Writing About Listening Alternative Discourses in Rock Journalism

7/24/2019 Writing About Listening Alternative Discourses in Rock Journalism

1/16

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Popular Music.

http://www.jstor.org

Writing about Listening: Alternative Discourses in Rock JournalismAuthor(s): Chris Atton

Source: Popular Music, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Jan., 2009), pp. 53-67Published by: Cambridge University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40212426Accessed: 21-12-2015 16:46 UTC

F R N SLinked references are available on JSTOR for this article:http://www.jstor.org/stable/40212426?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 200.16.89.152 on Mon, 21 Dec 2015 16:46:32 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/publisher/cuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40212426http://www.jstor.org/stable/40212426?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contentshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40212426?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contentshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40212426http://www.jstor.org/publisher/cuphttp://www.jstor.org/


2/16

Popular

Music

2009)

Volume

28/1.

Copyright

2009

Cambridge

University

ress,

pp.

53-67

doi:10.1017/S026114300800158X

rinted

n

theUnited

Kingdom

Writing bout listening:alternative iscourses n rock

journalism

CHRIS

ATTON

School

of

Creative

ndustries,

Napier

University, raighouse

Road,

Edinburgh

H10

5LG,

UK

E-mail:

[email protected]

Abstract

'Alternative'

ublications

hallenge

he onventional iscourses

f

rock

ournalism.

n

particular,

the dominant

discourses

of authenticity,

masculinity

nd

mythologymight

be

countered

by

publications

hat

emphasise

historical nd

(

sub

kultural

framing,

nd that

present

adicalised

'spaces

of

istening'

.

Using

Bourdieu's

ieldtheory

o

dentify

utonomous nd

semi-autonomous

sites

or

rock

riticism,

he

paper

compares

ow

a

fanzine

the

Sound

Projector)

and whatFrith

has termed

n

ideological

magazine

the

Wire)

construct

heir eviews. he

indings uggest

hat,

whilst here s

no evidence

or

an absolute breakwith

the dominant onventions

f reviewing,

there s

a

remarkable

olyglottism

n alternativemusic

reviewing.

he

paperemphasises

iffering

cultural nd socialpracticesn themultiplewaysthepublicationswrite boutmusic, nd argues

for

thevalue

of

such

polyglottism.

Introduction:

he dominant

deology

of rock criticism

This

paper

has its

origins

n

SimonFrith's

laim that the

ideology

f rock the

arguments

bout

what ecords

mean,

what

ock

s for has

always

been rticulated

more

learly y

fans

han

y

musicians

or

businessmen)'Frith

983,

.

165).

For

Frith,

s for

thers,

ans

renot

merely

onsumers,

ot

merely

assive

udiences:

hey

are the

meaning-makers

f

popular

music.Rock

ournalists

re fans

oo;

theroots

ofrockournalismie nthe1960s,nthe pecialistmusicmagazines ftheUS and

the

underground

ress

of

the

UK,

wherewriters

egan

with

manyremaining)

as amateurs

nd

non-professionals.

hose thatbecame

professionalournalists

'posit[ed]

hemselves

s

enlightened

ans'

Gudmundsson

t ai.

2002,

p.

60).

It

is

from

his

eriod

hat dominant

deology

frock riticism

merges.

his

deology

valorised

uthenticity

nd

originality,

nd

developed mythologised

ccount f ock

musicians

hat onsidered

heirwork s

art.The

primary

oleof the ritic

as the

interpretation

f

exts

Frith

983,

.

176);

musicians

ere

resented

oth

s authentic

spokespeople

or heir

eneration

nd as Romantic

rtists.

This account

f

popular

reativity

as

particularlytrong

n

theUS. Frith's

claim

that

American ock

writers re

mythologists'

Frith

983,

p.

10)

proceedsfromn

argument

hat uchcriticsakeAmerican

istory

s their

tarting-point,

where he

ropes

f

ndividualism

nd

ndependence,

hefrontier

pirit

nd

revolu-

tion

produce

n

objective'

ccount

f rock s the

musicof

great

men' of

a

'great

53

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/16

54

ChrisAtton

nation'.To

thiswe

might

dd

Ray's

2002)

concept

f

overcomprehension',

he

tendency

o

praise

everything,

ecause

anything ight

e

the

next

Elvis or Sex

Pistols'

Ray

2002,

p.

76,

original mphasis).

This

ideology

akes

many

forms:

from

reil

Marcus's

2000)

positioning

f Elvis

Presley,ly

Stone nd theBand

n

thebroad

sweep

of American ultural

istory

ndracial

truggle,

oJon andis's

mythologisation

f

Bruce

pringsteen

s

thefuturefrock

n'

roll'.

The

discourse

rising

rom

his

deology ppears

o have remained tatic

nd

enduring

ince he

1960s,

t

east

n

theUS. McLeod's

2002)

analysis

fUS

album

reviews

ver hree

ecades

1971-1999)

inds hat

hroughout

his

eriod

he

writing

'valorises erious

masculine authentic"

ock

nd

dismisses

rivial,

eminine

pre-

fabricated"

op

music'

McLeod

2001,

p.

47).

McLeod

argues

that

he

semantic

dimensions' f

thismasculine ock riticism

an be

gathered

nder hemasculine

('aggressive

ntensity',

violence',

rawness',

authenticity',

seriousness')

nd the

feminine

'softness',

blandness',

vapidity',

sweet

entimentalism').

his

endency

is reinforcedy Feigenbaum's2005)study fthepress overage fAniDiFranco,

where

djectival

ender

markersre

deployed

o imilar nds. he finds hatmascu-

line

markers

ypically

enote

xcellence

n

musicianship

nd

musical

nfluence;

female

markersnstead

efero the

voice

nd

body

of he

performer.

While

races fthis

deology

an

also be found

n

theBritish usic

press

for

example,

n

thework f

Charles haar

Murray

nd

Nick

Kent),

hedominantritical

perspective

n

the

UK

proceeds

ot

rom

my hologised

ndmasculinisedccount f

the

music,

ut

from

sociological

ccount hat

mphasises

ubcultures

nd

the

meaning

f he

music or ts

udience

Frith

983,

.

176).

Challengesto thedominant deology

The

British

ubcultural

pproach

o criticisms

found

otably

n

theBritishmusic

press

f he

ate1970s nd

early

980s.

eginning

ithin

he

punk

vanguard',

here

'developed]

a

general

ccount

frock's

means f

ignification'

Frith

983,

.

162).

