Posts by Matthew Littlewood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Oh, I've just found the White Stripes review
here! -
Gavin Bertram (massively under-rated in my opinion)
He's back in Dunedin, writing for D-Scene, I think. But yeah, I like(d) his reviews too- even if some of the metal he wrote about wasn't necessarily something I'd listen to, he always argued the case, for (or against) the music very well. He's very readable, and you always knew where he was coming from.
Jon Bywater's occasional sojourns for the Listener were great, there was this excellent review of the White Stripes' Get Behind Me Satan he did a few years back which put their music (and specifically, the acclaim) better than any of the reviewers aggregated on metacritic, that's for sure.
-
I have to agree with Simon on Revolution In The Head. It's an amzing book no doubt, and generally insightful. But he rips apart Across The Universe and various other Lennon gems...oooh it makes me so made. I love the throwaway nature of something like I'm Only Sleeping.
As much as I love McCartney its the things which Ian MacDonald doesn't like about Lennon that me think Lennon is the vastly superior songwriter.
The strange thing about Ian Macdonald is how conservative his tastes became in later years. During his time at the NME in the 70s, he was effectively their "avant-garde" reviewer, being the first among them to champion everything from the crazy art-rock stylings of early Roxy Music, to the groundbreaking work of germans Faust, Can, Neu!, Kraftwerk, etc. Also, no writer has ever written a better review on Bowie than his 2,000 word piece on Low (which of course any fule kno is Bowie's real high watermark.), while his interviews/ reviews on Brian Eno are revelatory. Also, his best writing could be very funny in a rather dry way.
And yet in Revolution in the Head 's epilogue, he seems to implicitly acknowledge he doesn't understand dance music's moves towards harmonic dissonance, and bemoans the lack of tunes in modern pop. And the whole tone of the book is incredibly serious. Weird.
Meanwhile, though it's true that yes, the book does seem to value McCartney over Lennon as a rule, bear in mind the most fulsome praise he gives for any track are three Lennon ones ("Rain", "Strawberry Fields Forever," "Tomorrow Never Knows"), while the most savage criticism is levelled at "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" and (oddly) "Helter Skelter".
Incidentally, although it's VERY long, anyone wanting to have an idea of how good Ian Macdonald could be in full flight should take some time to digest this piece on Nick Drake. Although it takes more than a few trips down to Pseud's corner, and there's the very real sense that Macdonald's own illness influenced the piece's tone, its best bits sum up Drake's music better than anyone else could.
Sorry for the digression! Ian Macdonald just fascinates me as music writer because he sums up what it could be, and what perhaps, it ultimately, can't be. It might sound crass to say this but in many ways he's a cautionary tale.
-
I agree. I treasure my 20+ year old collection of S&S but I would argue that they pay bugger-all attention to film from the South. I was recently wandering through back issues, and it very apparent that there has been very little written about Australian and NZ film (wrote them a letter about this but they never published it.
That is true, and a very strange oversight for such a magazine- I could only put it down to patronising colonialism, it being a British publication and all ;)
I think they've got better at this over the last few years, but you're right, I'm surprised they haven't dealt with Australian and New Zealand film in more detail as a whole, rather than just key directors.That said, the writing and coverage of virtually every other area of film is so good that I can forgive them. I even like the way they deal with blockbusters from time to time, if only to look at what the success of certain films actually means.
(There was a great essay last year from former Village Voice writer Michael Atkinson, which examined why a superhero such as Batman seemed to chime in more with the GWB-era, than, say, Superman.)
-
If I could write and play bass lines even half as great as those on Something, Come Together, Drive My Car I'd be happy. As it is I don't even pick my bass up and play it as often as I should.
I know it's the ultimate Beatles cliche to talk about this, but it still staggers me how melodic McCartney's basslines were. No one in that area, with the exception of maybe James Jamerson, comes within spitting distance of him when it comes to that.
Just listen to those huge chimes of sound during the chorus of "Rain". It's climactic.
And in regards to the McCartney critical reappreciation, there's a good argument to say it began with Ian Macdonald's authorative song-by-songl assesment of the Beatles,__ Revolution in the Head__. While I don't agree with all of Macdonald's conclusions in the book, or indeed his increasingly pessismistic outlook he had towards the future (no doubt, sadly, influenced by his deep depression), I can't deny the work is a mighty achievement- he gets so much about the band right it's practically the last word on a band that has inspired more words than any other.
Erm, what were we talking about again? :)
-
Surely though the mark of a good music writer is one that makes you immediately want to possess that piece of music from an artist you've never heard before/wish you had been to that gig.
