Simon Reynolds' 'Totally Wired: Post-Punk Interviews & Overviews'

Got my copy yesterday. It's billed as "the essential companion to 'Rip It Up'," and 80 pages and about six interviews in, I'd say that's a fair assessment. If anything I think it's likely I'll end up enjoying it more (and nothing against Reynolds' writing style or theories, it's just I'm not a big reader of rock-crit in general; prefer primary source stuff like this). Reynolds asks interesting, responsibly open questions, and the post-punkers live up to their reputation as the most articulate, literate, erudite rock-based musicians in history (whether you find this a good thing or not). For the most part, the interviewees seem to strike a good balance between name-dropping, story-telling, self-assessment, good-humored self-deprecation and a continuing sense that they really had been on to something in their younger years.

Time has given a nice balance to what they have to say. Nobody so far (aside from maybe David Thomas, and I think he's having a little fun with Simon) seems mired in too much self-serious philosophical/political triangulation and self-problematisation; they've got a reasonable take, not resentfully disdainful or disowning of their youthful positions, but not softly nostalgic, either. This doesn't surprise me, as I've continued to feel that post-punk was not, like punk, dependent on youth for fuel--it was something that could grow and mature with the musicians, so it's not surprising few have ended up with that living-in-the-shadow-of-past-achievements bitterness, and they don't seem like used car salesmen if they say they're enjoying what they do now just as much. Bits of ego come through for say Ari Up or Alan Vega and David Thomas--but feigning ignorance of their influence and "importance" might just seem false modesty at this point. Although I've never particularly immersed myself in the lore of post-punk, I've picked up the lay of the land over the years, solidified by 'Rip it Up'. Nevertheless, I'm finding already-known stories and connections freshly interesting (and I've laughed aloud a good number of times); and there's also new-to-me, not too terribly ephemeral information coming across here, too.

Only disappointment so far, if you'd call it that, is that the 32 interviewees are culled almost entirely from musicians who entered public consciousness no earlier than '75, and almost all are solidly of the "post-punk generation" proper. Don't get me wrong--if I'd made a list of the 30 people I'd love to see interviewed, a good 20 of them are here. But I would have been curious to see interviews with the "godfathers" of post-punk, people a little older who were warmly received by their younger heirs and helped directly shape the music, like Eno, Mayo Thompson, Robert Wyatt, Holger Czukay, Charles Hayward, Iggy Pop, et al. I think their perspective on post-punk would've added another layer to the book. But--Reynolds promises bonus material for the website (http://totalywiredbysimonreynolds.blogspot.com) so maybe if he interviewed any of these (a safe bet) we'll see them there.

Anyway--I have the feeling I'll devour the rest of the book pretty quickly. But box sets notwithstanding, I'm not actually a huge geek for the ephemera (or scenes or "culture") around the music I love. So you could take my enjoyment of these interviews as a reasonably objective sign that it's just good stuff, not a slapdash cash-in: thoughtful, nuanced, fun conversation is found here.

Hopefully there will be a lot to respond to and discuss here at ILM, my real purpose for starting this thread.

8===D~~~

Well argued, I'll have to think about that and get back to you.

Moron.

Faber has a street team?!

Doing a search, it seems like Reynolds is a divisive figure around here. I didn't know, nor do I really care--who can work up enough interest over a rock critic to have a strong personal opinion? I'm not interested in talking about him--as I said, the theories and writing style could hardly mean less to me. He's been a personable guy in my minimal interaction with him, but it's beside the point.

This is a book of interviews, and Reynolds questions/responses are generally pretty open-ended, and he definitely lets his subjects do the talking and guide the conversations. The content of interest here is what the musicians/label heads/producers/etc. have to say, and that's where I thought some fodder for conversation could be found.

this is pretty weak shit, man.

Discussion points are hard to raise for a book no-one's got yet.