Thiswas

taken

p

by

writersuch s Paul

Morley,

an

Penman,

imon

Reynolds

nd

Jon

Savage

to

develop

criticismtself

s a

practice

f

meaning-making.

imon

Reynolds,

or

nstance,

nvoked

ost-structuralism

nd

post-modernism

o

open up

music's

meanings

hrough

he

gaps

and

inadequacies

f

language'

Kruse

2002,

p.

143).

Gudmundsson t al.

(2002,

p.

55)

argue

thatPaul

Morley's tyle

adically

reworked

hat

fBurchill

nd

Parsons,

ut

we can

ust

s

easily

ee his

carnivalesque

andnarcissisticmpulses'nthework f arlier ritersuch s Kent ndMurray.he

dominant

ritical

deology,

overned

according

oKruse

002,

.

136)

by

a

more r

less

transcendental

esthetic',

as

challenged y

discursive

ractices

hat

alorised

provisionality

bove

mmutablertistictruth'.

t

the ame

time,

he

ffinities ade

to

specific

ubcultures

nabled

discourses hat

were oncerned ith

ocial

realism,

with

ruth

o

xperience

Frith

983,

.

161

.

An

acknowledgement

f he

ontingency

and

mobility

f

this

relationship

as

played

n

the

nterlinking

f fandom nd

lifestyle

. .

which

had

drifted

part

at

least

critically

peaking]

ince

the

high

summer f

he

ounter

ulture'

Toynbee

993,

.

291

.

More

recently

he

subcultural

pproach

tself

as been

subject

o

challenge.

During

he

990s

here

rose a

growing

onformismf

ournalistictyle'Laing

006,

p.334) inresponse oindustrialationalisation,

mployment

onditionsndcom-

petition,

articularly

n

the

market or

dult-orientated

ock

magazines.

his

period

was

characterised

y

an

increasing

omogeneity

f

writing

tyles,

here ven

the



4/16

Writing

bout

istening

55

personality

ournalists

f

previous

ecades

such

s Nick

Kent)

were

bliged

o

write

in

a

house-style

ar emoved

rom he

highly ersonalised

nd ndividual

manner

y

which

hey

ame to

prominence

Forde 2001).

This

homogeneity

unctioneds

a

counter-challenge

oth

to individualism

nd

to

the

meaning-makingractices

f

Britishsubcultural'

ournalism;

hile hemusic

ress

has

always

ncludedlements

of

the consumer

uide,

he

1990s aw this

practice

onsolidated

o a

remarkable

degree.

The

preceding

ccount

uggests

history

f rock

ournalism

hathas been

dominated

y

a

particular

deology

f

universal ritical alues

and

onlybriefly

challenged y

experiments

n

relativisedcultural

tudies'

ournalism.

here

might

we

find ritical

ractices

hat ffer urther

hallenges

r evenestablish ew

spaces?

Some

writers

ave dentified

he

Wire

s

a

site

or uch

hallenges.

ounded

n

1982,

the

Wire as

emerged

s

the

only

ommercial

onthly agazine

n

Britain

ealing

with

vant-garde

nd

experimental

usicof

a wide

range

of

genres:

ock,

azz,

classical, ip-hop,lectronic usic, ock, ound nstallationwhatthemagazine's

strapline

alls

adventures

n

modern

music').

ts

coverage

s

international,

s is its

distribution.

ccording

o

Forde,

whose nterestsie

ess

n

critical

deology

han

n

the

mpact

f

ndustrial

ractices

n

the

utonomy

f he

writer,

he

Wire

s

a

site or

a radical

stylistic

nd

deological

pproach

t the

margins

f

the

publishing

ector'

(Forde

2001,

p.

38).

For

him,

he

strength

f the

magazine

ies

in

its

continuing

promotion

f

polyglottism'

n

its

pages.

The

magazine's

utonomy

as also been

argued

y

Gudmundsson

t l.

2002,

.

42),

who

draw n Bourdieu's

ield

heory

o

place

the

Wire

t the autonomous

ole

within

'semi-autonomous

ield f rock

journalism'.

t the

opposite

ole

of this

fieldwe

can

place

Forde's

monoglottal',

branded

nd

professionalisedournalism

f

he 990s.

Bourdieu's

field

theory

Bourdieu's

otion

f

wo

poles

between

hich ultural

roducers

nd their

ctivities

may

be

positioned

eeds

some elaboration.

t one

pole

cultural

ctivity

may

be

considered

eteronomous.

ere ultural

roduction

akes

lace

n

a 'mixed' ontext

that

brings

ogether

variety

f cultural

eterminants:

amely

n

emphasis

n

large-scale

meansof

production,

conomics

nd cultural

worth

udged

by public

success.

n

short,

his s

a

commercialised

nd

professionalised

ole

of

ctivity.

he

autonomous

ole

of

production

pposes

he

heteronomous

nd s focused

n small-

scale, rtisanalmethodsndpopulatedargelyyautodidacts'Atton 004, . 142).

What

makes ock

ournalism

semi-autonomous

ield

s the tatus

f he ock

ritic,

considered

istorically.

he

professional

ournalist,

hilst

emaining

n

autodidact,

an

enlightened

an',

s

at the

ame

time

rofessionally

mplicated

n

the ctivities

f

the

music

ndustry.

his

conception

f

a field

particular

o rock

ournalism

s

a

solution

o

the

problems

aised

y

Bourdieu's

1997)

formulation

f

single

ield f

journalism.

s

Marliere

1998,

.

223)

has

shown,

his

s too

undifferentiated

nd

too

monolithic

to

provide

realistic

ccount

f

a

plural

nd

heterogeneous

eality'

f

dominant

ournalistic

ractices,

et

alone

alternatives

o them.

For

Marliere,

Bourdieu's

ormulation

attributes

series

f

unified

eliefs

o

ts

players

..

[it s]

a

very nitary

ield'

ibid., . 224).We

might

imilarly

ropose

field f

popular

musical

roduction,

s Toynbee

(2000)

has

done.

The

autonomous

ole

of

his ield

would

be concerned

ith vant-

garde

nd

experimental

opular

musical

roduction.

lthough

ourdieu's

1993)



5/16

56 Chris

Alton

field f ultural

roductionecognises space

for

vant-garde

rtistic

ctivities,

hese

take

lace

within

sector f he ield oncerned

ith estricted

roduction

nd must

be

distinguished

rom n

opposing

ector f

arge-scale

roduction.

ourdieu's

ield

seems

nhospitable

o

particular

otions f

radicality.

ithin

opular

music

roduc-tion here renumerous

vant-gardes

hat onfoundhedichotomyfrestrictednd

large-scale

ectors.

