Genres With Only Good Stuff

What? Is it not noisy enough?

A subgenre constituted by so much subtlety seems to almost always be inoffensive and at worst just undistinguished which isn't really DUD, at least not in capital letters.

bad shoegazing? oh come ON. i give you... MOOSE. puh-lease.

i could even find you some bad DRONEROCK if you pressed me hard enough. there is no genre so good that everything in it is indispensible.

Then you don't have ears, or something.

the genres listed in the question would probably be a pretty accurate snapshot of MUSIC DESIGNED BY ROBOTS TO MAKE ME HATE IT, so it's fairly obvious that I wouldn't be able to find good examples of any of it.

i've explained my views on this a thousand times if i've explained them once. yes, i CAN dismiss an entire genre out of hand, if the very BASIS of that genre has none of the things that i look for in music.

i have friends who don't like dronerock. sure, i can play them every dronerock record ever made, and maybe, just maybe, and it's only a maybe, they might find, f'example, a medicine track that didn't make them cringe. that doesn't mean that they are even going to suddenly discover a love for the entire genre. i don't NEED to eat an entire marmite sandwich to know that I DON'T LIKE MARMITE so why should glitch or free jazz be any different?

about the list, you're right, i've rechecked it, and i lied. i can find bits of ambient where it intersects with pure drone and etherial psychedelia that i will listen to.

That's ridiculous. How do you know if a genre has "none of the things that i look for in music" (how do you look at music?) if you don't know what the genre consists of?

i have friends who don't like dronerock. sure, i can play them every dronerock record ever made, and maybe, just maybe, and it's only a maybe, they might find, f'example, a medicine track that didn't make them cringe. that doesn't mean that they are even going to suddenly discover a love for the entire genre. i don't NEED to eat an entire marmite sandwich to know that I DON'T LIKE MARMITE so why should glitch or free jazz be any different?

Marmite is food, free jazz is music, for starters.

I wonder why there seems to be so little hard-hitting criticism of music in these genres. Is it because they're obscure? Because the critics who write about them aren't very good, for the most part? Or because they're simply difficult to criticize? Mike hints at this last one in his post when he reveals he's unable to differentiate between noise records. I write about free jazz/ improv a lot and suspect that a lot of critics in that area are unable to meaningfully distinguish between the records they're reviewing, which is why you get a lot of writing like, 'The artists' interactions most assuredly emanate from the spirit within. Vigorously recommended!'

Anyway I suspect the same is true in these other genres as well. Thoughts?

I have a friend who was into ambient music. I asked him if he'd heard any bad ambient records and he said no. I asked him if he'd know one when he heard it and he said, well, no.

I think I work in the same way, sort of - when I first really get into something, a style of music, it does ALL sound good. Only when I spent more time with it do the flaws and quality differences start leaping out. I tend to hop around in my listening so there's a whole lot of stuff I never explored enough to notice when they got bad.

i was not born yesterday, i am not totally ignorant of all music. i have been known occasionally to turn on the radio or listen to compilation tapes or be exposed to other music at friends' houses with different tastes. I *DO* know enough about most of the genres listed to know that i don't like them.

it's insulting of you to assume that my reaction is one of ignorance or wilful closedmindedness, rather than a carefully experimented and deliberated decision.

but this is exactly the sort of flamewar that i wished to avoid, so i'm bowing off this thread.

it's 'cause nobody but fans want to write/read about them.

The implication that nobody who likes free jazz or any of these other genres can truly be critical of music because 1. they're all "fans" of everything and that 2. no one outside these "fans" cares is condescending and insulting, even more so than the "free jazz is like marmite" nonsense.

Well, I suppose noise lives and dies by how interesting it is, like most any music, really. IMO, if you're dealing with straight, simple, HARSH noise, it should be intense. If it isn't quite so noisy, it should be dense and filled with captivating sounds. Either way, there should be something there to hold the listener's attention because aimless, plodding noise is no fun at all.

As for black metal, Emperor is probably the biggest band in the genre and many, many people hated their last album. (or at least, lots were disappointed)

No, I'm not. Are you so narrow-minded that your personal tastes in both food and music have remained static for your entire lifetime? I mean, hey, I hated lima beans as a kid, but I don't mind 'em now.

i was not born yesterday, i am not totally ignorant of all music.

