Careless Talk Costs Lives: the final issue

No. The reason we're stopping now is because we always said we would stop at Number One. Sometimes, it's good to be able to know when to say when.

Hopefully, both Steve and I - aided and greatly abetted by other fine, likeminded companions - will be producing two separate magazines afterwards. Running in tandem with one another. And still just as fucking passionate.

The magazines it refers to have changed entirely.

Why are you mentioning it now? Except to show up Tom Ewing as a tired, jaded. seen-it-all cynic who probably ought to keep away from music entirely. But even he may have chanegd his views. People do, you know. Unless you're saying that you approve, in which case... well, I'm glad we don't attend the same parties.

I have changed my views on one thng - I think CTCL looks gorgeous every month and I should have mentioned that when I mentioned Gullick. I have no opinion on the content. The article makes more sense to me now than when I wrote it: that sort of rock writing quickly turns into a dick-waving contest, and the issues of CTCL I saw were full of it.

(Oddly, Jerry's diary-of-a-rock-journalist pieces way back in Tangents were exactly the kind of unpretenious, unsentimental (or jaded and cynical yes!) pop writing I'd love to read in a mag - and they were part of what made me scent phoniness in the house style of CTCL)

But considering the CTCL features I wrote, if i rambled about passion then that's because it seemed key. It's the primary fuel for someone like Tim Kerr, still producing huge amounts of art and music four decades into a life dedicated to punk-rock and surrounding magicks; it is, or was before their record deal, the primary fuel for a band like Icarus Line, touring the world with no money and getting shit at every venue they play.

And there were plenty of articles when it wasn't mentioned at all - Ned Ragget's features were a case study in the way music fits in with regular lifestyles, for example, or features on Meanwhile Back In Communist Russia, Dizzee Rascal and Deerhoof...

But nevermind. CTCL gets a regular kicking on ILX, and predictable tho it is, its probably fair enough. This is the point where doomie or one of his many tedious pseudonyms sweeps in and disses us in favour of NME again, isn't it?

this is the point where things become incomprehensible for people like me and tom (and probably matos), i think.

and to be honest, the idea of ned being held up as a model of passion is a bit weird to me these days.

I just realized yr probably just asking Tom but I'll post this anyway for fun.

this is the point where things become incomprehensible for people like me and tom (and probably matos), i think.

why, exactly? they do what they do with little reward beyond the joy of simply doing it, and to work at such a pace for such a long stretch requires, yes, passion. It is, of course, just one facet of his art, and just one facet of the feature (and, similarly, the magazine).

I am passionate about music sometimes. I'm dispassionate about it sometimes. I'm all sorts of things. I wouldn't expect a music writer to write about just the passion any more than I'd expect a travel writer to write about just the waterfalls.

(I'm actually pretty bad at the passionate stuff, too - I'm too English, I like to keep my enthusiasm buttoned down sometimes. I'm very keen on and a bit envious of people who can do it and seem joyful and inclusive at the same time - Chris Roberts on Don't Stand Me Down, say, or ILM on Basement Jaxx!)

CTCL is nowhere near as bad as the NME etc on this - the reason CTCL got singled out in the article was i) I'd just read it for the first time, ii) it sparked the thoughts that led to the article. If I was rewriting it I'd use other examples or stress the general stuff not the specifics. But I still stand by it.

Point of order: I personally never think of CTCL as part of the "music press". The editorial policy, as well as the lack of fucking 'house style' or whatever you want to call it, is for me a lot closer to fanzine culture (which I think is something very unappreciated on here). ET? Stevie? Do you think Careless Talk is 'music press'? I'm interested.

This has been discussed before but much 'passion' is used to disguise a lack of content.

As you say, that's not the whole magazine but it is a significant part of it and it seems to me that that's the part that Tom's article was about. Jerry's hectoring reply upthread IF YOU THINK LIKE THAT YOU SHOULD STAY AWAY FROM MUSIC is an example of the kind of thing which makes me turn off (and I've enough time for Jerry that I turned out to see him play in London the other week... I was even one of the ones who paid to get in!).

re DJ Mencap: another way in which I've changed my views is by seeing CTCL as a fanzine. The initial spiel was destroying and replacing the music press, IIRC - it was that which made me think of the mag as something to be compared with the music press, and it seemed to be reproducing its key faults.