Minority

usical

ractices

uch s free

mprovisation

nd

avant-

rock

might

e

thought

f s democratisedersions

frestricted

rtistic

roduction,

wheremusical

roduction

s

simultaneously

lite nd

popular.

hey

re elite

n

the

sense f mallnumbers f reatorsnd

audiences,

nd

the

needfor

pecialist

nowl-

edge

to

appreciate'

hemusic.

hey

re

popular

n

that heir ultural

ractices

ave

developed

rom

opular

nd

inclusive orms

uch s

jazz

and

rock;

heir conomic

practices

such

as record

roduction)

re drawnfrom

he

practices

f

arge-scale

cultural

roduction.

t

s these

minority

usical

ractices

hat

magazine

ike he

Wire

(and

fanzineshat

hare

ts

oncerns)

s

exploring.

he ritical

iscourseustained

y

such marginal' ublicationsmaybe understood s arising rom herelationship

between

ractices

t

the utonomous

ole

of

thefield frock

ournalism

nd those

within

he ield f

vant-garde

nd

experimentalopular

music

roduction.

he

two

fields hare

hree

ignificant

haracteristics.

irst,

hey

oth

privilege

mateur

nd

autodidactic ethods f ultural

roduction,hough hey

o not

necessarily

xclude

professionalised

ethods.

econd,

here

s a

blurring

f

ategories

f ultural

gency

within nd

across achfield. s

in

alternative edia

practice,

eaders

'consumers')

often ecome

writers;

heymight

lso becomemusicians.

Musicians

may

also

be

writers

nd,

f

ourse,

eadersAtton

002,

004

.

Third,

his

luidity

f oles

ndtheir

ensuingnterdependence

uggest community

f ultural

gents

n

lose

elationship

with

ne another.

The

ideological

magazine

TheWires

not he

nly ossible

ite or

hallenges

o

ritical

rthodoxy:

e

might

lso

consider he

anzine. s

Simon

rith

as

noted,

he anzine

may

e themost ffective

way

of

putting

ogether

ew

taste

nd

deological

musical ommunities'

Frith

002,

p.

240).

He terms

hese

ublications

ideologicalmagazines'.

t

s not

only

anzines

that ave

this

deological

ole: rith

rgues

hat

heWire lso

belongs

othis

ategory,

terming

t a

'semi-fanzine'

ibid.).

He also

proposes sub-category

f the

fanzine,

the

personal

magazine',

which

nables 'democraticonversationetweenmusic

lovers, social elebrationf particularind fmusical ttentionnd commitment'

(

bid.,

.

241

.

This s

a

useful

et f laims

or he

resent

rgument.

irst,

t

recognises

the

ffinitiesetween

he

fanzine

nd

the

pecialist

magazine

n

terms f

deology.

The

potential

or

deological

ffinity

cross

ublications,

s we have een

n

the aseof

the

British

music

press,

has

its roots

n

the

development

nd movement f

rock's

critical

deology,

s its

ournalists

ovefrom

he

mateur,

ndergroundress

f

he

late

1960s

o the

ommercial

eekly

music

ress.

econd,

t

acknowledges

he imi-

larity

etween

he

fan

s

writernd

the

professional

riter s fan.This

ays

much

about

xpert

ulture

n

rock

riticism,

here

knowledge

nd

authority

roceed

ot

from

ormal,

ducational

r

professional

raining

ut

primarily

rom

utodidactic,

amateur

nthusiasm.rith

rgues

hat

critics f

popular

orms

TV,

film

nd

to ome

extentop needknow

nothing

bout uch orms

xcept

sconsumers;heirkills to

be

able to

write

bout

ordinaryxperience'

Frith

996,

.

38,

n.

40).

Third,

espite

their

deological

nd

cultural

imilarities,

t

ndicates hat t this

utonomous

ole

of



6/16

Writing

bout

istening

57

cultural

roduction

here

s the

possibility

or

diversity,

t least

n

terms f the

economics

f

production

nd

professionalisation.

he

ways

in

whichthese

two

types

f

deological

magazine

the

fanzine nd the

semi-fanzine')

ork

o

present

alternative

ritical iscoursess the ocus

f

he est

f his

aper.I am

particularly

nterestedn how thesecritical iscourses oth

challenge

critical

rthodoxy

ndofferlternative

ormsf riticismo it

longside,

or

xample,

thework f

Morley,

enman

nd

Reynolds.

uchdiscourses ould

hallenge

mascu-

linised iscourses

nd

adjectival pproaches

hat

rivilegeggression

nd

violence,

authenticity,

seriousness'

nd

over-comprehension.

n

addition,

f

the work of

Morley

nd others

resented

heir eaders

with ifferent

ays

o

pproach

music

y

paying

ttentiono

ts urfacendhow

fans

might

se this

urface,

ight

ot

here

e

other

lternatives?

espite

he ttention

aid

tofanzines

nd

the

cknowledgement

f

theWire s

a sitefor

utonomous ock

riticism,

ittle

ttention

as been

paid

to the

detail f hese

ublications'

ritical iscourses

with

he

xception

fAtton 001

.

Method

The

primary

esearch

or his

tudy xplores

he

ideologicalmagazine'

s a sitefor

the

evelopment

f

music riticism

hat

hallenges

he rthodoxies

f

popular

music

journalism.

aking

nto ccount

rith's

rgument

hat his

ategory

f

publication

includes

oth

ommercial

agazines

nd

fanzines,

twas

important

o

select

ubli-

cations

rom

oth

ategories.

t

was evident

hat here ould

be

only

ne andidate

or

consideration

n

the commercial

ub-category:

he

Wire. he Sound

Projector

as

chosen

o

represent

he

fanzine.

irst

ublished

n

1996,

t has

emerged

s a

major

fanzine hat

overs

he same

genres

s the

Wire. or such

a

specialist

anzine

ts

longevity

s

surprising;

hilstt

publishes

nly

nnually,

ach ssue

typicallyub-

lished

50-300

eviews

f

recordings,

long

with oncert

eviews,

eatures

nd nter-

views.

The

Wire

ypically

ublishes

ifty

ain eviews

f

recordings

ach

month,

s

well

as

capsule

reviews

rganised

y genre.

There

re,

however,

ther anzines

n

this rea

hat

redate

he ound

rojector.

or

xample,

ubberneck

as founded

leven

years

arlier.

t moved

o

web-only

ublishing

n 2000but

has not

published

ew

material

ince

June

005.