Would like to see Reynolds do a book in which he interviews the entire cast of early 90s multi-ethnic sketch show The Real McCoy except Meera Syal.

iirc man like grimey put much of this content on his website a few years ago, as with the footnotes that never made the cut.

good luck to him squeezing mo' cash out of his research, he has kids to put through college, though tbqf im just a leetle bit bored of post-punk etc, seven or so years into the revival, so will not be purchasing.

That seems some pretty weak shit, to me. It cost all of £9. Good for you being bored--who's paying attention to a revival? The music has passed its expiry or something for you, no longer what the cool kids are listening to--who gives a shit?

If I recall correctly, there was a discography and some footnotes on the web for 'Rip it Up'. I don't remember the interviews being there. Anyway--so it could be put on the web. So could, well, any written word that's instead published in print. So what? It's nice to have it in print for some of us, and at a reasonable price, I don't begrudge the man getting paid (this is hardly likely to shoot to the top of the bestseller lists).

I know chatting on the internet about basically anything can be categorised as a waste of time, a luxury, etc. But it still seems rather particularly pathetic to take the time to talk shit about something you haven't read and profess to have no interest in in the first place. If you had a criticism of the content, that could be interesting--that could result in a conversation. But so far all that's cropping up here is petty pot-shotting. But I guess you've got something better to do with your time than read the book--that being, trying to come up with funny ways to mock the book and its author.

why not repost on http://www.dissensus.com/

soundslike there are a million and one threads on simon on ilm where this has all been kind of talked to death. i speed read the book in world's end bookshop where it's already going for four quid. didn't see any urgent reason to slow read. when i read a writer unfortunately i want to read what construct/argument they have made out of their raw material, not the material itself.

yeah this was all u&k in 2002 because back then none of this music was in print or even much talked about. but now for better or worse it's a bit been there done that. i wasn't happy with riu&sa because sr seemed to bring a lot of misplaced theories to the table which didn't really fit with what he was trying to document. also it was all documenting, marketing managers graphs, this happened and then THIS happened and then suchlike, rather than convincing or moving portraits of how sr as a PERSON was MOVED or even AFFECTED by any of this stuff. i wasn't convinced that he'd grasped any of the sociopolitical constructs present and vibrant at the time (however silly or otm they may now be regarded) except in a suspiciously sandbrookesque oh-weren't-they-foolish-socialists sense as opposed to alleged cold rationalist correctness of 2004-5 crit thinking.

summary: it may serve long term as a useful research tool & a writer has to do what he has to do to put & keep food on the table but as a reading experience it's not exactly four lives in the bebop business.

"cold rationalist"

lololol i remember this!

enrik-punk

I'm not sure what Stevie T means about Faber's street team. Maybe Liverpool are going to play them in the next round of the CL?

Soundslike, I don't think your thread idea is terrible; good on you for taking time to write down your thoughts and share them.

My own angle on all this is different from most people's (at least, people in places like this). I don't, on the whole, like postpunk much (assuming I know what it is - Gang of Four as exemplary maybe?) because I don't think it was very good at producing sweet sounds, classic songs or catchy tunes. SR is important to me in a way, but I don't really like his taste; I think he likes too much music; and I think he spoils his intelligence by spouting a lot of BS sometimes.

This isn't a street team effort for what I can see, Soundslike has been contributing on and off for a few years.

soundslike there are a million and one threads on simon on ilm where this has all been kind of talked to death. i speed read the book in world's end bookshop where it's already going for four quid. didn't see any urgent reason to slow read. when i read a writer unfortunately i want to read what construct/argument they have made out of their raw material, not the material itself.

yeah this was all u&k in 2002 because back then none of this music was in print or even much talked about. but now for better or worse it's a bit been there done that. i wasn't happy with riu&sa because sr seemed to bring a lot of misplaced theories to the table which didn't really fit with what he was trying to document. also it was all documenting, marketing managers graphs, this happened and then THIS happened and then suchlike, rather than convincing or moving portraits of how sr as a PERSON was MOVED or even AFFECTED by any of this stuff. i wasn't convinced that he'd grasped any of the sociopolitical constructs present and vibrant at the time (however silly or otm they may now be regarded) except in a suspiciously sandbrookesque oh-weren't-they-foolish-socialists sense as opposed to alleged cold rationalist correctness of 2004-5 crit thinking.