When did I imply or state that?

i have been known occasionally to turn on the radio or listen to compilation tapes or be exposed to other music at friends' houses with different tastes. I *DO* know enough about most of the genres listed to know that i don't like them.

I'm sure you do, but I'm also saying that you (and this could also be a general you, because even though I listen to a lot of free jazz, I couldn't claim to hate stuff in that genre that I haven't heard) shouldn't be so dismissive. That's all.

it's insulting of you to assume that my reaction is one of ignorance or wilful closedmindedness, rather than a carefully experimented and deliberated decision.

Maybe so, but perhaps it's also insulting for you to say an entire genre is worthless, even if it's just your opinion.

but this is exactly the sort of flamewar that i wished to avoid, so i'm bowing off this thread.

Okay, sorry.

Most "indie" (i.e. small, independent) magazines from Sound Collector to Music to Bananafish to whatever cover some or all of these genres.

And other discussion boards and interweb zines are all over the place. Hell, even Pitchfork has token free jazz and improv reviews every once in a while (although, like today's MIMEO/John Tilbury review, most of their "critics" don't seem to get it).

Okay, I just didn't think that was too valid a point, considering that most of these genres aren't secret societies or anything, but that info on them is getting easier and easier to find in the age of the ghostinternetland.

hstencil, have you had a bad day?

I didn't even have to use my AK
I gotta say it was a good day.

I've seen plenty of negative stuff on freejazz.org too, esp. concerning European improvisers (i.e. non-free jazzers like Derek Bailey, etc.). A lot of that negative stuff is couched in that the Euros don't have "energy" or "soul," which I agree are cliched, but then again, all cliches are just played-out truths, non?

Mark, I wrote about New York band called Sightings for pfork a few weeks ago who could be grouped under "noise" (or no wave). I thought they were bad because what they were doing seemed 1) very non-creative and often quite dull, 2) considering the genre they were playing in, surprisingly derivative and 3) immature (ie, seemed to me music not yet fully formed -- like rough drafts of tunes, or possibly hastily constructed finals).

Two things I notice now are that 1) all of these points might not be considered criticism coming from someone else; 2) I might use all of these points to criticize Creed, or any number of bands I hate. Genres, what genres?

Seriously, this is one of the few "new" Brooklyn bands that's a keeper.

hey, man, there's always duran duran to prove that some bands with ass-endowed singers CAN actually be worthy and good.

You're not impressed w/ Fennesz, Sundar, but would you go as far as to say that his stuff is bad?

Also, re Metal Machine Music -- most of the scathing criticism came from people who hate noise music, so that's not quite what I'm talking about. Do you know of any noise music lovers who hate MMM?

I wouldn't say Fennesz is bad yet because I've never listened enough to make a firm judgment. However nothing I've heard particularly impressed me.

On to Pitchfork ('cause you asked for it):

1. Review blurb sez Pita's standing in for Fennesz, review sez Kevin Drumm is. Which is it? And does it matter (esp. when I don't think it's been all the same people on each release)?

2. The very name MIMEO (abbreviated from the somewhat pretentious moniker Music In Movement Electronic Orchestra) makes it clear technology is on this collective's mind.

How is the name pretentious? Or have anything to do with technology? And no, "electronic" doesn't mean "laptop" (i.e. Keith Rowe's been using the same extended guitar technique for what 35+ years?). And are there other instruments besides laptops?

3. The Hands of Caravaggio is the sound of thirteen incredibly adept and inspired musicians thinking about the speed, memory, and ready accessibility of technology, and its application.

Cliche. How do you hear musicians (whether they're "incredibly adept and inspired" or not) think? Unless it's a Alvin Lucier piece based on brainwaves, that is.

4. Composed by AMM founding member Keith Rowe...

That might be stretching it, and I'm not sure, based on anything I've heard or read by Mr. Rowe, that he'd want to be called a "composer."

5. Kevin Drumm (replacing usual member Christian Fennesz), whose approach is in some ways similar to Rowe's, uses an electric guitar as a transducer more than as a musical instrument. In recent years, he's opted to use a computer to transform that massive sense of electrical energy into an audible form.