The Sound

rojector

ot

only

publishes

egularly,

t has

established

coreof

contributors

nd receives

many

f ts

recordings

irectly

rom

record

abels,

n

similar

ashion

ocommercial

ublications.

The

unit

f

analysis

was

therecord

eview.

hiswas chosen

or wo

reasons.

First, revious esearchnpopularmusic riticismas focused n thereview; o

continue

hat

ocus

s to

mprove

he

validity

f ross-research

omparison.

econd,

the

eview,

eing

riefer

han hefeature

rticle,

s

likely

o ntroduce

ewer

ncom-

parable

ariables.

hat

s,

the

function

fa review

s to

provide

n account

nd

an

evaluation

f

the

recording,

o assist

eaders

n

decisions

bout

purchasing.

n

the

other

and,

he

ims

nd content

ffeatures

nd nterviews

re

more iffuse.

To

achieve

omparison

cross

he

wo

publications,

eviews

f he ame

record-

ing

were

paired.

his nabled

nuanced

nalysis

hat

ecognised

deological

ffinity

as well

as

the

possibility

f

difference

n

writing

tyle,

ddress

nd

purpose

for

example,

he

emphasis

n

the social

experience

e

might

xpect

n a

fanzine).

Analysis

ook

laceprimarily

t

a discursive

evel.

Whilst

he laims

madefor ritish

subcultural usic

ournalism

avenever een

xplored

ndepth,hese laimsuggest

critical

ractices

hat

re

heterogeneous

nd

polyglottic.

he

profusion

nd

diversity

of

ritical

oices

ikely

o

emerge

will

be more

horoughly

xplored

y

n

analysis

t



7/16

58

ChrisAtton

the

discursiveevel.

f,

s

we have

een,

lternative usic

ournalism

s

a site or he

making

f

meaning

nd

for

postmodern ractices

hat

uggest rovisionality

nd

experiment,

e would

expect range

fdiscourses o

emerge.

o

capture

his

ikely

instability

f critical

pproaches equires nalysis

hat

goes beyond

he

adjectivalmethods

mployed

nthework f

Feigenbaum

ndMcLeod.

Analysis

t thediscur-

sive evel

lso enables he

dentificationf social realism'

n

alternative

ournalism,

that

s,

the

presence

f

a

discourse hat onnects hemusicunderdiscussion o ts

experience

y

an

audience.This

might

nvolve he constructionf

identity

nd

explorations

f he

personal

y

the

writer;

t

might

lso entail irect ddresses othe

reader.

ogether

hese wo

practices epresent

hedominant eaturesffanzine

nd

zine discourse:

dentity

nd

community

Duncombe1997).

The discourse f each

publication

as also

compared

with

esearch

indings

boutthe

dominant

ritical

orthodoxy,

ith

ts

emphasis

on

masculinity,uthenticity

nd a

mythologised

account f he

history

nd

genius

f

performers.

his

methodology

oes

not ntend o

settle n a reductiveescriptionf ithermagazine'sriticalractices;nsteadt s to

test nd

explore

he

validity

nd

consequences

f thebroad

claims hathave been

madefor

hem.

Thedetail

equired y

discourse

nalysis,ogether

ith onstraintsn resources

for

esearch,

revented

longitudinal

tudy. single ear

was taken t random nd

pairs

f

reviews dentified.

he annual

publication

f

he

ound

rojector

eant hat

therewas

often

delay

between

review

ppearing

n

the

Wire nd a

review f he

same

recording

n

theSound

rojector.

he selected

ear

or

he

ound

rojector

as

2003,

with

he eviews f

tsfeatured

ecordingsppearing

n

the ssues

oftheWire

for

002.

A

corpus

of

twenty-two

ecordings

eviewed

y

both

publications

as

identified.

hile

corpus

derived rom

ecordingsecognised y genre

r artist

wouldhavebeen much

arger,

he

principle

f

comparing

eviews f the same

recording

nabled

much loser

omparison.

n

what

follows,

ix of these

airs

re

presented

n

detail.

hey

ave

been hosen o

represent

range

f

genres

avant-rock,

contemporaryomposition,

lectronic

usic

nd

sampling,

nd

free

mprovisation)

and a

range

fwriters

including

taff

riters,

reelancers

nd

practising

usicians).

They

re

presented

ere

s

representative

f he

eneral

indings

rom he

nalysis

f

the

twenty-two

airs.

The six

recordings

eviewed

were:

TheHands

fCaravaggio

(MIMEO

and

John

ilbury); umpty

umpty

SD

(Butthole

urfers);

AO: Music n

Sacred

ight

John

orn);

Locks

Kaffe

Matthewsnd

Andy

Moor);

A

Taste

fMerzbow

(Merzbow);

nd

Sheer ellish

iasma

Kevin

Drumm).

Findings

and

analysis

Before

urning

othe

hematic

nalysis

f

he

ampled

eviews,

ome

general

emarks

are

necessary.

irst

e must

ote he

ifferences

n

ength

etween

eviews

n

the wo

publications.

he

verage

ength

f

reviews

n

the

ample

s

around 50

words

n

the

Wire

nd

around

50

words

n

the ound

rojector.

his s

due

n

part

othe

hanging

size

of he ound

rojector

it

has

doubled

n

ength

ince tsfirst

ssue),

ompared

o

the

ixed

agination

f he

Wire

currently

08

pagesper

month).

t

s also

explained

by

diting ractices:

he

ditor f

he ound

rojector

ever

dits

opy

ofit he

ages;

theres

ittle

vidence

f

ny opy-editing

the

uthor ontributed

o he

magazine

or

a fewyearsndonoccasion ound ncorrected

ypographical

nd

grammatical

rrors

reproduced

n

the

age).

Review

engths ary

reatly

n

the

Wire:

wo f he

eviews

in

the

ample

re

part

f

onger

eviews fwork

y

the ame

artist;

hese xtracted



8/16

Writing

bout

istening

59

reviews

rethe hortest

between

50

nd 480

words).

The

ongest

re those f

AO

and The

Hands

fCaravaggio

around

20 nd 800

words,

espectively).

hevariation

in

lengthmight

e seen as

an indicator f the

perceived

tatus f thework

under

review

alsopossibly

he tatus

f he

eviewer).

here s

lessvariation

n

the ound

Projector;

ith ne

exception,

llthe eviewsnthe

ample

xceed 00words.Never-

theless,

ength

s

an

ndicator

f tatus

might

e at work ere

lso:

both

ublications

publish

heir

ongest

eviews or he ame two

recordings

IAO

and TheHands

f

Caravaggio).

he Wire's

eview f AO is a little ver800

words,

hat

n

theSound

Projector

round

950.

n

the

Wire,

hereview f

TheHands

fCaravaggio

s almost

750

words;

n

the ound

rojector

t s around 50.