Ok, that makes some sense, thanks for explaining. But in a way all that you've said ends up seeming like an argument for this book rather than against--it's comprised almost entirely of self-portraits and discussions of how people were moved and affected by this stuff, as well as what they think about it in hindsight.

I think I'll probably like this book better than 'Rip it Up' because I tend to read any criticism between its lines--filtering out as best I can the tendency of any critic/historian to want to fit the way things felt then to the way the critic thinks about them now. But if you prefer to read for an author's construct/argument, then you shouldn't be surprised that 'Rip it Up' (or any other secondary source) ended up more reflective of the time it was written and the author who wrote it than of the time of its subject and the feelings of its subject's creators.

Oh, ok--now I get the "street team" thing. Yeah, I'm not a real ILM regular, but I have come around, as Matt DC points out, for a few years. I guess it could seem like I come here to pimp and peddle, but I guess it's just that I don't actually usually feel I have anything unique to say about music--my tendency has always been more to just try to help people get exposed to music and come up with their own ideas. Obviously there are plenty of people here with far more knowledge than myself, but a good number of people seem to have enjoyed what I share, so I haven't felt guilty about what I guess is essentially "street teaming" without profit in mind. I don't have a lot to add to discussions--but when real ones happen (like they sometimes do here at ILM) I enjoy reading them.

Pinefox-- I do like Gang of Four myself, but it's exactly that sort of overshadowing effect the Biggest Names of Post-Punk have tended to have that I've tried in my small way to counteract for the last few years. So if you have enough curiosity to want to hear more, and you have any reason to trust me that there's a lot more "sweet sounds" and "catchy tunes" to post-punk than Gang of Four or Joy Division would indicate, you might want to check my blog for good starting-place mixes. But obviously that's a whole other thing. . .

i still think that a proper history of New Pop needs to be written & that sr does it great disservice in riu&sa (as he does brit improv but that's another, if connected, issue); it wasn't simple thatcherite crease-ironing-out & i clearly recall sr umming & ahhing when magz hall on resonance asked him whether he didn't think that the stuff that came AFTER post-punk (incl New Pop) was so much better than post-punk itself. so for me riu&sa gets tainted by the same imac/revolution in the head i'm-so-much-wiser-now mirage. as far as the interview book goes, even straight transcripts are necessarily going to be influenced by the way the interviewer's thinking, what angles he's going to throw at his subjects. if you look at it from just ONE angle then it probably does make a lot of sense but the reason why i cited the ab spellman book was that it was able to incorporate that material into a truthful and non-partisan (but still passionate and readable) picture of how tough a business jazz in the fifties/sixties/seventies really was.

Well again, I've only read the first 80 pages, but the interviews don't have any of those awkward six clause, paragraph-length questions that basically force the interviewee to agree or dissent to already staked claims. And when a subject seems to want to wander or steer things in a new direction, they seem very free to do so--or when Reynolds has got a fundamental fact wrong, or has an off-idea (in the opinion of the subject) Reynolds doesn't seem to have edited out their "corrections".

Seems a little odd that you're chastising him for having a revisionist axe to grind in order to get things to fit his personal preferences (post punk greater than new pop?)--but basically your criticism boils down to the fact that if you'd written 'Rip it Up,' you'd have substituted his biases with your own. We have biases--that's not a surprise. And my experience has been that Reynolds is pretty decent at at least acknowledging as much, and questioning (without postmodern fear-of-conviction dithering) his point of view to keep things reasonably well calibrated--so yeah, he talks bullshit sometimes, but he rarely seems to imply his bullshit is authority.