But that was ages ago. It seems to me the best way of me making a contribution to this thread from this point will be to buy the final issue when it comes out and see what I think.

But a pretty large proportion of the people who write/wrote for it were music press escapees so it kind of makes sense as a hook to hang the mag on, in that respect.

While I've obviously had my angst fest this year and a good chunk of the last, a way to think about it has been to see my own sense of musical passion (if you will -- for a variety of reasons I do find the word a loaded one in this context) steering specifically away from the instant-gratification always-participate now-now-now aspect that typifies web/blog music commentary culture, especially post-mp3. The occasional immediate comment and reaction suits me fine, thus my comments on NYLPM cropping up again, but a constant flow of that leads to utter, total burnout in my experience. Your mileage may indeed vary, and it doesn't mean in the end I haven't found things to enjoy and shows to look forward to and things to anticipate recently all this year -- I just don't find it necessarily in a constant engagement of here-and-now-this-second, regardless of whatever is being prioritized, on this board or well away from it.

I didn't plan my column, it just happened -- somehow I came up with the original random hearing-music-from-passing-cars idea and pitched it to ET, he liked it. I can't remember if I specifically volunteered to offer more or if he asked more, but I did remember that something which Tom had said was that he liked how the original article wasn't actually about a band or a song or a scene but a contextual experience. I actually thought that was a good point and resolved to make whatever I wrote later to be about that kind of experience, no matter what the context or frame of discussion might have been. Never came up with a title or anything for it, but I admit to being quietly tickled with the fact that the column eventually became the lead one in many cases for the "Careless Whispers" section. Felt kinda fun!

I didn't approach the column bloodlessly, but sometimes I did rack my brains trying to come up with a subject, so there was some preplanning there. But when it came time to write, I did like I normally do -- just let it all spill out and maybe slightly revise here and there later. Certainly much of the column was reflective or considering of past experiences rather than me rocking out, man (or whatever), but I'd like to think it was no less involved or intent on its point for that.

Well, in any event. Don't know if this answers or clarifies anything, really, but hopefully it's a bit of context.

Actually, as I recall it - I thought Tom's original article was a fair and timely warning against the dangers of labouring a point. Which I agreed with. Which he probably realises.

I suspect that if Tom still feels it applies, he hasn't seen some of my more recent CTCL articles which deal quite explicity with death, and loneliness, if he really feels that my style is 100% 'whoah, everything's so great' - and certainly has never read Neil's "Metal" column. But then again why should he have had? I'm sure he has plenty of other ways of spending his days.

On reflection, I'd prefer to be called to task for enthusiasm than be accused of always slagging bands off - which happened countless occasions when I had a more public role at Melody Maker in the 90s. Unfairly, but whatever.

"Hectoring"? Yeah, probably. It's more through paranoia than anything else. I don't feel that if I support myself anyone else will. I'm not that arrogant to think anyone particularly cares about what I do one way or another. Beyond my wife, obviously.

-- DJ Mencap (lackofinteres...), September 16th, 2003.

But it is press and it is about music so it IS music press.
Can we keep to using words for what they're commonly understood to mean please? As much as possible anyway.
(See the whole 'indie' debacle as a warning!)

From the start it's come across as a fanzine, the world's best presented, most widely available fanzine.
Put together by fans who happen to know how to make magazines.

The pictures are artistic and the writing is amateurish and enthusiastic.

Anyone here who has written for it for free and has also written for other magazines and been paid?
Ask yourself: which was the better writing? Which are you most proud of?

the "is the passion phoney" question thats been raised on this thread is the next level up in dick waving surely, watching music critics argue about whose passion is the most real just sounds like sillyness to me, as im sure you're all pretty passionate.

anyway kudos to Jerry and anyone else involved in the mag, as i said, i thought it was good.

Did you write for CTCL then?

well you can't argue with that as a reason for hating a mag i suppose.

That perception only exists on ILM. Makes sense now doesn't it?

(although i did enjoy *immensely* reading the muddled submissions/begging letters from cool dissenting ILMers desperate to be published in the magazine.. under their various pseudonyms)
-- david mc (davi...), September 16th, 2003.

