Wednesday, 30 January 2013

Ben Watson: Anti-Wire

Preview of a polemic against Wire magazine and its punting of 'Avant' musical culture culled from the script of Ben Watson's Late Lunch With Out To Lunch, to be broadcast live from Borough High Street, London SE1 at 2pm today on resonancefm.com


"Music has lost its sense of fun", writes John Coldwell in this month's Wire magazine, "and become a joyless task as the music lover strives like a fashion slave to keep up. Almost every review in your wonderful magazine references other musicians worthy of exploring — and we, the readers, are left in a constant state of feeling that we are not even in the right backyard. There is far too much music product out there — hundreds of hours of music claiming our attention in The Wire before we even reach the review part of the magazine; Amazon, striving to point out my listening inadequacies by publishing pages and pages of five album retrospective sets at giveaway prices; while The Guardian and Jazzman magazine recommend exciting stuff beyond the scope of The Wire. Dare I switch on the radio?"

Mr. Coldwell feels as if he's the victim of some weird conspiracy, but he's too estranged from the point of musical production to understand what's going on. Just bacause he's paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get him. The inflation of product he's complaining about arises from something I noticed when I left the magazine in 2005: I sloganised this as "avant became a sales tag". I bade farewell to The Wire by issuing a CD with Sonic Arts called Frankfurter Ahnung (I think it's the only one in their series that never got a review). I can proudly say, that unlike the CDs which Wire magazine gives away every so often, in which morsels of good music are drowned in oceans of borderline swill, Frankfurter Ahnung consisted of nothing but stone cold masterpieces. This is because I was not making a financial deal with some 'label' — i.e. transforming claims to your attention into hard cash by flattering some wealthy tosser who wants to be in the music business — but compiling tracks I thought (and still think) are fantastic and beautiful and moving and funny in themselves.

The phrase "Avant became a sales tag" appeared in the middle of a polemic against Sonic Youth and Rob Young ('rob the young', what an appropriate name), which began the booklet which acompanied the CD. It was also emblazoned across a collage on page 20. The whole thing was called Frankfurter Ahnung to draw attention to the fact that Walter Benjamin, Theodor Adorno and Herbert Marcuse — collectively known as 'the Frankfurt School' — had the best explanation for the emergence of avantgardes in every industrialised country at the beginning of the twentieth century: the bourgeois epoch was over. As well as echoing the name of a famous newspaper, Ahnung means 'inkling' in German. My conceit was that the CD might give listeners the inkling that good old British middle-class commonsense was not quite sufficient to understand what was being done to them in the name of 'avant' music. To describe the workings of culture under capitalism, we require the Marxist concepts developed by the Frankfurt School.

In using these concepts in the pages of The Wire myself, I became aware of how 'inconvenient' it is for editors if writers don't join in the general approbation of acts which successfully 'reach' the magazine's demographic. I see The Wire still describes itself as an 'underground music zine'. Managing the task of being both 'underground' and viable-as-a-business-entity is a delicate one, and not one you can entrust to mere writers. Since Marxism bring to the fore matters of buying and selling, my reviews were a runing source of annoyance to the editors, who were greatly relieved when I threw in the towel.

But by ridding themselves of their only writer unafraid to condemn music which is wasting your time, Wire magazine lost the critical filter it had when it was a jazz magazine. Jazz has a long history of musical judgments which make qualitiative distinctions within the genre, rather trhan simply boosting the 'jazz' brand. Although it's been rocked by wars over Fusion and Free Jazz and New Age and Neo-Classical, jazz writing frequently delivers objective assessments. But, as Coldwell complains, in the pages of The Wire, the sheer quantity of music products being sprayed with the magic sheen of commodity glamour — hip appeal — is out of all proportion to its readers' minds or wallets. Genres in music are echoes of class struggle, and the discussion goes limp if the Noiseniks can't be rude about Classical music and the Jazz brainboxes can't sneer at the rock louts, or the punks vilify the jazz yuppies. The reason Frank Zappa is the presiding genius of Late Lunch is that he manages to collide different genres without losing the funk and spunk of their righteous antagonisms. Zappa was a previous Wire pin-up who spookily went out of favour with the magazine's turn from Jazz to Avant, even though he never played Jazz and frequently mocked it. Why did he go out of favour? Because he encourgages critical thinking about music.