So yeah--it'd be cool to see some sort of collaborative/competitive documentary on post-punk made by its participants interviewing/debating each other, such that no one perspective (in theory) dominates. But the fact that 'Rip it Up' or, more to the point, 'Totally Wired' isn't such a document can't really be held against it, if it isn't claiming to be anything more than it is.

If people don't care about or aren't interested in "post-punk", then by all means don't discuss it. But I'm really tired of this "it's been done, move on" attitude. Let's stop talking about folk-rock while we're at it. Jazz? Already too many books. It's a term that covers a huge amount of material, some major changes and shifts in music, some great successes and huge failures, and some great music. Revival backlashes are pretty pathetic, they just prove you either didn't really care about the music before or after the revival to begin with, or are just a fad jumper looking for the next under-exposed thing to lay claim to.

why do we need more books, more analyses, of post punk, right now? music isn't the british museum and if we could dedicate every second of our waking and sleeping lives to every genre there was we'd live forever, or give ourselves a heart attack trying. but you know - there are times for certain forms of music to come forward or be brought forward, others when they need to be placed in the background. no committee, it's the way developments drift. viz. post punk my thing at the moment is: give it a rest. come back to it in ten years and rediscover it then. personally there's more than enough happening now. keep history in its place, but displace it from time to time.

sad, soundslike, but i tried giving you decent answers & i think yr just interested in having a go so i'm not taking that any further. apologies but we've been here before and i've got better things to do.

emphasis on "tried"

Weeelllllll......

There's been a million books about The Beatles, but for every one, there's one person coming to it newly.

The majority of people don't need it, but someone in this world might well do. Of course, it's better (for projected sales) that the book is published ahead of a revival zeitgeist (Gerard Malanga's Velvet Undereground book a good case in point), but if not, well, read and pulp possibly.

I have no doubt I'll pick one up for £3 in Fopp one day, along with the compilation CD (I have previous for expecting this: "Rip it up" had it's comp CD, a strange choice to behold...)

really mark it's not worth it. wait until it's in the library & then borrow it/buy it when they sell it off for 50p.

You don't need more books. Maybe somebody else wants more books? Again, I'm sorry this isn't the moment to discuss "post-punk" for you!

Oh, I'll flick it first: It needs to be able to tell me stuff I don't know, and not don't care about, sort of thing.

Yr right, I don't need more books it's true, I have "17", "The Fallen" and "The Olivetti Chronicles" to get through yet!

Revival backlashes are pretty pathetic, they just prove you either didn't really care about the music before or after the revival to begin with, or are just a fad jumper looking for the next under-exposed thing to lay claim to.

not really. wouldn't want to 'lay claim to' post-punk, and was aware of it before the revival. but it has had a baleful influence, the exact equivalent, intellectually, of the 60s nostalgia we had in the 90s (if not before).

a book of interviews conducted for another book is blatant bit of barrel-scraping. you'd imagine all the best stuff would have gone into 'RIU&SA'; given that that book didn't rock anyone's world, forgive me for not being terribly psyched for this one.

don't hold the baleful influence of the post-punk revival against those that are still excited to discover the original thing, or those who have yet to. I mean, there are still people who haven't heard Airlift by The Lines!

I'm not sure there's much evidence that 00s post-punk revivalism led to an significant number of people delving into the original thing. Certainly not in comparison to 60s nostalgia in the 90s (although a lot of that was more popular to begin with).

I've never heard Airlift by The Lines!

me either!

http://acuterecords.com/sounds/ACU011/TheLines_Airlift.mp3

is this book Q&A style? cuz i'll buy it if it is.

marcello hasn't had his pudding yet today. he should come back to post punk after lunch. and not in ten years.

thanks Dan!

I'm not sure there's much evidence that 00s post-punk revivalism led to an significant number of people delving into the original thing.

fair number of bands.

hey scotty, i'm too busy listening to what's happening now to bother with old stuff. so should everyone but i guess that's never going to change. at least not until music becomes crap again in e.g. 2012, then i'll catch up.

a blatant bit of barrel-scraping.