*blushes*
Though I did use my real name and I don't think I'd found ILM at the time, I'm not sure though. David, you were very fair and thanks again for you comments.

i like the idea of the mag splintering. will be very interesting to see how each b*stard offspring survives in the real commercial world. which will be the runt of the litter ? and which will be teachers pet ?

after all, i assume these titles will have to make some financial incentives for people involved and the backers - something CTCL was avoiding due to its natural inbuilt lifespan.

can i also say, while i dont listen to a lot of CTCL sanctioned music i loved reading the mag. so ta muchlike to all those folks involved. it made me realise how sh*te i am at this written word malarkey, but yet somehow it still prompted me to continue trying, in a weird perverse way.

oh . and hopefully i get a link from 2 websites. result. perhaps.

onwards. mark e/ireallylovemusic

heh. obviously i spend far too much time lurking in this place when i should be editing copy.

"Though I did use my real name and I don't think I'd found ILM at the time, I'm not sure though. David, you were very fair and thanks again for you comments."

mei, no way dude, i wasn't thinking of you at all - your stuff was good reading and you wrote a nice letter, it just wasn't right for publication at that time. we've met some ace people through ILM - I just object to it as a binding consensus panel arbiter of taste thing. but then, actually.. is careless talk any better on that score? probably not. (ha, check Everett's job description on Friendster for confirmation of this)

I just think that the whole passion-as-a-'house style' argument that's been touted on this thread and others really doesn't resemble the magazine i contributed to - perhaps it was more applicable in the first couple of issues where there was a more pressing need for loud rhetoric. I really can't think of another print music magazine where the range of opinions expressed in one issue has been more diverse, frequently to the point of complete contradiction. 'passion' is a bit of a nebulous thing to make political.. it's a bit of a loaded term, but not necessarily one to be ashamed of.

(ps. personally, i love Tom Ewing's writing but haven't read the linked piece yet.. will check out now)

Well yeah because I like music, if I want dedication or human interest I'll make friends with an aging carpenter with fucking rickets or something. Honestly! Do you sing toil and hours of work in the shower? Or dance to it on Saturday nights?

Taking this out of context, I think this is the attitude behind CTCL and also behind a lot of the music I love the most. And I do mean _love_.

Non-popular music, odd arty stuff and fanzines etc. all go together as stuff done not for the money, bit for pleasure and maybe respect.
I think this is part of the reason why CTCL themselves are actually engaging on this board: because what people think actually _means_ something to them.

I worked out years ago that commercial success, money made or whether you do it for a living is NO indicator of quality or worth.
It took me ages to realise that the same is true for writing.

As I said, I do recall thinking it was fair comment back then - but am still perplexed as to why it would be considered fair comment now. Also, I'm surprised people feel the need to differentiate between "music press" and "fanzine".

CTCL is the music press, as far as I'm concerned - as is ILM, Robots & Electronic Brains, BB Gun, Tangents, Freaky Trigger, Artrocker, Diskant and several other sites. I guess there are establishment papers as well - NME, Bang, X-Ray, et al - very firmly on the side of maintaining the status quo, but they hold no interest for me.

Does that mean everything I like should be reduced and dismissed with the slightly patronising word "fanzine". Of course not. As been argued countless times here, ILM itself is far more entertaining, stimulating, passionate, argumentative, provocative and a champion of new sounds than any of the establishment papers. (Last time I looked, anyway.)

Whatever.

And ILM is only an example. There are so many others. Would people consider only the likes of Coldplay and Bon Jovi as "real bands" because they play in a conventional manner? Of course not. So away with yr bloody "fanzine" terminology!

I like the word fanzine. When I started Freaky Trigger it was with the intention of doing a fanzine.

I like the word too, which is why I used it, I meant it positively.
Hence my attempted explanation of why not-for-profit is often better.

It took me a long time to overcome the negative connotations of the word.

Most of the magazines I've bought lately are 'fanzines'.

I also agree it's a bit silly to distinguish between 'fanzines' and 'music press', which is why I made that commetn about what Mencap said above.
When I siad 'fanzine' I was guilty of the same thing, but I meant it as a compliment.