A drunk Evan Parker once tried to turn a whole roomful of free improvisors against me because I'd written a book on Frank Zappa. Sober, his line on reviews is that it's 'damaging' to write any negative reviews of Free Improv events or releases, because it's a form which must be protected and nurtured. This is like SWP members being told to stop talking about rape allegations. It's a ridiculous injunction on a writer or indeed anybody, who should be told to follow their conscience and tell the truth as they see it. How stupid Parker's line is was proved when the London Musicians Collective started issuing a magazine. It named this radio station: Resonance. Pages and pages of mates extolling each others' albums? Reading it was stomach-churning, I tell you. And economic nonsense too. The only people it could convince to buy albums were the musicians, and they all expect to get them free anyway.

Anyone wanting a more objective view needs to face a few facts. Facts derivable from Marx's analysis in Capital. 'Avant music' faces today the identical problem as other branches of capitalist production, from the manufactuers of microprocessors to suppliers of car insurance: the decline in 'value' — in exchange value, not use value — of products, due to a greater proportion of capital being used in their production. Hence the "five album retrospective sets at give-away prices" which so fatigue Coldwell. Now, the desire to appear hip, sexy and attractive, is pretty much printed on the genes of hom. sap., and no amount of Christianity or hair-shirt socialism is going to eliminate that. The debate about which products make you hot and fit and ready to ruck is endless, and an essential part of the fun of music-writing. The bizarre thing about The Wire is that it's somehow — for the more nerdy, brainbox, middle-class types, anyway — made 'knowing about the avantgarde' sexy. David Toop has ensured that there are hordes of young wallies wandering about Shoreditch sporting goatees and with a copy of Michael Nyman's Experimental Music under their arm. Next thing we know, they'll be handing out Harry Gilonis masks at orgies!

Avantgarde music used to be the preserve of freaks, outcasts and weirdoes, but now it's pursued by normal solvent people, i.e. insecure, immature twerps who'll try anything to get laid. But the scam is running out of gas. In the anarchist purview of Wire-editor Chris Bohn, there's no musical judgment, no sense of music as objective form, just a creeping moralism about people's 'intentions'. Somehow, despite their music being dreary piffle and a waste of your precious time, The Grateful Dead and Jefferson Airplane and Einsturzende Neubauten and Sonic Youth are all on the side of the angels. He's even managed to get David Keenan listening to Neil Young (which beggars belief, but it's true). Keenan is a man so ignorant of musical form he could declare himself deaf and still keep up the weak brew of fantasy and rumour he pours out every month in the magazine to order. The problem with centering the discussion on 'good intentions' rather than concrete results is that the critic is no longer a critic — someone taking a sharp look at something objective — but a scene booster and PR-merchant.

Real writing about music registers the music's affect on the listener as a direct, physical force. Historical knowledge and sociological theory are only be applied in order to explain these affects. Everything else is just cultural clutter. The reason Coldwell is upset is that Wire magazine has betrayed the motivating principle of the avantgarde, which is to destroy commodity production in culture: a revolt in favour of use value versus exchange value. Wire magazine gives its readers no tools with which to distinguish good from bad, but instead offers a vomit-inducing Smorgasbord of Deleuze and Guattari's "either … or … or … or" ad infinitum. Readers are made to think that they need to be "informed" about all this pitiful dreck, and there's no-one left in the magazine (unless it's Ed Baxter) to point out that the emperor walks naked. Advertising suddenly at the very heart of the anti-capitalist underground? You got it. Only in the pages of The Wire

Let's fend off these self-defeating conjurors of exchange value out of speculation and spin, and listen to some blues on that topic Raya Dunayevskaya says Marx begins with, namely the Man/Woman relation …

Jimmie Rodgers with the Lousiville Jug Band 'My Good Gal's Gone Blues', Louisville, Kentucky 16-vi-1931 Blue Yodellers with Red Hot Accompaniment (Retrieval, 1999) CD Track 7 2:52

Out to Lunch, 2013-i-30



47 comments:

  1. This is my favorite passage from Benjamin on music. It's from his "Hashish in Marseilles"

    “The music that meanwhile kept rising and falling, I called the rush switches of jazz. I have forgotten on what grounds I permitted myself to mark the beat with my foot. This is against my education, and it did not happen without inner disputation” ...

