The guardians of morality at The Wire magazine have this time 'Savage' Pencil interviewing Chris Corsano for Invisible Jukebox. He plays Shitfun for him, then proceeds to goad him into condemning the supposedly 'dodgy' views inherent. Corsano commendably doesn't take the bait, stating that he appreciates and enjoys the music, even pointing out that his wife (who doesn't much like so-called 'noise music') very much enjoys Whitehouse.
The interview continues, Pencil prodding CC with questions perming the theme of whether Whitehouse are 'dangerous': even going so far as to mention the erect penis on the album's cover, and questioning its dangerousness (ironically declining to mention that the penis in question is the work of Wire favourite Steven Stapleton).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Having fallen foul of their fuckwit reviews editor, and Keith Moline, I can concur with the sentiment. As I have mentioned elsewhere, we must remember, my friend, that it is, at heart, a Jazz Mag - and, like all Jazz Mags, it is full of cunts :-)
It is indeed strange and with the very ' leading ' questions , it's a shame about Sav , who i always thought was a real music enthusiast and someone you could 'trust'. But there you go....
He has previously been sympathetic to all things Whitehouse so what gives ... ?
Don't misunderstand me, this isn't anger: whether Powncey or the guy from Plan B or whoever it matters not, let them write anything and it will intrigue, arouse, and delight in equal measure. The difference is that we're looking down into their well; sometimes it's ugly, sometimes it's of beauty, but by thus attaching themselves to the very artwork itself let them be protected from harm.
William / Andrew - You somewhat lost me on the well metaphor- somewhere between detachment and 'it' being necessary ;-) (happy to accept this is my fault)
Is the issue not that consideration of any material so far beyond "the generic" still commands that it be viewed within a context, and that the difficultiues arise through choice of context?
The BBC link being a case in point as the director was enraged - not because they didn't like his work - but that the work was judged inside a framework, or cultural context, that was wholly inappropriate?
ok some thoughts - William can boot us off if he feels so inclined, but I know how much he savours reaction ;-)
a) - Don't know if I have anything reasonable to contribute to a comment-based discussion on why we need to know what is good or bad - could be taste, fashion, morality or ethics - again depending on the context. Without duality we have swamp mud, i suppose might be the short - short version.
b) Why do people wish to tell us where things belong? Well, people don't - commentators, critics, reviewers do. this is their currency; framing, boxing, uniting, comparing, evaluating within recognised architectures, and so forth - nothing to be confused with the emotional response of a genuine listener!
To be evaluated from within your own experience, your own perceived context is not only fair, reasonable and polite, it is a basic tenet of phenomenological research. Judge everything from within its own context of understanding.
c)This is a great point, but one to be discussed over food and drink rather than text forum) To enter the commercial domain impacts upon the work? Is it not the case that one is forced - like it or not - to frame one's own work in a different way in order to find paths into acceptance in these other contexts (that word again)? This presents a definite artistic challenge, but, equally, if its not a challenge you want to take up - then it is a hindrance or, at the very least, a gaping invitation to compromise. This is certainly the case for those of us who lack the persuasive weapon of live performance and who rely on distributors releases featuring paragraphs beginning "sounds like..." or "for fans of..."
d) Not meaning to be flippant but the idea of The Wire recast as Hollywood comic is fantastically funny!
Finally, let the record state - as it has done for others here - that I have nothing against E Pouncey. I have never met him, know little about him - but he said nice things about our first record which suspends my critical facilties and may undermine everything above depending on your politics!
but Sir, I savour the day Whitehouse make the Wire cover-story... surely it can't be far away? Or are you refusing outright to deal with these people?
Sav X seemed only to be raising devil's advocate arguments rather than reacting in a peg-on-his-nose way to Whitehouse.
" we're looking down into their well; sometimes it's ugly, sometimes it's of beauty, but by thus attaching themselves to the very artwork itself let them be protected from harm."
Oh well done William!
One wonders how and why some find in the subconscious, only the nasty, and atavistic.
So brilliant to read someone noticing the game people play to keep their reality programs running.
Post a Comment