For what it's worth I'm glad you think of CTCL as "the music press" - it's just that to operate outside of what springs to mind for most people when you mention the term should be a liberating thing, rather than having the effect of leaving you in some indie ghetto. But you know all this.

I still think fanzine culture is something very seperated from the *mainstream* "music press", though, which is why I think it's relevant to draw distinctions between them. And why I'm interested to know how the people who put the thing together think of it. Whatever [slight return]

My definitions would be a bit different, fanzines ARE magazines for a start.

Most fanzines are run by fans who don't expect to make money, it's true.

Yeah, I see what you mean.

I've had mixed feelings about CTCL since its inception. I often found it very frustrating, I called both its editors cunts on more than one occasion. Yet it remained the only music magazine which I would read, cover to cover, even articles about bands I hated or had never heard. I would devour it, I would shout at it, I would read some articles again and again, and sometimes throw it across the room. But goddammit, it made me care, both about music and about music writing, and that's something pretty rare and special. Most music magazines these days just give me a sense of apathy and that vague boring blah apathy rot that is destroying my life and my ability to write.

I'm glad that CTCL existed. In a strange way, I'm also glad that it's ending, before the rot sets in, before interesting, beautiful, original writing becomes jaded and calcified into schtick.

Arguing about the music press just reminds me of Catholic school and all those stories of cardinals arguing about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, so I won't participate. I just wanted to say thanks, Jerry, thanks Stevie, thanks Steve, thanks Miss AMP and David and Chris and Tim and everyone else who's hassled me over a deadline. Good luck with yer future efforts, I hear interesting things through the grapevine.

Mei, you've expressed exactly what i meant to say so much better than i'd managed to, thank you...

Not saying that at all. I get paid for writing all the time, it's how I make my living, and I'm lucky enough to be able to write pretty much unfettered most everywhere I work - people want me to write in my 'CTCL' style. The differences are, the people at CTCL - many of whom are paid professional writers too (Ben Myers, Jennifer Maerz, Ned Ragget) - contribute these pieces just because they want to see them printed, without any hope of financial payback. Not saying paid writers don't give a fuck, but maybe, just maybe, they're a little more compromised than people just writing for the love of the music and the words.

Working hard is not a virtue in and of itself anyway - it might make you a saint; it might make you a mug.

should, of course, read *less* compromised. though i'm not sure that's exactly the difference. You bitch about the lack of control over their text, well, most CTCL is hardly edited that much. and you talk about the paid journalist working ten times as hard as the CTCL writer, well, I work hardest on my CTCL pieces because, i guess, i wanna get it right... because i guess i credit the CTCL readership as being keener and more conscious consumers of rock writing than others.

That's not a sleight on free writers, I've done it myself for long enough for FT etc, but there's no way I'm ever writing for free for a magazine which makes money again, FT is a different story. Even if a part of me thinks 'oh why not I'll write for free', this is something to be fought I feel.

I just hate even a whiff of the notion that paid writing is somehow less authentic etc, I guess there are chancers out there but most people here are busting or have busted their ass at some point to try and get paid work.

CTCL has nothing to do with writers not getting paid enough, you're insane. WHAT PART OF WE HAVE NO MONEY DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? had CTCL ever turned a profit, we would've shared that with our writers and illustrators and photographers first chance we got. it always hurt that we couldn't pay people for the great work they did us.

That's not a sleight on free writers, I've done it myself for long enough for FT etc, but there's no way I'm ever writing for free for a magazine which makes money again, FT is a different story. Even if a part of me thinks 'oh why not I'll write for free', this is something to be fought I feel.

I just hate even a whiff of the notion that paid writing is somehow less authentic etc, I guess there are chancers out there but most people here are busting or have busted their ass at some point to try and get paid work.

we are not asserting that paid writers are inauthentic, not least because we would be insulting ourselves and many of our contributors who are paid for their writing. i will say this though - i don't know of your name outside of ILX and i don't have a clue as to your experience in the paid publishing world, but i have come across many shitty, shitty writers paid to work at magazines who will write whatever's asked of them, down to the opinion they will fake for the piece, just to get paid. and while i wouldn't begrudge them the ability to get paid for filling up space, we never wanted anyone at CTCL to parrot received opinions just for the prize of a few shekels at the end of it. Nobody wrote for CTCL for any reason other than wanting to have their say, wanting to read it in print, and the satisfaction of people reading their stuff.

its been stated again and again on this board that many of the writers at CTCL get paid to write as a career, why do you keep insisting that we exist to exploit people, or to denigrate people who get paid to write (ie ourselves)?