    Which leads me to believe that, had you been in San Francisco one night in on say 2000 mics of clear light, you probably would not have written "Somehow, despite their music being dreary piffle and a waste of your precious time", about The Grateful Dead and Jefferson Airplane in quite the same way.

    This does not mean I'm arguing. Just chatting.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fair enough. But we're YOU there? Or is this supposition? Are there any records I should listen to? Dark Star is a good composition, sort-of like mild Zappa ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm going to respond to your question below before I respond to this one, to make sure you get my context, and what I was trying to say.

      As for that comment, I don't disagree a bit. I was listening to Blind Lemon Jefferson and Willie McTell and Muddy Waters and Junior Wells and Howlin Wolf and Mingus and Trane etc etc long before I ever saw the Dead. I wasn't arguing for the greatness of SG psychedelia, not in the least, just thinking aloud that being there was part of the deal, just as being in that bar and tapping his foot against his upbringing was in Marseilles for Walter Benjamin.

      As for answering this. No way supposition. Yes, I was there. Dosed to the gills on acid, often, which makes a difference. I recall one night in particular, when after getting home about 4 a.m., I spent the next 6 hrs with Blake's Job, and understood everything. Literally. Which means, it was an experience; of course, I will never understand everything. Or even hardly anything. As for albums, I think I would suggest turning to the bootlegs, and Dick's Picks, for the Dead, because they record whole concerts. And there are a number of concerts on YouTube. There's a huge difference between live Dead and studio albums. A lot of the studio albums suck in comparison. As for the Airplane, same same. Concert performances ...

      Again, I was really just making a parallel between my experience of these bands in person and Benjamin's experience.

      Delete
  3. I don't object to the much publicised music of hippie San Francisco because its slovenly infectiousness tempts me away from the Rigour and Moral Standards of High Art Music, but because it's bland and over-rated compared to the funk and swing of the music they were ripping off. As Zappa pointed out, these bands weren't even as funky as his own high-school band. I'd listen to a Pebbles or Nuggets compilation in preference to the Dead and the Airplane any night of the week, however out of my brains ... and the same goes for Janis Joplin.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I used to think there was some mileage in being attacked by young master Benedick; but actually it's like treading, barefoot, in particularly runny dogshit. Argument ad hominem needs *some sort of content, or it's just insult. How does making jibes about my appearance help focus or further an attack – once necessary, by now tediously old-hat - on The Wire? Unlike Ben, *I didn't take its shilling for year on year. When it comes to matters physiognomical, I don't much like Ben's silly face, either; but I wouldn't confuse saying so, gratuitously, with making an argument. It is rather closer to trying to start one.

    Harry Gilonis

    ReplyDelete
  5. [Disclaimer: I have written small pieces for The Wire on a handful of occasions.]

    "Managing the task of being both 'underground' and viable-as-a-business-entity is a delicate one."

    Well quite. Isn't this really a case of form dictating content? How critical can a specialist print magazine BE in 2013 and still pay its contributors and staff a wage? Isn't this a case of criticising a cow for not being a horse?

    Which is not to say that it's wrong to criticise The Wire. Criticising The Wire is a hugely enjoyable pastime for many (if not most) of its readers, I think, and hopefully develops a good debate about music coverage and/or writing about music can/should be.

    I recently did a fanzine about noise music. Most of the positive feedback has been about the bits where I take the piss out of people. I doubt my critical faculties are entirely in step with the rigorous materialism of the AMM, but I think this does show that people still have a thirst for writing which slags off things which aren’t very good. (I should also mention that unfortunately I seem to be the harshest critic of my own fanzine, which is not a good place to be).

    Having said that, I think The Wire plays an invaluable role of documenting artists who wouldn’t get decent exposure elsewhere. David Keenan’s pieces on Peter Brotzmann being a case in point. I’ve seen Brotzmann perform half a dozen times over the last few years but knew very little about him and his background. I think learning about people’s lives and the social context to their work is important and it seems you agree when you say:

    “Historical knowledge and sociological theory are only be applied in order to explain these affects”

    Keenan’s pieces seem like a reasonable way to begin that application. If they aren’t, then obviously they can be criticised too – but they are a starting point for people like me who are reasonably new to this.

    Incidentally, Brotzmann is the only person I have seen in the last few years who has vocally criticised a member of his own ensemble mid-performance. (“Will someone shut up that fucking trombone!”, Brotzmann Tentet, Café OTO, 2012)

    “This is like SWP members being told to stop talking about rape allegations.”

