistinguishable musical barbarians.

Tim Tim Tim *sigh*

I was not referring specifically to FT. The aesthetic is in existence far beyond one website, has been so since Morley thought it up on 19 May 1980. "Stringent applications" - Jesus, Tim, this is not Crockford's Clerical Directory (much as some posters here would like it to be). TE's Strokes piece is useful because it recognises the problem, attempts to address it and realises that opinions/viewpoints/aesthetics constantly need to be challenged and reassessed - as opposed to the red-nosed comicalities of the "I-don't- like-it-so-it-can't-be-any-good" school of criticism which numerous writers, here and elsewhere in the media, have made achingly familiar. And yes, actually the Strokes do understand disco. And yes, maybe anyone could have put this album out on Sire Records in 1979, and we can sneer accordingly, but doesn't that just put us in the same category as Cliff Richard in '76 moaning "nothing new about the Pistols, the Who were doing it in '65"?

What we do need a lot more of is fun and love - and I don't see much evidence of either on these boards at present; just a lot of fairly useless sniping and point-scoring or attempts to, as Don Letts put it, theorise yourself into not getting out of your armchair.

In terms of the Strokes and Poptones I was referring specifically to my contributions. The P/t thread was stupid and I was rightly called to order by dull old Doomie. But at least I am honest enough to admit publicly that, yes, I was wrong and misjudged people. If DP wants to stick out his tongue at me and go "Nyah, nyah, loser!" then fair do's - after all, I started it.

What I don't want to be is mean-spirited and peremptorily dismissive of things which seem at first point of contact to be valueless and conservative. Perhaps I am getting old and square. But I genuinely did want to read Kerry's post because I feel that I may have substantially agreed with it.

I think Tom's doing a great job of steering this ship at the moment; I mean what would you prefer - Ben Knowles or Allan Jones or, Gawd 'elp us, ET, droning on Dalek-like about "this is what we do, if you don't like it, fuck off"? Anyone can do that without trying.

But maybe it's all redolent of an incipient paranoia that causes individual writers/posters to jump on anyone who says even the slightest negative thing about them?

And let us be clear and precise - I am not talking about house rules. Boards/blogs are only as believable as the people who contribute to them, but you cannot deny that of late the Reynolds school gets waved through without criticism, while anyone else deviating from this particular stratum tends to get picked upon. And that leads the likes of Kerry to perceive that, well, this should be called I Love Simon Reynolds/I Hate Indie and be done with it. It's up to individual writers here to change the tenor if they don't like it (I think Sutcliffe got a pretty poor ride here for daring to question SR's method of thought gathering).

I personally - and I do not pretend to speak on behalf of anyone except myself - do not feel like doing any writing about music for the time being precisely because I feel that my motives are under question and my beliefs about music and aesthetics in general need to be examined thoroughly. Otherwise I'm just going to come across as an old fart who drones on about the good old '80s but can't get a proper handle on what's happening now.

Fair enough?

**What we do need a lot more of is fun and love - and I don't see much evidence of either on these boards at present**

You often bring these to ILM, Marcello. Not always, but more than most.

Awww Dr C - I do my best. -------------)

Marcello: yeah, all of that is pretty true, and sorry that I didn't emphasise how much your piece was self-critical more than anything else (it's so obvious at the outset that there hardly seems need, but that's only assuming everyone here reads it, which is silly).

I was kind of shooting at a number of different targets in my post (that last paragraph, for example, is pretty much a standalone that has little to do with anyone in particular) and basically the point I wanted to make is that this unified aesthetic doesn't, to my mind, exist to the point where it becomes oppressive (and this is just my personal opinion). I thought your piece demonstrated that in so far as your own take on what this was seemed different to what I consider mine to be, which is different again to each other writer I'm sure. T'was not an attack on you at all - when I say your mentioning of the The Strokes & Poptones baffled me, it was more that I meant they weren't issues I would have raised in relation to this aesthetic, therefore again suggesting a certain fluidity.

But anyway why *does* liking pop have to be a post-Morley thing? I'm sure his comments in 1980 are enlightening but I'd like to think that I'd love pop music even if the terms "rockism" and "anti-rockism" had never been invented. Admittedly everyone using them all the time (myself included) doesn't help...

"And yes, maybe anyone could have put this album out on Sire Records in 1979, and we can sneer accordingly, but doesn't that just put us in the same category as Cliff Richard in '76 moaning "nothing new about the Pistols, the Who were doing it in '65"?"

Um...? I'm not quite sure what point you're making here, though I agree with the statement 100 per cent - well, the sneering part, not the very first part.

I'm not sure if liking pop is Morleyesque or not but Marcello is completely correct to identify Morley as the crit I rip off ideas from most, much more so than Simon Reynolds: unlike Tim, I don't have the committment to 'scenes' organised around making music which a lot of SR's writing has rested on.