Aggh, x-post.

OTfuckingM. That said, Suzy's been eloquent in fighting her corner as a full-time freelancer and what that entails, for instance -- she's been extremely vocal about the need for pay in general -- and she is not alone (Douglas Wolk also freelances fulltime, fer instance). But for a lot of us -- whether it's reasons of security or convenience or simple plain need -- the day job is a necessity, and a reasonably good one a blessing when it comes to extra work. We may have less immediate freedom when it comes to things like sleeping in (it's 6:20 am here and I need to get in the shower and be out of here by 6:50 am) and the like, but the benefits outweigh the pitfalls right now.

I had a post typed here about how the work involved in fanzine/magazine is so entirely different. I don't consider tinkering with my own piece or spending ages on it as hard work as dealing with editors/editors assistants, pitching ideas, phoning up magazines. In fact I quite enjoy tinkering.

I think the point I'm making is that it's alot easier not to want to be paid for a leisure pursuit like writing for a fanzine, than for writing for a magazine, which is not quite a leisure pursuit alot of the time, but the rewards aren't just self actualisation.

I am not saying you exist to exploit people or denigrate people, but if you read the post you quoted initially and wholeheartedly agreed with, you can see it does suggest there's a problem with people writing for the money. Perhaps you shouldn't have quoted it if you don't agree.

I don't know you either, or your work outside of ILX, so don't think this is some vendetta. Of course there are hacks who want to just get paid, god I know, mags are practically run by people who want to get paid to fill pages, nothing more, but I think more people should want to write for money and I do think the punk rock attitude in rockcrit often seems to make this something to be ashamed of. We all need money from somewhere.

Nobody wrote for CTCL for any reason other than wanting to have their say, wanting to read it in print, and the satisfaction of people reading their stuff.

Why is this such a good thing? Why is there no room for money in this equation? It's as if it can't coexist.

Sorry don't want to drag Mei into this but that's the piece you quoted Stevie, and to me that's fairly denigrating.

Nothing against getting paid, I wish I did. I wasn't thinking so much about CTCL as about some rough looking but intriguing fanzines I've picked up lately versus, say, a WHSmiths sold mag. Also ppl like Shellac who have a stated aim of just about breaking even, Fugazi who could be rich by now maybe and every musician ever who has a day job to let them do what they REALLY want - that's most of them.

You've got commendably high standards yourself when it comes to integrity (that's the word usually used).
Have you ever lost out financially cos of something you believe? Yes, I know you have, so you're on my side.)

ET and SC make their living from writing etc. I'm not questioning their motives on CTCL. They didn't make anything from it but it will be the best CV ever when it comes to future pay negotiations.
I have no idea if they thought about that beforehand. I think maybe not.
(I would have though)

but we have no problem with people making money off of their writing. MOST OF US MAKE OUR MONEY OFF OF OUR WRITING.

Non-popular music, odd arty stuff and fanzines etc. all go together as stuff done not for the money, bit for pleasure and maybe respect.
I think this is part of the reason why CTCL themselves are actually engaging on this board: because what people think actually _means_ something to them

people who write for a living are not the target here. but there is a distinction here between writing for CTCL or for a bigger magazine... If you write for a living as a freelancer at a magazine, chances are at some point you will write pieces on bands you're not actually particularly moved about either way, because you need the work. Rock mags are full of such pieces. CTCL doesn't pay any money because we don't make any money. So people aren't compromising their opinions or what they want to say for the benefit of the commercial magazine that published them and needs to please its advertisers and stay on-message, just as CTCL writers won't have to engage with any particular house-style. This is no slight on people paid to write because (for seemingly the millionth fucking time) I GET PAID TO WRITE and certainly don't consider my Kerrang! material to be essentially any lesser than my CTCL stuff - its just different.