    Is it? Really?

    “Advertising suddenly at the very heart of the anti-capitalist underground? You got it. Only in the pages of The Wire …”

    Well again this is about form dictating content, right? And if we look at previous eras you had adverts (and PR puff pieces) “at the very heart of” the underground press of the sixties, seventies, eighties and nineties… so no, I don’t think this is particular to The Wire.

    PS: Some good points about the reduction of socially necessary labour in music distribution and the closure of HMV here:

    http://history-is-made-at-night.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/his-masters-voice-goes-silent.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't despise anyone for writing for The Wire at the moment - any more than I despise anyone for being an SWP member. I wish you best of luck, in fact. Having been through the mill myself, though, I reckon I can advise you about some of the pitfalls, is all ...

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have just been told by Ed Baxter at Resonance FM that he has received so many complaints about this text when I broadcast it on 30 January, that my show - "Late Lunch With Out To Lunch" - has been suspended until a Resonance board meeting discusses the matter in April. Apparently he got sick of the phone calls and emails. So if you'd like to hear Late Lunch With Out To Lunch, maybe you could phone Ed (020 7 407 1210) or email him (ed@resonancefm.com) and present another point of view? The offending programme may be heard on .

    ReplyDelete
  8. Groupe L'étrangerFebruary 15, 2013 10:38 pm

    Peter Brotzmann doesn't get decent exposure? I'm worn out from reading about old Walrus moustache on the back of every biscuit tin I carelessly crush with my steel cape ... come on, we all know about The Wire, it's your senile grandmother who keeps bashing her elbow against the fridge, just kind of nod your head and move the fridge a couple of inches ... I've managed to ignore it for nigh on 15 years I've still got more ink than Alen Green's biro and manage to change my cagoule at least three times a week... or kinda ... to use a Keenanism, well kinda ... I Lenin Takoi Molodoi!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I just reread this, in the light of the fact that broadcasting these words led to the suspension of Late Lunch until April. Any guesses at to which sentences caused most rage at Wire? Or was it the heresy of stating that avant idols are occasionally drunk?

    ReplyDelete
  10. conditionsoftruthMarch 18, 2013 12:07 pm

    "Mr. Coldwell [is] too estranged from the point of musical production to understand what's going on." I suppose someone who (aside fom not being a practitioner) sees everything refracted through the work of a musician who espoused reactionary political positions throughout his life and died twenty years ago *might* be able to regard himself as somehow much more intimately connected to "the point of musical production", but that seems a little implausible, especially when this same someone extols Zappa's "critical thinking about music" while airbrushing Evan Parker out of "the story of free improvisation" because Evan once said something nasty to him. One might well ask such a person who the fuck he thinks he is.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Look, I didn't airbrush Evan Parker out of anything because he said something nasty to me. I attended improv gigs for twenty years before I wrote my book with Derek Bailey, and during that time I simply was never very impressed with his playing, even though Alan Wilkinson, a sax player I did admire, sang his praises. I find the circular-breathing act trance-inducing, something I dislike in music. During that time I received countless review CDs with his playing on, but he never seemed to respond to his accompanists, simply overlay his sound on theirs. I prefer discursive (dialectical) improv. But every time I expressed this opinion in print, EP went apoplectic and harangued Wire editors on the phone until they didn't dare print my opinions any more. It strikes me that such rage indicates a certain insecurity on his part rather than my failings as a critic. I wasn't writing a pecking-order list when I wrote my book on Bailey, but a personal view. If you disagree with it, go and research and publish your own book on Evan. Good luck to you. BTW If you are THAT contemptuous of me, then it begs the question of why you are bothering to read my posts. What's YOUR answer to the "too much to listen to" problem? It's not going to go away simply by piling insults on my head.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I dunno, Ben. I worked with you on the Bailey biog., and tried to impress on you on the basis of the text I saw the crucial importance of Evan Parker to the early/formative history of UK free improv, simply as a matter of plain historical fact. But: no dice. As l thought and said at the time, that lessened the strength/worth of your book; it became a personal, counterfactual fiction. Maybe you just didn't see Evan early enough, or often enough; I've been going to improv. gigs for a lot longer than 20 years, and I don't recollect seeing you at much above half a dozen of them. Or maybe you just weren't listening. At the last improv. gig I remember us both being at, at the October Gallery, back in, oh, 2001 mebbe? – you talked loudly into a dictaphone ... all the way through a very fine Derek Bailey solo. Or, maybe, you *too were drunk.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What's "plain historical fact" - repeating opinions you can't endorse from either gigs or records? Sounds to me more like passing on journalistic misinformation. Your role as the "defender of truth" for the improv community is pure sucking-up to the powers that be. I've NEVER heard you express a direct response to anything actually, why you're so painfully boring to talk to, all you do is gossip about who did what, the obscurer the better. Go and write your own Improv history (I bet it'll be a laugh a minute, judging from your waffly pomp about Eddie's AMM) and get off my case. I learned my improv at the Termite Club in Leeds, so of course you didn't see me at all the London gigs (except the five Company Weeks I attended) AND I was having a better time (as Derek pointed out, Improv is better in the provinces, less of this horrible defend-bad-music by character assassination petty politics). Stop haunting Unkant for a chance to insult me.