What the fuck does this mean? Nothing, as far as I can tell.

6. Pita, whose work on the Mego label displays an obsessive degree of aural annihilation, where familiar, tangible concrete and instrumental sounds are compressed and expanded into shards of digital noise with its original source looming translucently in the background, is also a member.

While basically accurate, this is a mother of a convuluted sentence.

7. These names, of course, are no more or less valuable to the recording than Kaffe Matthews, Thomas Lehn, Cor Fuhler, Marcus Schmickler, Gert-Jan Prins, Phil Durrant, Marcus Wettstein, and Jerome Noetinger, all of whom have certainly paid their dues as electro-acoustic musicians, and many of which have particularly definitive work on the Erstwhile label responsible for this MIMEO release.

...but since I'm not as familiar with them, I'll write more about Drumm and Pita.

8. It brims with freshness and the fleeting beauty improvised music rarely achieves, and proudly wears the contributors' reputations on its sleeve.

Wow.

i'm impressed with your careful reading of the review, as it speaks for a great deal of concern for accuracy and respect for each of the talents involved in this excellent recording. i'm also curious now whether you think my own stab at The Hands of Caravaggio is any more on-point, and i'd prefer that you be brutally honest in your assessment. but we should probably take that discussion offline, since we're veering dangerously OT.

IIRC, it was "Mimeo" on the original Grob CD-R. in either case, the significance and presentation of the moniker may have changed slightly as the project evolved.

it's also difficult to discuss Rowe's exact role in Mimeo. while certainly not a "composer" (yikes!), he's not quite Mimeo's "leader," either. and neither "coordinator," "director," nor "orchestrator." AMG nailed it with "émince grise." but until we can dredge up a suitable pseudonym, that one's now claimed.

Also, how crazy, you mention that Tilbury and Rowe happen to be in the same band!

Although I still love the genre, it has been flooded with hundreds of incredibly mediocre, amateurish and boring bands for at least seven years now. While the genre had its period where it produced less than twenty albums a year altogether, which were nearly all classic, there has been zero innovation for years and the incessant cloning of the same riffs, the same synth lines, the same vocals, the same guitar tones, the same artwork, have taken it to the point where everybody is beating a dead horse. Bands that would've been laughed out of the offices of No Fashion, Osmose, Deathlike Silence or No Colours for obvious incompetence get record deals with we-sign-everybody labels like Last Episode, Tragic Empire and Hammerheart, or desparate 'metal majors' Nuclear Blast and Century Media, or release their own "handnumbered limited to 88 copies" CDs.

You want to hear bad Black Metal? Check out Catamenia, Satyricon, Ad Inferna, Aeba, Throned, Agathodaimon, Godkiller, In Battle, Welter, Dimmu Borgir, Iuvenes, Mystic Circle, Fermenting Innards, Vitam Eternam, Necrofeast, Nocturnal Breed, Thy Majesty, Tvangeste, Viking Crown, Barad Dur, Vilkates...

There is so much bad noise music out there. I'd be prepared to put big $ on the fact that the crapper it is, the less time went into making it.

i have.

Kevin Drumm is, Pitchfork wrote the blurb, not me. I emailed them immediately to correct it, they didn't seem to care, particularly.

2. The very name MIMEO (abbreviated from the somewhat pretentious moniker Music In Movement Electronic Orchestra) makes it clear technology is on this collective's mind.

How is the name pretentious? Or have anything to do with technology?

You're telling me "Music In Movement Electronic Orchestra" doesn't sound pretentious?

And no, "electronic" doesn't mean "laptop" (i.e. Keith Rowe's been using the same extended guitar technique for what 35+ years?). And are there other instruments besides laptops?

Did I say "electronic" means "laptop" at any point? The word "laptop" isn't even in the review.

3. The Hands of Caravaggio is the sound of thirteen incredibly adept and inspired musicians thinking about the speed, memory, and ready accessibility of technology, and its application.

Cliche. How do you hear musicians (whether they're "incredibly adept and inspired" or not) think? Unless it's a Alvin Lucier piece based on brainwaves, that is.