ET and SC make their living from writing etc. I'm not questioning their motives on CTCL. They didn't make anything from it but it will be the best CV ever when it comes to future pay negotiations.

God, i wish that were true... all i got out of CTCL was two amazing years' worth of great experiences, the opportunity to work with steve gullick again close-up, the chance to be edited by Everett (best editing experience EVAH), the knowledge that i've found my writing 'voice' again (lost after years in the doldrums at other magazines - not Kerrang), the memories... I doubt whether working at CTCL would improve my freelance pay rates, because to most magazines we seem to be either a thorn in their side, or something to rip off.

-- Ronan (ronan.fitzgerald...), September 17th, 2003.

To clarify, I certainly didn't men to denigrate those who write for money. I am not a cliche anti-capitalist, anti-profit idealist/hippy.
All sorts of balances can be struck.

I do think that removing money from the equation often clarifies motives.

For what it's worth I think all the people I know who get paid for writing about music love it so much they would write for free if they couldn't get paid.

that's what i was agreeing with. it may seem naive, but i still agree, to a certain extent.

Also mencap I disagree with you, is that not obvious? You'll have to do better than caps lock I'm afraid.

It's hardly an undetectable theme on the thread, right from the Tim Kerr example on, that there is something more noble about not being paid or recognised for ones work.

I think the problem here is mainly comparing a writing for free with paid writing in the first place, the fact that CTCL is the mag involved muddies the waters because it's a rather big "fanzine" and has more exposure than the traditional idea of a fanzine would have suggested.

i love the articles i did for ctcl. unfortunately as demand for paid work increases - it's economics - i have to cut down on the unpaid work - though i still write for flux.

i dunno. as much as i have had a love/hate for ctcl i will miss it. and think that some of the articles i contributed were the best rock writings yet.

Also mencap I disagree with you, is that not obvious? You'll have to do better than caps lock I'm afraid.
-- Ronan (ronan.fitzgerald...), September 17th, 2003.

Stevie the idea that just because you get paid to write means you can't be criticising it is ludicrous as you well know.
-- Ronan (ronan.fitzgerald...), September 17th, 2003

So Ronan, you disagree with Mencap, which means you DO THINK GETTING PAID FOR WRITING IS A BAD THING, yet you think that you can be paid for writing and still be critical.

Is that right?

I know those two things aren't mutually exclusive but your position is a bit complicated. Could you explain it clearly please.

-- Ronan (ronan.fitzgerald...), September 17th, 2003.

NO!

*stamps feet*

Unpaid is NOT THE SAME as unrecognised!

CTCL question = 103 answers

And there was I, thinking the people who post to ILM are cool. Man, if you people are cool what fucken chance do the people who aren't exposed to alternatives have? You should be ashamed of yourselves. Why waste such energy on something that patently doesn't give a fuck for your opinions?

You could also argue, "why is CTCL closing? Is it our fault? Should we care? Should maybe we should have (shudder) stopped paying so much attention to the status quo, when we had - and always have - alternatives?" I'm not being judgmental here. Just positing an alternative viewpoint. People choose what they want to choose. And that's up to them.

Maybe you think the NME is worthy of your attention... in which case, fine. I envy you. Seriously. It's nice that you think the status quo is worth supporting and wasting so much energy on. Your life will clearly a happy one. You will clearly be a success in your chosen career. Maybe it's music journalism? Congratulations. You will soon have money and partners and contentment rolling in.

I stick by what I say. This imbalance is fucking pathetic.

ILM. One of the last bastions of independence. Wasting so much time and energy on a publication that 1) maintains the status quo, and 2) doesn't care ONE FUCKING BIT for your views. Especially, as that time and energy could so easily be spent on doing something for yourselves.

Lesson one: never show you care.

Never show you care.

the Status Quo can only be smashed on a macro scale - if a credible opposition exists.

There is a massive gap in the market - of people NOT been catered for by the weekly NME and want a magazine thats more regular than a monthly.

bring back a magazine with high standards of Melody Maker circa 87/88.