Perhaps. But people will be interested, so what's the problem? The Wire posts unedited transcripts of interviews on its website, which probably makes for a better solution, but I don't really see the problem in making it a book.

dan OTM, really. And tbh, any snark here seems rather unfairly directed at soundslike, rather than him 'having a go'.

Simon Reynolds is a gobshite (started by Michael on board I Love Music on May 2, 2001)

simon reynolds: classic or dud (started by ambrose on board I Love Music on Aug 2, 2001)

Simon Reynolds - C or D (started by J Sutcliffe on board I Love Music on Feb 4, 2002)

Simon Reynolds' Unfaves (started by M Matos on board I Love Music on Mar 7, 2002)

The Simon Reynolds Girls (started by acrobat on board I Love Music on May 6, 2007)

Simon Reynolds Blissout- where's it gone? (started by stevo on board I Love Music on Jun 20, 2002)

Simon Reynolds' top albums are UP (started by M Matos (M Matos) on board I Love Music on Jan 6, 2003)

Simon Reynolds on Post-Punk Haircuts (started by Sterling Clover (s_clover) on board I Love Music on Jul 24, 2006)

Simon Reynolds Loves Rufige Cru (started by Iain Macdonald on board I Love Music on Apr 19, 2007)

Taking sides : Chuck Eddy vs Simon Reynolds (started by Patrick on board I Love Music on May 15, 2001)

Kirk DeGeorgio vs Simon Reynolds FITE! (started by Tom (Groke) on board I Love Music on Oct 29, 2002)

Simon Reynolds Best Singles o' 2002 (started by James Blount (James Blount) on board I Love Music on Dec 19, 2002)

Simon Reynolds vs Frankie Bones: FITE! (started by Siegbran (eofor) on board I Love Music on Apr 21, 2004)

Who thinks Simon Reynolds is extremely attractive? (started by snazz on board I Love Music on May 22, 2004)

Why does Simon Reynolds avoid New Order? (started by Stephen Stockwell (Stephen Stockwell) on board I Love Music on Aug 25, 2004)

yet another thread about simon reynolds (started by Michael B on board I Love Music on Sep 10, 2004)

Simon Reynolds interview on Ready Steady Book blog (started by orb_q on board I Love Music on Jun 10, 2008)

EUROPEAN DANCE MUSIC IN AMERICA: A TREATISE BY SIMON REYNOLDS (started by hstencil (hstencil) on board All Noise Dude Summertime Fun Board and Pickle Bar on Jan 23, 2005)

Explain why we should pay attention to Simon Reynolds (started by J on board I Love Music on Mar 9, 2002)

RFI - Where can i get a copy of 'Blissed Out' by Simon Reynolds ? (started by a-33 on board I Love Music on Apr 19, 2002)

Check out Simon Reynolds new articlein the n.y. times (started by MICHELINE on board I Love Music on May 6, 2002)

Can Mainstream Rock or Country be "street" and would Simon Reynolds like it? (started by Steve Kiviat (Steve K) on board I Love Music on May 9, 2003)

HOLY SHIT! Simon Reynolds has some explaining to do (started by frankE (frankE) on board I Love Music on May 14, 2004)

simon reynolds reviews 679's grime comp 'run the road' for the observer (started by titchyschneider (titchyschneider) on board I Love Music on Nov 24, 2004)

SIMON REYNOLDS DISCUSSES CURRENT DANCE MUSIC IN TODAY'S NY TIMES (started by Reynolds Rap on board I Love Music on Jan 23, 2005)

simon reynolds talks about wiley, dizzee, and grime in general at stylusmagazine.com (started by wiley on board I Love Music on Oct 11, 2005)

Simon Reynolds' 'Totally Wired: Post-Punk Interviews & Overviews' (started by Soundslike on board I Love Music on Feb 9, 2009)

Simon Reynolds disengagement from dance culture/the only people he says care about dance are deejays, druggers, and those with a business interest(incl. journalists) (started by Steve Kiviat (Steve K) on board I Love Music on Mar 9, 2004)