The

followingnalysis

xplores hematically

he ssuesraised

n

the iterature

review.

t

begins y

xamining

iscourses f

dentity

nd

ociality

hatwe can hink

f

as

being

mblematic

f

anzine iscourse

this

ection ocuses n

the ound

rojector).

Itthen

oes

on

to xamine

he xtento

which cademic iscourse anbe dentified

n

the deologicalmagazinehere he ocuss on theWire). ogetherhese wo ections

developways

of

thinking

bout

how differentorms

f the

deologicalmagazine

construct

he

music

nd its creators.

he

analysis

hen urns o the use of more

conventional

iscursive

eaturesrom

opular

music

riticism:

uestions

f uthen-

ticity,

riginality

nd

mythology,

s

well s the se

of anonisation

nd

masculinised

vocabularies.

inally

t

explores

he

onsequences

f

thesediscursive

ractices

or

writing

bout

themusic:

o

whatextent

nd

in what

ways

do these

esponses

o

listening

ell

s about

he

music tself?

Identity

nd

the

social

Given hatmattersf

personal

dentity

ndcalls o he ocial re

ypical

f anzinend

zine

writing,

t

s

not

urprising

hat hese

ccur

requently

n

theSound

rojector's

review.

hey

o,

however,

ind

xpression

n

different

ays.

First,

he

writer's wn

experiences

ay

be

a source

or

ontextualising

hemusical

xperience.

n

Harley

Richardson's

eview

f

Humptyumpty

SD,

the

writer

egins

ytelling

s that his

recording

is the

nly

CD

I've

bought

rom

certain

nlinemusic

tore'.

A

detail f

personal

onsumption

s

used

here o

critique

he common

esponse' y

critics

hat

the

Butthole

urfers

re

a bunch

f

mmatureeatnik

okers'.

his s

prompted

y

promotional

-mail

rom

he

music tore

ollowing

he

urchase

hat

egins

we know

you

ike

omedy

. .'.

The

review

requently

eturns

o this

ritique,

xamining

he

music n the ight f thegenericssumptionsmadeabout tbyother ritics. his

also

places

the

writer,

he

fanzine

nd,

by

extension,

he

reader,

n

opposition

o

conventional

ritical

isdom.

In

general,

he

Sound

Projector

onstructs

ts critical

esponses

s

personal

responses,

hether

hrough

he

xplicit

se of

personal

ronouns

'I'm

continually

engaged

..

and

intrigued'

Rik

Rawling

on

Zorn)

or

through

eclarations

f

individual,

motional

esponse

'Whooppee '-

Jennifer

or on

Merzbow).

Such

responses

re,

however,

ften

more

subtly

personalised.

or,

writing

oth

on

Merzbow

nd

Drumm,

dopts

n affective

pproach

sing

metaphor

hat

might

e

interpreted

ot

only

as

personally

ontingent,

ut also

as

an

experience

hat s

universalisable

oother

isteners.

or

xample,

he

writes fMerzbow's

ayers

fnoise

that

they

xplode

venmorebrain ellsthan

hey

ormally

o' and ofDrumm's

music

excavating

oles

in

your

brain'.

Here the

writer

escribes

n

individual

listening

xperience,

ut ne

that

ppears

efinitive.

lsewhere,

ritical

esponses

re



9/16

60 ChrisAlton

attributedo the

magined

eader:

long-time

ans o doubt

willbe enthralled'

Hor

on

Merzbow);

some

people

will be

disappointed'

Hor

on

Drumm).

As

well

as

predicting

eaders'

astes,

riters

n

the ound

rojectorrequently

ake

laims bout

an

artist's

ntentions. erzbow

delights

n

pummelling

he

udience';

orn

s

clearly'someone o

engaged

nart that e] s

going

ohave[his]radar n';John ilbury

'fears or is ife'

uring

he

ecording

fhis

performance

ithMIMEO.These

ppear

without

ny xplicit

vidence;

ather

hey

retaken or

ranted

s

part

f he rtist's

musicalmethods.

Writers

or heSound

rojector

eemto derive his

knowledge

rom

heir lose

personal xperience

f

themusic nd itscreators. heir common ense'

approach

might qually

be

considered s an autodidactic

isplay

f

expertise.

t

requires

o

cultural

pparatus

rcitation:

he

ound

rojector

erives ts laims rom

n

expertise

basedon

detailed

istening,

ndoncarefulnd sustained

onsumption

f hemusic.

t

is

from hese

rocesses

hat

hemusical nd socialvalues of rtist re derived.

he

SoundProjector'sritics re thereforeritingrom ositions fauthorityhat re

arguably

imilar

o the

displays

f

authority

based

on similar

istening rocesses)

that

we find

n

mainstream

ournalism.

hat s

different,

ndwhat he ound

rojector

shareswith

ther

anzines,

s how this

uthority

s

displayed.

n

the nd

t

s derived

from

personal

xperience

fthe

music,

n

experience

hat lso takes

nto ccount

social

xperiences

nd that

s

effectively

ubcultural.he

personal

nd the ocial

re

displayed hrough

demotic

tyle,

lbeit ne that s

at

times,

erhaps urprisingly,

capable

f

poetic xpression

this

s

discussed

elow).

Such

personal

uthority

s rare

n

theWire.

rom he

ample, nly

live

Bell nd

Edwin

Pouncey mphasise

heir

ersonal esponses

o

the

music

in

ways

not ound

in

the other

eviews

n

the

Wire).

As

in

the Sound

Projector,

hese re

expressedcolloquially. ell's review f Locksncludes brief election f whathe calls my

favourite

oments'.

lsewhere e findsMatthews's

lectronicreatments

f

Moor's

guitar epetitive:

loopitis

ets

n'.

Pouncey's

eview

f heer ellish iasmas similar

in

ts

anguage

othat f

Jennifer

or

n

the ound

rojector.

oth

mphasise avagery

in

themusic

for

ouncey

t

has

a

'raw

savagebeauty';

orHor themusic

[bears]

ts

fangs'

nd

the

animals

reoutof he

age'.They

mploy

imilar

ropes:

hehears he

music

excavating

oles

n

your

rain';

e finds

t

like hot oal

n

the

ack

of

your

skull'

with

awesome,

ranium

rushing ower'.