    ReplyDelete
  14. As someone who has been to fewer than twenty improv gigs, I can't help but feel that this is an avoidably insular discussion. Although someone so pompous as to give the name, conditionsoftruth, will likely disagree.

    However much some might protest otherwise, any book on music will be a personal view. That doesn't necessarily mean it will be thoroughly 'subjective', as all social interchange, in situations musical and otherwise, is also an objective act.

    It seems to me that Ben is in a minority in his public criticism of Evan Parker, which makes me wonder why all the people who make up the consensus don't just produce their own book.

    Possibly if Parker put as much passion and energy into his playing, as he did into his tirades against Watson, the latter would have a change of heart.

    Maybe Watson and Parker could engage in a call-and-response improv performance at a future AMM event.

    The political positions of a musician aren't necessarily pertinent to their work. Otherwise a checklist determinism could descend, which would surely get in the way of FREE improv.

    When so many people are making various music, using their laptops, tablets, or even smartphones - not exclusively WITH those devices - the estrangement may be more to do with the sheer quantity of music produced, rather than from the point of production.

    There is loads of music online, made by people who have no relation to even a relatively peripheral organ of the music industry as the Wire. Old media filters like print magazines and radio can only continue to lag behind the pace of music production.

    I've always listened to a lot of radio, and it has been frequently tiresome the way Radio 1, for instance, have so desperately chased after the newest thing, in the last ten years or so, that they often hype some people into oblivion. It was ever thus, you might say, but the turnover of 'big things' is accelerating.
    Specialist dj's retain some historical perspective, but also become a feeder for the daytime output.



    I'm not quite sure what 'circular breathing' is, but I recently heard that, Kenny G blew the same note for a record-breaking half-hour or more, by using that method.
    I used to think his music was the worst sort of fuzak, but the more I've heard Songbird, the more I think it is beautifully bleak.
    Much 'smooth jazz', or other 'easy listening', might be seeking to be 'mellow', 'light' and 'soothing', or just tranquilizer music, but some of it sounds like the end of the world, and not in the worst way.


    Signed DC AKA

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ben, I thought you believed ad hominem insult was an essential part of the rough-edged fabric of discourse. Or is that only when *you're dishing it out?

    ReplyDelete
  16. conditionsoftruthMarch 18, 2013 8:17 pm

    For someone who bandies phrases like "insecure, immature twerps who'll try anything to get laid" you seem indeed to be overly sensitive to what you call "insults." I didn't mention Evan Parker in order to start a discussion about his circular breathing, though: I just wonder what your grounds are for asserting that (in distinction to John Coldwell) you yourself aren't "too estranged from the point of musical production to understand what's going on".

    ReplyDelete
  17. What's a non-ad-hominem insult?

    ReplyDelete
  18. John Coldwell equates music with trying to keep up a flood of product; I see music as a struggle to expose the 1% of artists whose work makes a difference. This involves me quite closely with all sorts of producers - as a radio (now net) artiste I am myself a producer - and that makes me look from the point of view of production rather than consumption. If you'd like to know who I think the 1% are, you don't need to buy records, just listen to my shows and judge for yourself. Or try ... .