Of course- indeed that should be the role of any critic, regardless of the art they're dealing in. I would add that great ones have this ability to put the work into some form of context, rather than suggesting it exists in some sort of bubble. As it happens, I'm not against critics flagging up influences in their reviews, but my problem with the "x mixed with y" approach is that it doesn't deal with the salient point- how is the work different and/or better than those pieces.
-
In terms of print, Decibel covers metal but also goes a little broader and can be a good read. The Wire, too, in a good month. They can do archival stuff without it being Mojo or Q-like grave-robbing: with Mojo, you seem to get Pink Floyd on the cover every third month. And Nick Drake and Syd Barrett solo on the other two....
....and the Sex Pistols every fourth month.
The Wire has some very good writing, but there's something so oppressive about the magazine that I've never got with- there's an odd detachment to much of the material, which I suppose is slightly better than heedless hyperbole, but I don't exactly get the sense that the writers enjoy writing about music. Also, sometimes I wonder whether the range of the music they cover is as niche-driven as Q or Mojo- it's just that their niche is more esoteric.
Certainly, compared to Sight & Sound, which shares the same publishing house, it feels disappointing. For one, S&S seems to deal with "the now" while still retaining a robust and intelligent dialogue, not to mention covering an extremely wide range in styles and eras.
Which I guess is a roundabout way of saying I would love a music magazine which deals with the form in the same way S&S deals with film.
Maybe the problem with monthly magazines with music is that their tone is almost reactionary by default- they're constantly looking back at what's already been.
-
(I should also clarify my last comment about X by saying although they released more than four records, I can't be doing with them after More Fun in the New World)
-
I've made my share of "barbecue reggae" jokes about various wellydub acts, and I never play FFD records.
But I've seen them live three times in three different settings, and FFD really impressed me every time. Maybe you have to be a reggae fan to be tickled when the horns come back in to a jam.
My main problem with them as a reggae fan is that their records have next to no bottom end- way too much treble, and their rhythms lack bite. Sure, I'm not exactly expecting Heart of the Congos, but I do like to get sucked into a groove and they just can't do that for me. Live, their performances are good, especially the horns, but something seems to be missing for me.
As for Simon Sweetman, shooting fish in a barrel for sure, but the guy just cannot write, and his taste in music is largely bland.
As for underrated NZ music writers, what about Matthew Hyland (sp?)'s stuff for Rip it Up back in the day.
My old history teacher, friend, and occasional music writer George Kay gave some of his old copies of Rip it Up and I was surprised how I was drawn to Hyland's reviews each time- they were sharp, funny, perceptive, and crucially, betrayed knowledge about his field (i.e. he actually sounded like he knew what he was talking about).
And maybe I'm biased, but it was a pleasure reading George Kay's old interviews with guys like Bowie, the Smiths, the Fall, Husker Du etc.
If I get time, I may talk about the state of music criticism past, present and future in a later post (it's one of my pet topics), but I've gotta say capsule reviewing can ge a right bugbear. I did it weekly for the ODT for five years until last year (fortunately, or unfortunately the ODT went online after I stopped, and the real risk was saying everything you wanted to within 300 words without sounding hackneyed or trite.
The one rule I always stuck to though was never describe a record as "sounds like (x) mixed with (y)", *(e.g "Beatles meets Nirvana") as most of the time it tells you nothing about what the record sounds like, and makes the reviewer sound like a marketer and not a critic.
These days, if I want to spout off about music or film I do it in my own time on a messageboard (which another PAS-er is also a regular on, as it happens).
*Incidentally, X released four excellent records, my favourite being Wild Gift, while the Pop Group's Y is an abrasive masterpiece.
-
I saw two last night, really impressed with both of them.
In the Loop
Every bit as good as I was hoping, Armado Innacui's status in the satire pantheon was assured more than a decade ago with his involvement with Chris Morris in "On the Hour", "Brass Eye" and "The Day Today", but this is coruscating stuff even by those standards, with the added sting that it's only loosely- if that- based on the bureaucratic snafu that went down leading up to the David Kelly affair. Mostly, it's down to the mesmerizing performance of Calpiaddi as Malcolm Tucker, quite possibly the scariest (and swearing-est) villain of this year.
Thirst
The perfect antidote (excuse the pun) to the abstinence-promoting Twilight, this latest slice of genius from the creator of Old Boy and Sympathy for Mr Vengeance is everything you'd want a vampire and horror film. Unsettling, hysterical, melodramatic, unhinged and sexy as hell, this pulls in so many directions that at times you wonder whether they have any control over it (and certainly near the end I was wondering how the hell they would tie it all together), but it's so bold and outrageous that you can't help but go with it.
See them both.
At once.