I'm not playing the cool game here but as a contributor and reader both, I found some very enjoyable things in there -- there's a lot I couldn't give a damn for at all (Bright Eyes, yech) -- and that's all I'd expect from a magazine attempting to attract attention. But I learned about more about some musicians I wanted to find out more about, I found out about some others and read some enjoyable opinions and meditations (Neil Kulkarni was my fave columnist, age does not wither nor custom stale his infinite variety, etc.) Like Ptolemaic Terrascope, like Broken Face, like Chunklet, it was something I always looked forward to perusing very much.

And let's not overlook the photos and graphic design -- it was a coediting project with Steve Gullick and on that level it was a sheer treat to look at.

The idea that doing something for free is automatically more glamorous or artistically valid than getting paid for it is a pernicious and stupid one, and lots of indie people probably believe it. The assumption that people like Tim Kerr and Everett True are buying into this idea because they do what they like despite the fact that they won't get paid for it is far, far worse. Granted, plenty of people who say things like "a life dedicated to punk rock" are appallingly self-righteous, but plenty more of them aren't. Equally, some of the pieces in CTCL were full of overheated rhetoric about passion, but many of them weren't, and it's really pathetic to see ILX regulars tarring the whole magazine with the same brush because deep down, they're embarassed by the idea of sincere dedication to something greater than oneself.

The hidden theme is that unedited work is more noble than edited work Ronan, which even I'd disagree with.

there is the assumption here that if they claim to be passionnate, CTCL writers (and all others who contribute unpaid work to a community - if they were doing it only for themselves why publish it?) must be saying it for cred/dick-waving purposes, hence the appearance of words like "noble" and "valorized" in the criticisms of them. some of these writers, like stevie, *are* passionate about what they do, and though passion isn't a virtue in itself, neither should it be grounds for dismissing/'being suspicious of' their stuff witch-hunt style. it's like the Pfork thing - Nabisco is not your typical corny indie fucker just because he writes for Pfork, and stevie is not automatically some dick-waving scenester because he claims to be passionate about what he does.

(and i didn't mean to call out everybody on the thread, sorry, these were the specific comments that irked me)

-- Jerry (everet...), September 17th, 2003.

You're just being silly now. What have post counts got to do with it?
Besides which the NME one's been going longer.

The NME has been going decades, many ppl here will have read it, particularly during their formative years, and it's passed the barrier into pop culture ten times over.

That so many ppl are interested in talking about a mag that's had about 10 issues should be taken as a compliment.

TS: The Writer going to the reader vs The Reader coming to the writer

i think magazines in both types are good to have around

Now, we're on CTCL = 132, NME = 262 ... and you've all made me feel just that teensiest bit happier. Regards! (And apologies for posting when drunk, again.)

Anyway, CTCL was shit because it let me write for it for three issues.

(Mei I mean I disagreed with mencap saying "noone is saying that", thought that was obvious)

The subtext you pointed out is, in my view, nowhere to be found in the discussion. Plenty of zines are edited, so I don't see why you inferred that unedited work is more noble than being edited. I quoted yr post because it was similar to the others in that you were accusing stevie of buying into a certain obnoxious attitude simply because he was defending writing for free.

I think more people should want to write for money and I do think the punk rock attitude in rockcrit often seems to make this something to be ashamed of. We all need money from somewhere.

Again, the distinction needs to be made between writing for free because nobody will pay you to write about certain bands (or more likely, to write a long/obtuse/strange piece in the style you choose), and writing for free because you think there's inherent value in writing for free. I doubt anybody on this thread believes in the latter, but I personally am a big fan of the former.

When they fail to understand you that's bad, but if they don't the readers probably won't either.
When they fix typos thats good.

Editors are good. I'd be happier with somebody I knew editing my work than with a stranger, but either way it would improve my writing more often than it ruined it. If I ever did a book I would expect some fairly hands-on editing.

I look forward to the two new magazines hinted at up-thread.

...anyone know when the next issue of smoke is out?

One point about editing that I would like to make... WHOEVER THE FUCK THE RETARD WAS THAT CHANGED "INDELICATE" TO "SMALL" IN MY COCKTHRUSH PIECE, I WILL HUNT YOU DOWN AND EAT YOU. Indelicate does NOT mean small. I choose my words very carefully, and I completely resent having them changed to a word that means the opposite of what I intended. No, I've never forgotten this. Kill all editors.