Just

s Hor attributes

eelings

o

'disappointed'

ans,

ouncey

ells s that rumm

wants oblowhis

udience

way'.

In

general,

hough,

riters or

heWire

end o

present

valuation ot

s

personally

contingent,ut s based onhistoricalndculturallaims bout he rtistsnd their

bodies f

work.

Cultural

and

historical

raming

On

the ne

hand,

he ound

rojector

eals

n

responses

hat

re

broadly

erived rom

a

personal,

ffective

ngagement

ith

he music nd

with

community

f ike-

minded

isteners

of

whom

t

appears

ware).

On the

ther

and,

heWire

pace

he

examples

f Bell and

Pouncey)

ends o

frame he

music

n

cultural

nd historical

settings.

his

framing

hifts he

evaluative

method rom he

affective

whether

personal rattributedoothers)ndthe ntentional'theartistsdoing his ecause

. .

.')

to

the

ontextual,

here

ritique

perates

t an

explicitly

ntellectualevel.This

provides

s with

n

opportunity

otest

he ather

nspecific

laims bout

deological



10/16

Writing

bout

istening

61

music

criticism,

amely,

ts

philosophical

ebts to

post-modernism

nd cultural

studies.

It

would be

unreasonableo

expect

ny

piece

of

writing

ith

he

brevity

fa

record

eview oexhibit

ny horoughgoingxposition

f

what

re,

n

their

cademic

settings,

xpansive

ndcontestedreas hat

ncompass

ftenrreconcilable

ractices

of

conceptual,

heoretical

nd

methodologicalhinking.

either s it

possible

to

identifysingle

ost-modern

r

culturaltudies'

tyle

f

writing

ithout

esorting

o

caricature.

evertheless

any

eviews

n

the

Wire

isplay

fascinationith ntellec-

tual

pproaches

oculture

hat

might

e considereds

deriving

rom hese wo

reas

of

thinking.

leddyn

Butcher's

eviewof

Humpty umpty

SD is framed

y

a

meditation

n

the

significance

f

naming:

What's

in

a name?

Everything

nd

nothing'.

he review

makes ense

of themusic f the

Butthole urfers

n

terms

f

their

ame,

one

that

practically

nsures

hat

hey

would

only

ever

appeal

to

a

minority'.

ames confer

dentity',

utcher

rgues,

nd t s

through

aming

hat

we

canunderstandotonlydifferenceutalsointent. his nalysiss notundertaken

in

a consistent

iscursive

tyle,

however.

The

writermoves from

n academic

style

o

highly

olloquial

xpressions

n

the ame

paragraph,

ven

at times

n

the

same

sentence:

Names

are

elementary,

convenient

means of

distinguishing

whatchamacallit

rom

hingummyjig'.

here s

also a measure

f

cepticism

owards

intellectual

nalysis,

n

the

writer's

pproval

f he

roup's

reference

orhalf-assed

attitude

n the

place

of ultural

ritique'.

David

Toop's

review

fZorn's

AO

s ess

clectic.

ery

ittle f

hisreview eals

with

he

music n

the

ecording.

nstead

oop

uses the

music's

rimary

nspiration

(

Aleister

rowley

to xamine

orn's

ntentions

nd the ften-controversial

ature f

his

work,

s well

s to

challenge

ther

nterpretations

f

hismusic.

He finds

arallels

between he

reception

fthe

transgressive

xpression'n the workof Zornand

Crowley,

ndcites

rowley

s dictum

hat he

ule

f he

mindis

Necessity

ather

han

Prejudice'.

e

argues,

hat

ike

Crowley,

orn

[looks]

t the

necessity

riving

he

work'.

oop

notes

hat

oth

men

have

been

ccused

f nti-Semitism.

hilst here

s

much

vidence

or

rowley's rejudice,

orn's

etractors,

rgues

oop,

alsely

ccuse

the

musician

f

the

ame,

invit[ing]

confusion

etween

hetoric,

ocial

behaviour

and

desire

..

on

the ne

hand,

nd unconscious

xpression

n

the ther'.

Toop

is

careful

ot

to cast

himself

s

an

apologist

or

Crowley;

nstead

he

emphasises

the

consistency,

horoughness

nd

intensity

ith which

Crowley]

attempted

oconstruct

is

own

version

f

he

eal'.

Thisbecomes

cultural

ompari-

sonthat lacesZorn nthe ole f ontroversialreator,s theRomanticrtistriven

to

compose,

espite

he

personal

r

social

consequences

hat

might

nsue.

These

general

laims

bout

Zorn

the rtist

and,

arguably,

bout

ny

artist

ealing

with

transgression)

re

exemplified

ot

by any

ustained

ttention

o the

detail f

Zorn's

music,

ut

through

pecific

eferences

o

the

ife

nd work

f

Crowley.

oop

cites:

ritual

taged

tCaxton

Hall

n

1910;

horizon,

demon

llegedly

voked

y

Crowley

(though

nly

he

name s cited

without

his

xplanation);

nd

Crowley's

elationship

with

ictor

euberg.

ust

s

IAO s

nspired

y

Crowley,

oop

lso

draws n

Crowley

to

understand

he

wellspring

f

Zorn's

orpus.

A

similar

mpulse

rives

John

ratchley's

eview

f

TheHands

f

Caravaggio.

Here

he seeks

to

understand

ot

the

music

tself,

ut

the

deological

nd social

processes

hat nderliet.This sa commonpproachnreviewsf reemprovisation

(of

which

his

ecording

s

an

example):

he

ocial

nteraction

etween

musicians,

s

well

as

the

non-hierarchical

nd

collective

ossibilities

f such

performances,

s



11/16

62 Chris

Atton

frequently

xamined

y sking uestions

bout

urpose,

ntention

ndrisk.

ratchley

employs

n

ideological

rameworket out

by

Keith

Rowe,

hefounder f

MIMEO.

Rowe

along

with

ratchley

views

he

roject

s oneof

struggle

etween

theworld

of

scarcity'

the

hand-made lectronicsf some of

the

musicians)

nd the one of

plenty'Powerbook

mprovisers

.The ocial nd

political

mplicationsf his raming

dominatehe eview:

here

re

references

o

factional

truggle',

tactical

truggle'

nd

'tactical,

rtisticnd

inguistic

ssues'.