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yes, these claims at "expertise" in improv are moronic, mea culpa. Thanks for reminding me. I only really enjoy an improv moment when I take someone along who's never seen the like before ... usually, they love it, sometimes they don't (and sometimes, unfortunately, they're right not to like it). Without such risks, no gain. Guaranteed "genius" is a complete bore. Music is a natural language we must shed our learned responses to hear, not the petit-bourgeois "culture" Harry Gilonis makes of it. It's physical. Great music is plain as a pike staff to everyone in the room. It's these simple facts which snobbery, commercialism, cults of genius and established pecking orders obscure.

    ReplyDelete
  20. conditionsoftruthMarch 18, 2013 9:55 pm

    So those are the 1% of artists "whose work makes a difference" to you. Looks like most of them are more obscure than most of the stuff peddled by The Wire, and I guess that would make them cooler to a public-school-and-Oxbridge-educated (am I right?) Marxist intellectual for whom a working knowledge of the works of Theodor Adorno and Frank Zappa is a prerequisite for intellectual integrity. You're painted into a tight corner there: enjoy.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Fuck yeah - Adorno *and* Zappa. Weirdo.

    ReplyDelete
  22. conditionsoftruthMarch 19, 2013 8:26 am

    Pretty sophisticated dialectic there, Andy. On the level of Ben's "Great music is plain as a pike staff to everyone in the room." (I guess that means a room full of middle-aged hipsters.) And you people call yourselves Marxists. Nothing to see here, it becomes clear. Bye!

    ReplyDelete
  23. It hardly requires dialectics to see off the sort of pissant, mithering 'contribution' you feel inclined to make. Your points and objections have been answered quite clearly - you just don't like the answers.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Obscurity isn't THEIR fault! Evil Dick is aiming at PRIME TIME. You're full of piss and vinegar (I've seen your other posts around) - what's the matter, darling? I suspect some kind of blocked libidinal problem ...

    ReplyDelete
  25. I notice this 'conditionsoftruth' didn't respond to me. Their checklist determinism and dismissal of 'obscurity' might be less uncommon, but it is NOT Marxism.

    As I said, there is lots of 'obscure' music around on the web. Made by, and listened to, by young and middle-aged, from all kinds of backgrounds. Some of these people might go on to gain a wider media profile, but many don't.

    But aside from that, music that is less 'obscure', is often by people who are churned through the X-Factory, or 'alternative/indie' music made by people from well-to-do families.

    I would say that this sort of twin track of music production, where more and more people with relatively modest means are making music in their bedrooms, while it seems that you need to be rich to launch a 'career' in music, is a relatively new development.

    Back in the '80s, there were lots of indie bands, living on the dole, as part of a wider DIY culture. But today, that DIY culture often exists in different places, including ongoing free improv and noise scenes, and in the grime and 'bass music' scenes.

    But there is always the prospect of big business, of various kinds, seeking to colonise these scenes. However, in order to thrive, and for people to make a living, it's difficult to work completely outside of commerce. Zappa, James Brown, and Prince, to name a few, wouldn't have been able to keep making such great music without some relationship to the wider music industry.
    The trick is to avoid being swallowed up by the industry.
    So I would say the question of 'obscurity' is far more complex than 'conditionsoftruth' suggests.


    Signed DC AKA

    ReplyDelete
  26. conditionsoftruthMarch 20, 2013 8:21 am

    I will reply to Pierre AKA and then leave once more, since Out to Lunch and Andy Wilson seem to confuse discussion with mudslinging and smutty insinuations. I'm not dismissing "obscurity", just remarking that a cultish fetishism of obscurity is something that The Wire and Ben Watson share (although the latter is better at it). Whether a musical artist's work gains mainstream "success" is certainly a highly complex and to a great extent unpredictable phenomenon. That's a whole other discussion though. My main point is that, while reviling The Wire (a popular sport, as John Eden points out), Ben Watson shows himself basically to be no different from it, apart from the roll-call and the Frankfurt School rhetoric.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Sorry, Ben; forgot words aren't your forte. OED: "attempting to disprove an argument or proposition by attacking the beliefs or character of the person proposing it". So: if someone were to say that a person was too stupid to be the figure-head of a left-wing organisation, that would be, evidently by its tone, an insult; but not irrelevant, since intelligence would surely be a sine qua non for such a rôle. But if someone were to say that someone was too ugly to be the figure-head of a left-wing organisation, that would be an ad-hominem insult, because (or so one would hope) looks would have nothing to do with a person's competence for such a task.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I don't know why you bother with poetry and music. You think like a lawyer. These distinctions you make evaporate as soon as you stop rubbing my brain on them. I can't believe someone who claims they've read Adorno can hold onto such retrograde concepts as "intelligence" and "beauty" sundered from a social position. Just look how politics actually works (rather than how it "should"): personal attractiveness is fully part of it. I've never seen an argument that didn't come from a person. You evidently believe in ideas rather than people, so go and talk to them and leave us alone.