If you don't think improvised music, or partially improvised music, in this particular case displays some tangible thought processes, I'd have to disagree with you. While "thinking about" might be a cliched term, I think the specifics of their aims are relevant.

4. Composed by AMM founding member Keith Rowe...

That might be stretching it, and I'm not sure, based on anything I've heard or read by Mr. Rowe, that he'd want to be called a "composer."

I'm sorry, maybe "Conceptualized" would've been appropriately academic enough.

5. Kevin Drumm (replacing usual member Christian Fennesz), whose approach is in some ways similar to Rowe's, uses an electric guitar as a transducer more than as a musical instrument. In recent years, he's opted to use a computer to transform that massive sense of electrical energy into an audible form.

What the fuck does this mean? Nothing, as far as I can tell.

My theory is that Drumm's playing and music is about electricity, on a fundamental level. The buzzing, sense of energy, sharp shocks of sound.

6. Pita, whose work on the Mego label displays an obsessive degree of aural annihilation, where familiar, tangible concrete and instrumental sounds are compressed and expanded into shards of digital noise with its original source looming translucently in the background, is also a member.

While basically accurate, this is a mother of a convuluted sentence.

Yep. Sorry.

7. These names, of course, are no more or less valuable to the recording than Kaffe Matthews, Thomas Lehn, Cor Fuhler, Marcus Schmickler, Gert-Jan Prins, Phil Durrant, Marcus Wettstein, and Jerome Noetinger, all of whom have certainly paid their dues as electro-acoustic musicians, and many of which have particularly definitive work on the Erstwhile label responsible for this MIMEO release.

...but since I'm not as familiar with them, I'll write more about Drumm and Pita.

Sorry, that's just presumptious, cruel, and ultimately pretentious on your part. Had more to do with word constraints and pitching the goddamn article to Pitchfork, who obviously had some reservations about publishing an article on an Erstwhile release to begin with. If you'd like to see the original, several page review that actually discusses each of those musicians individually, let me know.

8. It brims with freshness and the fleeting beauty improvised music rarely achieves, and proudly wears the contributors' reputations on its sleeve.

Wow.

Wow yourself. With all this snideness, I'm surprised you don't write for the magazine yourself. When placed with the question of how to get Pitchfork's readers to explore some less chartered territory, I thought it would be an effective to stake the reputations of the already-established musicians on its quality. Something I still stand behind.

from,
Matts .

I recall getting your approval on the review before I submitted it to PFork/

from,
Matts

Kevin Drumm is, Pitchfork wrote the blurb, not me. I emailed them immediately to correct it, they didn't seem to care, particularly.

There's a lot of things Ryan doesn't care about: accuracy, timeliness, grammar, etc.

You're telling me "Music In Movement Electronic Orchestra" doesn't sound pretentious?

Yep. No less than say "Interpol" or "The Strokes" or "AMM" or "hstencil" or "Matt Wellins." Hint for the aspiring reviewer: overuse of the word "pretentious" makes you sound like a 20 year-old fuckwit.

Did I say "electronic" means "laptop" at any point? The word "laptop" isn't even in the review.

Of course not.

If you don't think improvised music, or partially improvised music, in this particular case displays some tangible thought processes, I'd have to disagree with you.

How can ANY music "display...tangible thought processes?" The process is separate from the result, even in improv.

While "thinking about" might be a cliched term, I think the specifics of their aims are relevant.

Wrong. That wasn't the cliche. The cliche was the entire sentence, not just the phrase. "Think about" it: The Hands of Caravaggio is the sound of thirteen incredibly adept and inspired musicians thinking about the speed, memory, and ready accessibility of technology, and its application. That's just a crap sentence.

I'm sorry, maybe "Conceptualized" would've been appropriately academic enough.

I wouldn't say that either. Maybe "played," I dunno. But considering how picky Rowe is about composition, I'd at least have emailed him first to ask what he thought his role in the piece was, aside from just playing guitar. My guess is that he wouldn't claim the word "composer," but hey that's just based on seeing him play solo and with AMM and talking with him.