Oh yeah finally Marcello, while I'm not wanting to be petty and nitpick all day, can I just note that when I say:

"Admittedly Marcello was talking from his own personal application of what he considered to be the FT aesthetic, but the very fact that he can do this and not feel the need to distinguish that from some more stringent application indicates how amorphous, or even illusory, such an aesthetic is."

...I mean that there's a very good reason *why* you don't feel the need to use a more "stringent application" - that reason being that such a thing does not exist. So, er, yeah, I wasn't trying to resemble a dictionary there. Um, well, hmm.

But maybe it's all redolent of an incipient paranoia that causes individual writers/posters to jump on anyone who says even the slightest negative thing about them?

yes yes, exactly! this is what is interesting. really, ft/ilx whatever should be able to respond to criticism without kneejerk defensiveness (for the most part i think it does this, but of course not all the time). any responses to kerrys idea (or, seeing as this is now gone, any similar critiques) should be possible without defensiveness.

most of the time, critiques are not attacks and shouldn't be perceived as such, (i would like to think i could take any attacks on 1471 in good spirit). but even if they are unsophisticated attacks, the same beligerrance (wow - sp?!) does not need to be present in any replies. how we react to criticism can be pretty telling.

we've seen the annoyance and actual anger certain people display when someone else doesn't like the record/band/label that they like, and that seems quite alien, that they can't cope with an 'attack' on something they like. with ft/ile of course the boundary is blurred because in a way 'we' are part of the thing we like, so an attack on it is an attack on us/you/me, but i think thats fine and we should be able to cope with criticism (even if you think it kneejerk and unconstructive)

yes, i do give simon reynolds type stuff a free pass, but this is because i do broadly agree with that stance, so perhaps the people that don't should say more? i don't know?

it is hard because, i do, for the most part, see fun and love on these boards - i certainly aim for that with my own posts (whether i succeed or not, well, thats another matter!)

I'm going to make this the last thing I say about this, hopefully. It depends how you define "defensiveness". I don't think my reply on NYLPM was defensive in the aggressive way you're saying Gareth, it was just a bit feeble and sad because I'd taken it personally. Had Kerry's piece stayed up I'd have probably written something more cogent. I am dreadfully thin-skinned but I like to think I can reply to criticism politely even if I do take it to heart.

(I also don't think that anyone who didn't read the original piece should judge the tone of the replies, really. Don't know if this applies to you or not Gareth.)

i was speaking generally/hypothetically tom. i didn't actually mean you were defensive (i didn't think you were), just that it is hard when it feels like someone is having a go (esp if you respect them) and that no feeling upset when you care what people think isn't necessarily the easiest thing...

opinions/viewpoints/aesthetics constantly need to be challenged and reassessed

There's a potentially unspoken corollary as well -- namely, that they can be challenged and reassessed *and still not change much.*

I just wish I'd seen the damn article.

B-but have people been following reynolds!? He's lost in nostalgia for the good days of post-punk. So much for anti-indie.

I rilly view the f/t (lesso ILM) aesthetic simply as trying to approach the charts with some seriousness and understanding -- if that then leads to dismissiveness, fine, and if it leads to euphoria, great. (and of course, the collorary of covering avant music like Tigerbeat would).

The reason being not that this is the *only* thing to be done, but that nobody else does it.

sterling, sterling...tigerbeat isn't avant...it's pigfucker, pure and simple.

anyway, my reply *was* defensive, and i explained that above. and apologized for it. and retracted my original post on nylpm. i don't necessarly want it to be "done" like tom did above, but i do think that we might want to stop talking about the "original essay" (which obviously wasnt an "essay" at all, as kerry has said), because frankly it doesnt exist anymore. and it's not doing anyone any good to reply on the brief fragments tom and i quoted. i -do- think this line of self-criticism is good though. i'm going to have to take a break from the boards and from writing soon, which i think is a good thing: a forced vacation. a lot of my own feelings on music & community are very much in flux right now and need some sorting. (i also need to get laid, which might explain my short temper these days, ho ho.)

jess: clarifying, I meant to cover avant works from the standpoint of a magazine like Tigerbeat magazine (not tigerbeat label).

sterling i stand by my snotty retort. ;)

and yes, the covering of the avant garde ala teen mags is an excellent idea.

i also need to get laid

Try anything funny with me on Saturday and I'm telling Nancy.

"All You Ever Wanted To Know About RJYAN: Our EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW inside!!
PLUS: Got a Glitch You Just Can't Scratch? See This Month's CEX TIPS!

so ned yr saying that i -shouldn't- bring the stirrups?

mitch, i can't decide if that genius or royally lame.

oh, it's genius alright.