Cratchleyirectly

ddresses

hese

n

relationo

John

ilbury's

ole as solo

pianist

n

a

largegroup

of

electronic

mprovisers.

or

Cratchley

his s

'a

dangerous erformance

cenario

raught

ith

risk',

where

he

soloist nd

the thermusicians eed to

suspend

go

for

he ommon

ood'.

Cratchley's

ssessments of

process

f

music-making

hat s

provisional

nd

unfinished.

et,

for

Cratchley

t

least,

he ocial and creative

ontingencies

f the

process

esult ot

only

n

an

example

f the

process many

reviews

f free

mpro-

visation onsider he

ecording erely

s documentationf

process

r n

event),

ut

also in a landmark ork fgreat ignificance. . nothinghort fa miracle'. his

suggests

hat here

re criteria

t

workother

han hose oncerned

ith

process,

though

he ritical

xposition

ever

ins

hem own

musically.

here

re,however,

hints

boutthis

n

thefinal

aragraph

f the

review,

whereRowe s

recognised

s

someone

who

metamorphosed

. .

the

ollective

nconsciousnessf

the

guitar]

n

perpetuity'

nd where

Rowe describes he

ecording

s

a

concerto.

aying

side the

question

f

how

a

guitar

or

any

nstrument)

ight

e said to have

a

collective

unconsciousness,

his

s

an

authoritativelaim

hat,

long

with

ratchley's

bsolutist

assessmentf

he

piece,

eems o contradict

isearlier

mphasis

n

contingency.

o

accept

he

iece

s a

concerto,

term

mostly

eserved or lassical

omposition,

et

o

considerts

process

s democraticnd

collective,

s

to et

up

a tension

hat,

ven

f t

s

deliberate,peaks o a confusionfdiscoursesbout reativity.

Authenticity,

ythology

nd

masculinity

So far

we

have

emphasised

iscursive

tyles

hat

et he wo

publicationspart

rom

the

conventions

f much

popular

music

ournalism.

owever,

we have

already

noticed

ccasionswhen

writers

ake laims bout

he

uthenticity

nd

originality

f

a

work n

ways

similar

o rock'sdominant

ritical

iscourse,

uch

as

Cratchley's

assessment

f the

MIMEO

recording

nd

the

hyberbolicanguage

ommon

n

the

Sound

rojector.

hile he Wire

ituates rtists uch as

Zorn,

Rowe

and

Tilbury

n

social ndculturalontextsoenable elativisedritique,noccasion hemagazine's

reviews

uggest

mythologising

or

at least an

authorisation)

f these

rtists s

Romantic

ndividuals,

apable

f

xtraordinary

reative cts.

There oes exist

pace

for

weakness',

owever.

he

MIMEO review

hows his

n

ts

mphasis

n

risk

and

yet

he

outcome

s

success).

Only

one of the

reviews rom

he

Wire

ngages

with

failurend

mediocrity

Locks);

he

eview

iHumpty

umpty

SD,

despite

ts

mpha-

sis on

epic

underachievement'

n

the nd

finds his

welcome,

lmost

ndearing,

trait.

Claims

bout

uthenticity

nd

originality

re also found

n

the

ound

rojector.

In

the

ase of Ed

Pinsent's

eview f

MIMEO,

these laims re based on

the ame

evaluative riteria

s

those f

Cratchley's

eview

n

theWire: he

deologicalmpulsesof carcityndplenty;he mphasis nrisk; insent venuses the ame

quote

from

Tilbury

as

wellas

listing

ll

the

members f

he

welve-piece

nsemble,

s does the

Wire).

insent

writes

bsolutely

bout

the work

of the

group,

lbeit

n

his

own,



12/16

Writing

bout

istening

63

fractured

olloquial tyle

'a

blockbusterf

modernistic

roup-wise

laying).

imi-

larly,

orn's

AO,

or he ound

rojector,

s

great

rt ..

acting

s a

trigger

or

urther

exploration

f the elf.

Only

n

one nstance o the

magazines iverge.

Where

he

Wire

ees

only

he

grotesquerie

f

he urface

with]

o

rolling

motional

epths'

n

thework f theButtholeurfers,heSound

rojector

inds he

opposite

n a similar

metaphor:

there's

ntelligence

nd

magination

obe found

f

you

daredive

beyond

the

melly

nd obnoxious urface'. everthelesshere s a

general

ongruence

ug-

gesting

hat,

espite isplays

f

ndividualism,

utonomy

nd

provisionality,

canon

of rtists

merges

hosework s of

particular

ignificance

Zorn,

MIMEO/Tilbury/

Rowe).

This anon

s not

mmutable,

owever: he ritical

valuations

f

hework f

Drumm nd Merzbow

uggest

hem,

f

not s

members,

t

east s candidates.

There s

little vidence f masculinised iscourse

n

theWire's eviews.

nly

Pouncey's

review

of Sheer

HellishMiasma nd

Cratchley's

TheHands

ofCaravaggio

se

terms

rom he exicon

fviolence o

express ower

nd

excitement

n

rockmusic.

n

Cratchley'sasehisuse of ermsuch s struggle',theatref ngagement'nd battle

for

upremacy'

re better nderstood

n

thecontext f Rowe's

conceptions

f the

group;

hey

eflect

owe's own

analogies,

ather

han stablish he

writer's wn

discourse.

n the ther

and,

Pouncey

writes boutKevin

Drumm'swork

n

a

less

elaborated

orm:

e calls

t the

very

ssence

frock' nd adrenaline-drivenock

n'

roll'.

At times

his

pproaches

arody

at

least

n

the ontext

fthe

Wire)

whenhe

imagines

rumm

turning

is

guitar

nd electronics

ll

the

way

up'.

That t is

intended

s

parody

s

unlikely, hough,

orelsewhere e writes

dmiringly

f

Motorhead's

classic

aural

assault',

finding

imilaritiesetween

Drumm's

music,

heavy

metal

ndLou

Reed's

Metal

Machine

usic.

eed's

double

lbum ffeedbacks

also

a

lodestone

or he

eview

f

Drumm

n

the ound

rojector.

heSound

rojector'swriters ake

greater

seof

metaphors

fviolence,

specially

hen hey iscuss he

'noise

music' f

Merzbow

nd

Drumm.

n

general,

hough,

hey refer

hatwe can

think

f

as 'demotic

oetry':

olloquial

lights

f

simile

nd

metaphoricalancy

o

capture

oth

he

nature f

he ounds

eing

eard

nd their ffect

n

the istener.his

leads

us

to he

inal

hase

f

he

nalysis:

hat o

these eviews

ell s

about hemusic

itself

nd

how

do the

writers

resent

heir

isteningxperiences?