My theory is that Drumm's playing and music is about electricity, on a fundamental level. The buzzing, sense of energy, sharp shocks of sound.

Wait, a second ago you were deriding what I wrote as being "academic." Then you're writing on your "theory" about Drumm's playing? Sheesh. Why don't you ask him about his playing? My guess is that he'd shoot any such "theory" down, but that's just based on seeing him play solo and in groups and smoking pot and drinking beers and goofing around with him.

Yep. Sorry.

Sorry, that's just presumptious, cruel, and ultimately pretentious on your part.

What did I write up there about "pretentious?" To me the most pretentious thing to do in the world is to call someone/something else pretentious. There, I did it myself!

Had more to do with word constraints and pitching the goddamn article to Pitchfork, who obviously had some reservations about publishing an article on an Erstwhile release to begin with. If you'd like to see the original, several page review that actually discusses each of those musicians individually, let me know.

No thanks. Why pitch it to Pitchfork, then? They obviously can't be bothered to publish accurate/well-thought-out reviews and articles about stuff they care about! Why bother submitting something you're going to have to compromise on, then?

Wow yourself. With all this snideness, I'm surprised you don't write for the magazine yourself.

Hahahahahaha. No really, you wrote "brims with freshness" - it's not fucking coffee. Second, the sentence is horribly convuluted, which is quite a feat for only 21 words. "It" "brims with freshness" and "proudly wears?" And there's just "he fleeting beauty improvised music rarely achieves" hanging around in there, too.

When placed with the question of how to get Pitchfork's readers to explore some less chartered territory, I thought it would be an effective to stake the reputations of the already-established musicians on its quality. Something I still stand behind.

Okay so first Pitchfork is to blame for demanding generality when you gave specificity, then you claim that generality is what you were shooting for? Which is it, man?

and by the way, regarding the slopiness of the article, according Gil.

I recall getting your approval on the review before I submitted it to PFork/

huh? That's got fuck-all to do with me, chum.

as for thought in sound. i think people can, over the course of their playing, take musical ideas, and rephrase them, shape them differently, add to them, use them in relation to the other ideas that are being used around them. i think this represents "thinking", one can think aloud, right?

I'm sorry that the phrasing of several sentences are that much of a bother to you. I kind of see it as irrelevant to the general context and ideas of the review, but I won't begrudge you the fact that some sentences are poorly structured. I still think the review discusses the content of the record fairly and gives some background on the music itself. Which should be enough. Your attacks, however, are downright antagonistic and uncalled for. As for the word "pretentious", I agree its overused and misused, but the point has to do with exclusivity, something that you clearly practice in the most inane fashion. Instead of having an open-ended dialogue, you just bash my writing, under the guise that you somehow know more than I do (just look at that comment about how I don't cover people like Col Fuhler in my review). You can debate whether or not MIMEO is a pretentious acronym, if you want, I'm sure plenty of people would agree with me, however.

I don't have Rowe's email. He wasn't being referred to as a "Composer" in the giant, european historical tradition sense, the piece was being referred to as "composed", which it was to some degree.

As for Drumm's playing, I'm sorry if I see something aesthetically unified in it. I don't think it's entirely inaccurate, even if Drumm himself would shoot down the idea.

Why bother with Pitchfork? Because people read it. Because even if that review didn't mean shit to you, it meant something to someone. Someone heard that album because of the review, and that's enough for me. They also send free records, which is a nice gig.

I aim for generality in some places and specificity in other places. I don't think that's unreasonable. I think to be specific about the musicians is helpful in understanding the whole, so that the whole can be dealt with in a broad manner.

Anyway, the last comment does have fuck-all to do with you. It was referring to the person who disagreed with your initial comments, and then went back to agree with you later.

from,
Matts

one can think aloud, right?

Not literally!

I'm sorry that the phrasing of several sentences are that much of a bother to you.

Don't flatter yourself. It didn't ruin my day. I did think the review did the musicians on the disc a disservice, so I pointed it out. You might want to grow thicker skin if you're going to write.

I kind of see it as irrelevant to the general context and ideas of the review, but I won't begrudge you the fact that some sentences are poorly structured.

Gee, thanks.