"Woebot retiring was like the Beatles splitting up, that ILM is somewhere between Exile on Main Street and Goat's Head Soup"--Simon Reynolds on blogs and ILM (started by steve-k on board I Love Music on Jan 12, 2005)

Okay, now here's a tricky question for you: You are dating Simon Reynolds when you are out alone at a party and Kelefah Sanneh hits on you. What do you do? (started by blah on board I Love Music on Apr 28, 2005)

Reynolds best of 2001 (started by Robin on board I Love Music on Dec 18, 2001)

industrial strength reynolds (started by artdamages (artdamages) on board I Love Music on Jul 17, 2004)

Postpunk :S. Reynolds piece in Uncut (started by Dr. C on board I Love Music on Nov 7, 2001)

Article Response (sort of): Reynolds' Unfaves of 2K (started by Tom on board I Love Music on Apr 30, 2001)

Key to deconstructing C Eddy/ S Reynolds (started by dave q on board I Love Music on Nov 9, 2002)

Simon's got a name for his Post-Punk book! (started by Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer) on board I Love Music on Apr 16, 2004)

"Those hairshirt -wearin' Dissensians", pleasure vs. morality, rockism vs. popism, Finney VS. Reynolds (started by Raw Patrick (Raw Patrick) on board I Love Music on Oct 8, 2005)

http://i11.tinypic.com/53ucxtl.gif

yeah, thanks, dan.

i was just listening to acute records nightingales singles comp yesterday. it still sounds great even though the post punk revival is over and done with!

that's cool, marcello, but, jeez, dissing interest in past music....just seems strange to me. there are plenty of people to rave about what's going on now. plus, getting people to talk about the stuff they did in the past (simon's interview book) while they are still breathing is important. (and i think you are overestimating the number of people who even care deeply about this stuff to begin with. which makes it doubly important that someone tries to get some of the facts and figures down while these people are around.)

the problem is that ppl shouldn't be interested. there are a million better things to be interested in in 2009. jesus christ, get out of this necrophilia gig. it's like jeff buckley. no one gave a shit about him when he was alive. no one bought his records. no one played his stuff on the radio. nme were snarky abt him. it was all doop and wet wet wet and all-4-one and oasis. then he goes & suddenly it's angel/hero/icon. same with postpunk. great that the stuff came out again & the ppl involved (or the ones that were left) were able to make a living again. but don't lionise it. don't live there. use it. groove to it when there's fuck all else happening.

maybe it was better when pop crit was all "another hot new waxing from the fabs." at least then you were able to find out magic for yrself. off yr own bat. now it's bubblegum as dewey decimal system & it's in the way.

Scott, you mean our Prefects CD or Cherry Red's NIghtingales comp?

The Nightingales are still playing and are better than ever and have a new album out called Insult To Injury, recorded at Faust's studio, and it's great.

http://acuterecords.com/blog/audio/LittleLambs.mp3

Marcello, we get it, you don't care as much about it as some others do. Don't spend so much time questioning our taste and our motives. And believe it or not, listening to lots of post-punk hasn't stopped me from listening to new music. I can like and discuss both...at the same time!

And live, the Nightingales put on a better show then any band I've seen in the last 10 years, and they only played new material.

holy shit that search results list.

there's only 1 for Seymour Glass.

There is never "fuck all else happening". It's perfectly possible to look forward and back and in several different directions of the present at once. Drawing these sorts of ideological lines in the sand strikes me as pointless and not exactly a path to interesting debate either.

xxxxpost I LOVE MUSIC

If anything the last few years have taught me how useless the division between old and new is. Randomize a playlist and you have Britney remixes up against Charlie Parker tracks from the 1940s and everyone's happy. (At least I am.)

ilm of late has done a pretty good impression of "fuck all else happening" tbh.

My take is: All music is new if you've not heard it before.

My motto is: The past is a foreign country.

My emblem is: You are you and I am me.