    ReplyDelete
  29. If The Wire adopted what you call my "rhetoric" (do you insult as a matter of course?), it'd be commercial suicide. They'd be truly underground rather than pretending to be. That's my point.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Since you so resent careful argumentation, allow me to observe that you're a whining, fish-faced prick whose wits have long been addled by vanity and spite. Is that non-legalistic enough?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Well, I prefer that to the head-aches induced by Harry's pedantic expositions of the term "ad hominen" which resort to the kind of hypothetical scenarios beloved of logical positivists and screen out actuality. I await your the careful argumentation of your "great work" with great interest, but suspect it's going to evaporate in the usual cloud of smoke. Paul, you dwibble the venom of a believer betrayed. Oh, what did I do wrong? Tolerate hangers-on, I suppose ...

    ReplyDelete
  32. My connection with the "Real Academy" is, as you well know, much slighter than your own. Neither do I have any kind of special relationship with Zizek and Badiou - I can only assume that any deviation from the Lunch reading list, however slight or passing, is to be anathematised, such is your jealous rage towards the non-Lunch segment of reality. And this, I suppose, is "what you did wrong" - sent into a petulant frenzy by being denied the universal adulation you regard as your due, you became an arsehole-gazing solipsist spitting venom at any who dare hold their nose at the series of attention-seeking farts you fondly regard as thought. Having said which, I will read the Zappa piece - my admiration for "Poodle Play" remains undimmed, perhaps because Zappa's music is that one portion of reality you find almost as interesting as you find yourself and you are therefore able to actually respond and think. It's a shame you're such an idiot about everything else, and an even bigger shame that you should behave so contemptibly when others, such as Harry, attempt to remedy your deficiencies. You wouldn't know dialectics if they bit you on the arse - the only "unending, ongoing speech" you're interested in is your own.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Yes, that's why I spend my time reading Azmud on air.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Richard__BarrettMarch 21, 2013 10:02 pm

    Nice one, Ben. No wonder so few people take you seriously these days.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Oh come on, Richard. What has HG actually done that you like? Taken Heidegger seriously, or what?

    ReplyDelete
  36. He's done a lot of stuff that I like, and I've learned more about music from him than from most musicians, but that isn't the point and wasn't why I posted here. I mean, I thought this was supposed to be an Association of Musical Marxists, where you'd expect at the very least to find substantive discussion about politics and music, which is rare enough in the world already, not just a forum for you to slag people off and then call them "complete fools" or worse when they answer back. That's not Marxism, it's playground ultraleftism. You can do better than that.

    ReplyDelete
  37. You didn't start off in a very friendly way, Richard, saying that "so few people" take me "seriously these days". What is this "serious world" I should be so worried about anyway? I too would like to get past all these insults and find out what the substantive issue is. Gilonis and Sutton are very keen to point out I'm crap but I'm yet to find out what I've said which is so very wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Well, Ben, it's not really my place to start saying how wonderful I am; though I note that the tag-cloud to the right of the Unkant page indicates that by far the most important topics therein are Ben Watson and Out to Lunch. Vanitas vanitatum omnia vanitas! I will say that I do rather regret having published you, several times; though I don't regret helping you out with your early books (you know, the good ones, back before you entered World of Stupid). Presumably if anyone ever reprints them you'll be excising the thanks to me from their Acknowledgements pages. (As a Trot you'll know all about rewriting history. )


    By the way, what's all this cack about me and Heidgegger? What have I ever had to do with Heidegger? I suspect my chief failing in your eyes, Ben, is having taken Adorno seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I'm not going to start off in a friendly way either, Ben, nor will I end in a friendly way.

    You’ve “yet to find out what you’ve said which is so very wrong”?