I still think the review discusses the content of the record fairly and gives some background on the music itself. Which should be enough.

And I don't. Crazy how opinions can be different, huh?

Your attacks, however, are downright antagonistic and uncalled for.

How so? I think I backed up everything I wrote. And I still think it was a crappy review that made a point of focussing on, what, 4 people out of a large ensemble?

As for the word "pretentious", I agree its overused and misused, but the point has to do with exclusivity, something that you clearly practice in the most inane fashion.

What the fuck? Exclusivity? Because I want to read well-written reviews that at least feign some knowledge of the subject at hand?

Instead of having an open-ended dialogue,

What's this then?

you just bash my writing, under the guise that you somehow know more than I do (just look at that comment about how I don't cover people like Col Fuhler in my review).

BUT YOU DON'T, L'IL MATTY! You mention CoR in passing!

You can debate whether or not MIMEO is a pretentious acronym, if you want, I'm sure plenty of people would agree with me, however.

Well the majority rules, doesn't it? That's a pretty poor argument.

I don't have Rowe's email.

Okay, great. I don't either.

He wasn't being referred to as a "Composer" in the giant, european historical tradition sense, the piece was being referred to as "composed", which it was to some degree.

Next time write "l'il-c composer" and I'll know what you mean, 'kay?

As for Drumm's playing, I'm sorry if I see something aesthetically unified in it. I don't think it's entirely inaccurate, even if Drumm himself would shoot down the idea.

Well, the only unification I can hear in his stuff is that, hey, it's the same guy. BTW, he does use a laptop some, but for the most part in live performance he uses a modular synth.

Why bother with Pitchfork? Because people read it.

Again, a lousy argument. People read People magazine too, doesn't mean it's good (although I will grant that Pitchfork is slightly better than People).

Because even if that review didn't mean shit to you, it meant something to someone.

Awwww.

Someone heard that album because of the review, and that's enough for me.

Sniff. You changed the world, Matt. I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony, too.

They also send free records, which is a nice gig.

There's the rub.

a) the sightings rock. dleone, i respect your opinion, and maybe something was in my coffee when i sat down and listened to their record... but i think it's an awesome example of power electronics being thrown over go-go or garage rock melodies and times. oddly enough, our reviews of the record ran on the same day.

b) some of those genres suffer from under exposure.

c) every one of the genres has bad music... although i find it hard on occasion to figure out what bad free jazz or bad noise or musique concrete is. i mean, when staring at a formless painting, what ultimately makes it good or bad? does the viewer/listener use random techniques to discern their feelings? do they use a name and culture guides to tell them it's good? "oh, peter brontzmann is a genius!" i think that in essense, anyone can find worth in those types of music just as much as anyone can hate those types of paintings. a lot of times it seems like some of the successes of these genres have succeeded due to where they were born out of. growing up on bubblegum pop, would pantera's "mouth for war" seem absolutely insane? so pit some cool, relaxing jazz next to free jazz like brontzmann with it's skronking and spitting and almost vulgar display of power and hot damn, it's really something! the sightings are interesting to me because they carry the same extreme, outsider push. turn on the vines or white stripes and you may enjoy a rockin tune, but then throw on the sightings on and it's like a get your ass knocked on the floor.

i guess probably the other ways those genres succeed or fail is in the presentation or in the method (see the ABCs playing freeish jazz with an accordian)... or perhaps in an unintended structure or texture that comes out without their intention. but damn, that still makes them hard to discern. it's unfortunate because without the bad, is there really good?

d) i'm shocked that pfork would keep an incorrect blurb up. that sucks. i'm surprised they don't let you write your own blurb. i mean, you write a whole article... what's a blurb?

.02
m.

most improv recs I've heard was worth listening to: they aren't really records with things like production, more like good sounding bootlegs, recordings of gigs.

sometimes its almost avant garde throaway type stuff really. almost always worth listening to once.

I also agree that opprobium has some good reviews, some good bashing of yr fave improvisers (but they haven't published anything for a while so i wonder if its stopping for good). the wire has some good stuff too but a lot of bad stuff as well.

as far as free jazz goes: I don't listen to a lot of the contemporary stuff, I'm still working through all those early records.