My.

x-post -- But that's because you don't listen to metal, Marcello. :-D

ain't no one can hold a candle to danko jones!

What is this great thing that's happening now that we should be paying attention to instead of the past?

Actually, Marcello--I wasn't trying to have a go, and in fact the last thing I posted was meant as an appreciation of the fact that you substantiated your point of view as opposed to posting an ascii picture of a phalus. I appreciated it--and I disagreed. Disagreeing wasn't meant as having a go.

And as regarding the idea that "everyone should" not bother with "old stuff"--well, I happen to hold almost the inverse opinion, thinking of the current day as such a tiny sliver compared to all the quality there is to discover from 70 years of recorded music--but I wouldn't think to tell you or anyone else that they're wrong for being excited about the current day if it gets you going. So just relax, let us geezers talk about our past-its-prime re-revivalism, and we'll all get along peacably, deal?

I wonder who is actually interviewed in this book. I'd read a Morley interview (and I think there must be one of those?), but do I really want to read one with Go4's robot tambourine player? I guess not.

Reynolds interviewing Sinker / Ewing might make a better book.

or Reynolds interviewing Stevie T -- OK I'll buy that!

or Chris Roberts & Simon Reynolds: IN CONVERSATION

the fascinating thing is that there's this writer who back in '82-3 said he only listened to new stuff. there wasn't any time to check out back catalogue wch in any case was largely unavailable. so much new stuff all he could do was keep up. that's how good a time it was.

who was that writer again? oh yeah. simon reynolds. in the intro to riu&sa.

maybe if he did the same thing now and less pip pyle rip he'd still be a good writer.

memo to p/fox - try & find morley's ask: the chatter of pop book. the same thing but much better. petition faber to reprint.

someone does interview reynolds in the book -- if it's k-punk i'll lol.

Pinefox-- who is actually interviewed in the book:

Ari Up
Jah Wobble
Alan Vega
Gerald Casale
Mark Mothersbaugh
David Thomas
Anthony H. Wilson
Bill Drummond
Mark Stewart
Dennis Bovell
Andy Gill
David Byrne
James Chance
Lydia Lunch
Steve Severin
Nikki Sudden
John Peel
Alison Statton
Green Gartside
Gina Birch
Martin Bramah
Linder Sterling
Steven Morris
Richard H. Kirk
Alan Rankine
Paul Haig
Phil Oakey
Martin Rushent
Edwyn Collins
Steven Daley
Paul Morley
Trevor Horn

there wasn't any time to check out back catalogue wch in any case was largely unavailable

And now it isn't.

well it ought to be.

Thank you.

I would like to read

Anthony H. Wilson -- I suppose, though he had his say god knows; but with SR, might be some fun

David Byrne -- can't say no to this

John Peel -- OK: a meeting of minds, two versions of UK avant-garde I suppose

Linder Sterling -- yes for the Morrissey angle, or Bracewell Lake District kitchen recipes

Paul Morley -- yes

The others, not so interesting, or never heard of them, or not keen on hearing more.

I know about ASK of course but you can't get it cheap nowadays. If you look at the actual list of subjects a lot of them are quite uninspiring; but I fancy Morley to make them interesting in a way I don'y fancy Reynolds to do it.

x-post -- Part of me completely agrees with you, the other part rather likes it. The reality is in line with what one of my instructors in grad school said -- "You're never going to be able to read all the books you're 'supposed' to read, so do what you can." Same with music, and the rest follows.

Morley vs. Iron Maiden/Wham!/Duran are all classics in intentional misunderstanding.

I know about ASK of course but you can't get it cheap nowadays. If you look at the actual list of subjects a lot of them are quite uninspiring; but I fancy Morley to make them interesting in a way I don'y fancy Reynolds to do it.

― the pinefox, Monday, February 9, 2009 4:49 PM (35 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

otm. have had this on abebooks 'wants' for uhhh a long time. always expensive (though getting less so), and the subjects are not my cup of tea.

the problem is that ppl shouldn't be interested. there are a million better things to be interested in in 2009. jesus christ, get out of this necrophilia gig.