    You pose this question so often, Ben, ostensibly with the intention of inviting people to argue with your *ideas*, but you can’t actually handle an argument about ideas, can you? It has to get personal, it has to be dramatic, and it’s invariably *you* who does this. You've been told this ad nauseum. That's why Gilonis and Sutton are keen to point out that you're crap.

    However, it really comes as no surprise to me that you cannot even recognise the toxic effects your otherwise pathetic sociopathic ichor has on people, including and especially those who used to be your friends and defenders – the ones you so hilariously refer to as “hangers-on” now that you’ve attacked them enough that they finally turned their backs to you. You’re a parasite, Ben. A shameless glutton. Do you seriously not comprehend that? It’s one thing to get under people’s skin (necessary, in fact), but to feed and sustain your self in their guts is gross. Is deplorable. Is deeply insulting and very often painful. And that’s what you spend an awful lot of your time
    doing. You gossip, you spread lies, you sit there and make the ludicrous claim that you want to argue about ideas, attack ideas, tear ideas apart, and then
    you pull out your silly little stinger and wank onto the *person* rather than any ideas that don’t fall in line with your own. If anyone dares to squirt back at your own face, you, for all your talk about libidinal joys and bodily fluids, just can’t take it.

    I can’t even laugh at the hypocritical nugget you flung at Harry: “You evidently believe in ideas rather than people, so go and talk to them and leave us alone.” Ha?

    Are you talking to Harry or to yourself? Is there anybody out there but you Ben? Hello? Echo? Can you even hear me when I say you’re a vile rodent? If you don’t actually know why I say this, if you really can’t figure out what it is you’ve said that’s so very wrong, to so many people who used to respect you – well, you will certainly be left alone. And you hate that more than anything, don’t you. Being alone and ignored, refusing to admit that you are a pernicious person. Not your ideas, *you*.

    Frances

    ReplyDelete
  40. Wow! and who exactly are you? Your unexamined bile makes me think that everything I say is right. Why should I have to flatter pretenders? What exactly is your problem?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Trotsky had to be very scrupulous about the historical record. You made a total knob of yourself in front of an AMM crowd. I'd love to see you try boasting about how much you know about everything at a Revolutionary History meeting ...

    ReplyDelete
  42. Is there anything which doesn't make you think that everything you say is right?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Some thoughts:
    To counter Harry in the spirit of his own pedantry, while AMM and Ben Watson are the biggest words in the tag-cloud, Sean Bonney and a number of other tags are the same size as Out to Lunch.


    I've never met Harry, or indeed anyone from Unkant, or the vast majority of people who have commented on this site, but aside from whatever personal disappointments there are between him and Ben, I can't say that telling how long you've been going to improv gigs, not for the first time in a comment, or giving dictionary definitions, develop discussion anymore than exchanging insults.
    Exploring etymology can be helpful, but dictionary definitions don't carry much weight outside academic or legal contexts, or word games.


    Calling a grouping of people, "insecure, immature twerps", is hardly the same as a personal insult.


    Anyone who has read my comments over several months, will know that I differ from Ben et al on many things. But it seems rather odd to me to accuse someone of solipsism on the website where they're the main writer.


    'Conditionsoftruth''s talk of "cultish fetishism of obscurity", leaves me puzzled in a number of ways.
    If they read more than one article on unkant, many other writers and music makers are referenced. Some as 'well-known' as Wordsworth and Sophie Ellis-Bextor.
    Whatever is in the mainstream, tends to obscure so much else, but it depends where you choose to look.
    Their first comment was in defence of Evan Parker, contra Zappa, but to many both of them would be very obscure. As indeed they were to me, for most of my thirty-plus years of passionate interest in various music.
    There is a cosy consensus in the mainstream spectrum of music, of which I would say the Wire is a peripheral part, that sits alongside the contention of the competitive business of music. But beyond that there is the contention of those passionate about music that gets obscured by business.
    At its best that is why I look at Unkant, and bother to post comments, which I rarely do anywhere else.


    Signed DC AKA

    ReplyDelete
  44. "Everything I say is right. Why should I have to flatter pretenders?"


    Just a whiff of "folie de grandeur" there...


    Who *precisely is pretending to be you? (Apart, that is, from you?)

    ReplyDelete
  45. Real
    writing about music registers the music's affect on the listener as a direct,
    physical force. Historical knowledge and sociological theory are only be
    applied in order to explain these affects. Everything else is just cultural
    clutter.

    ReplyDelete