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.

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.