Aren't you currently reviewing every number one album since time began or something?

Oof.

yes i am. what of it?

point being i don't live there. i don't hold the past up as this deathless beacon that we must pay full attention to at all times else we're just bandwagon-disabling bandwagon post-revival jumpers.

when sr has demonstrated his capacity to deal with now as he does with e.g. john martyn then maybe there's something to go on there. i.e. deal with living people. but historically he's always had a problem with that.

right, you're just obsessively scrutinizing every number album ever. huge difference.

well we could discuss this seriously.

but rly this thread is turning into yet another let's-have-a-go-at-mc so i'll come off it now. bye!

I don't know SR personally - maybe he lives in a graveyard - but when I first encountered his work in MM, all he ever did was deal with living people. He strikes me as one of the major instances of a major critic who's dealt with what's current, not just what's past.

I can see good and less good things about that, especially as I don't actually like most of what he likes, at all. I mean, his taste is bloody terrible, at this point. But certainly it seems to be something that he's always done. The postpunk thing is surely a rare diversion from that tendency. Even the Bring The Noise book is all about stuff that was new at the time he was writing.

x-post -- Okay, did all that just happen?

See:

1) People don't buy books to find out what's happening now, they buy newspapers or magazines.

2) Writers don't consider (themselves/each other) writers that haven't written/had books published.

3) ergo: Books tend to deal with the past, as the past tends not to change much.

An exception which proves the rule: "The Boy looked at Johnny" Parsons/Burchill was very much about what was happening *now*, and looks totally anachronistic as most of their seleections for future greatness proved to be wrong.

i wish simon reynolds would just write a book about all teh great new songs that are going to come out this year.

i would totally read this book.

An outtake interview with Charles Hayward:

http://thequietus.com/articles/01122-this-heat-interviewed-by-simon-reynolds-an-outtake-from-totally-wired

love this first question:
"This Heat seem like an archetypal post-punk group. But it actually had all these links to the UK's pre-punk progressive underground. You were in Quiet Sun, Phil Manzanera's outfit, right? Who in 1975 put out the album Mainstream, which was kind of proggy-fusiony? So just a year before punk, you're on the wrong side of the coming divide, basically!"
straw-manning prog in this day and age (especially as a lead-in gambit) seems so flat-earth to me

Pinefox-- who is actually interviewed in the book:

Ari Up
Jah Wobble
Alan Vega
Gerald Casale
Mark Mothersbaugh
David Thomas
Anthony H. Wilson
Bill Drummond
Mark Stewart
Dennis Bovell
Andy Gill
David Byrne
James Chance
Lydia Lunch
Steve Severin
Nikki Sudden
John Peel
Alison Statton
Green Gartside
Gina Birch
Martin Bramah
Linder Sterling
Steven Morris
Richard H. Kirk
Alan Rankine
Paul Haig
Phil Oakey
Martin Rushent
Edwyn Collins
Steven Daley
Paul Morley
Trevor Horn

LOL i was just looking up and down that list trying to work out which one was the pinefox

Um, weren't they all on the wrong side? (xpost)

The 'punks' in my year were all Yes/ELP/Zep etcet, the year before.

So, was I 'accepted' because I was into none of those bands? No, the one thing more important than 'hiding' yr previous, is making damn sure anyone without 'previous' is kept well away...

it's probably a tired stale old discussion, but people who'd be ashamed to slavishly follow sartorial fashion, and throw out their old clothes season by season, don't think twice about discarding bands they like once consensus deems them passe. they're even proud of rejecting them. it almost comes off as an ethical issue to reject Yes/ELP/Zep etcet. still. i mean, as a phenomenon, it doesn't matter, but it's somewhat interesting to the extent that a lot of the types who pride themselves on self-awareness seem blind or at least indifferent to how successfully commodified and marketed punk's been since 1977 and what the implications of that are in a way you'd guess they wouldn't be about lots of other products