Writing

bout

listening

We

have seen

how

the Sound

Projector's

eviewers

resent

ighly ersonal

nd

affectiveesponses omusicthatderivefromn expertise erived rom etailed

listening

oboth

he

orpus

f

he rtists

nder

eview

nd works

hat re

generically

related.

What,

hough,

s the

esult

f his

istening,

n

terms

f

what hewritersell

s

about

he

music

tself?

he

generally

emotic

tyle

n the

Sound

rojector

eems

o

determine

ts

analytical

iscourse.

his

demotic-poetic

pproach

often

mploys

sustained

metaphors

n

an

attempt

o describe

hemusic.

or

xample,

ennifer

or

compares

piece

on

Sheer

ellish

Miasma o

a

steady

ravelogue

hrough

he

different

arts

fhell

with heir

wn sets

of

nimals the

animals

reout

f

he

age

but

hey've

orgotten

hat t's ike

obe

really

ree o

all

they

an

do

is snarl

nd roar

lot

butnot

much lse.

Similarly,

or

Harley

Richardson

[the]

pening

rack

fLocks

rops

s

straight

nto n

underground

unnel nd

onto he ack

f

a

train hich

s

thundering

long

t

top peed

.

trackstart

o

nap, ing

nd coil

up

beneath

the rain



13/16

64 Chris

Atton

These

mpressionistic

ccounts

ncourage

he eader

f he eview

o hear'

hemusic

as a

narrative;

he

writer

s

organising

he ounds

rogrammatically.

his

pproach

s

not

unique

o

the

anzine,

hough

t

ppears

o

be rare

n

the

ost-punk,

ost-modern

characterisationf he

anguage

f he

deological,

utonomous

magazine.

nstead,

t

has morencommonwith heournalisticriffs' fwritersuch s Lester angs nd

Charles haar

Murray.

t

s

an

approach

hat ddresses

hree

roblems:

irst,

owdoes

a

demotic

pproach

o

music riticismeal

with

musical

nalysis?

fter

ll,

heres no

evidence

hat

writers or

he Sound

rojector

ave

any

formal

raining

n musical

analysis.

Of

ourse,

his s

a

characteristic

hey

hare

with

lmost

ll critics

f

popular

music.

Second,

venwere hewriters

ble

to

deploy

ormal

nalytical

echniques,

he

results

ouldnot e useful or

eaders ho

we assume)

ack he

necessary

nterpret-

ative kills omake ense f ormal

nalysis.

hird,

he ature f he

music tself

ould

test he imits f

a

formalmusical

nalysis

hat s centred

n themusic

tself. he

musics nder eview ere re

variously

reelymprovised,

xtremelyepetitive

nd

avant-garde;heresofteno obvious tructure,otonalityndnoharmonicrogres-

sion. To

generate

narrative rom uch

music,

ather hanfocus

on its nternal

workings,

voidsthe

problems

roundmusical

nalysis.

n its

own,

however,

his

solution ouldbe

a

very

imited

nd

repetitive

ritical

esponse.

ow

else,

hen,

part

from

ffective

nd

programmaticesponses,

re

he ound

rojector's

riticsble

o ell

us about

heir

istening

xperiences?

There s some evidence hat he fanzine'swriters

o

attempt

o

address he

music

n

more onventional

nalytical ays

modest

hough

hese re

.

Jennifer

or's

review f Merzbow

rgues

for he use of

rhythm

s

a

structuring

evice

within

otherwisehaotic

oundscapes.

or

her,

his evicenot

nly

as an aesthetic

unction,

it

also makes he

music "accessible" o new ears'.Writers

lso makereference

o

othermusicaltylesa conventionfmost opularmusic riticism).ohnorn'sAO

is

considered o be

variously

eminiscentf death

metal, lezmer, ub,

subdued

ambient' nd

surf

hrash';

ohn

ilbury's iano

playing

n theMIMEO

recording

s

characterised

y Cagean

dissonances'.Whateverhe

implicity

fthese

eferences,

they

t

east ndicate

readership

hose nterestsre considered o be as broad s

those

of the

writers. ome

writers

ive

critical valuations hatdemonstrate

n

interest

n

the

compositional

rocesses

f the music.

Jennifer

or advises Kevin

Drumm

hat

iswork

might

avebeen

mproved

y vary ing]

he

peed

nd

volume

levels

.

.

and

[by]

he ddition

f

a

noisy ackground

..

to

unify

he

lements

. .

sound,

acing

nd

texture'.

arley

Richardson

mphasises

ot he

pparently

truc-

turelesshaosof typical uttholeurfersong, utthat hegroup's songsunder-

went

longgestation

rocess

. .

sketched ut

n

the

tudio,

hen onedfor everal

years

n

stage'.

Ed

Pinsents

also interested

n

the

history

f the

recording,

o the

extenthat

e

ists he hree

ecordingngineers

or

MIMEO

and

praises

the

larity

f

the

recording'

ecause

t

enables

the istener..

to

separate

ut each

part

of

the

orchestra ith

inpoint

ccuracy'.

hese

arious

pproaches

ll

seek o

find

ome ort

of

tructure

n

the

music,

whethert

s

a

narrative,

n

attentionomusical

lements

n

a

work,

enre

omparison

r

recording istory.

hese

structuring

evices

ppear

necessary

o

ugment

he

more ndividual nd

emotional

esponses

e have

lready

noted.

Do the

Wire's

riters

ave imilar

pproaches

o

capturing

he

isteningxperi-

ence of ts adventuresnmodernmusic'?While here s little onsiderationf the

music s

programmatic,

here s

some

nterest

n

structural

nalysis.

Jim

Haynes

shares

Jennifer

or's

focuson

the

structuringower

of

rhythm

n

the musicof



14/16

Writing

bout

istening

65

Merzbow.

aynes

onsiders

he

ecording

s

a

case

study

n

how

Merzbow ontrols

rhythmic

oise'. tructure

s also

a concern fCliveBell

n

hisreview f

Locks.

ere,

though,

t s not o xamine

he

nternal

rganisation

f

ndividual

ieces,

boutwhich

he

has ittle o

ay.Perhaps

his s because

heres

very

ittle o

ay

boutmusic

where

'we are condemnedo severalminutes'

epetition

f one bar of

guitar'

ndwhere

'several

racks

eliberately

void

development'.

nstead e ooks utside he

ieces

o

consider ow

they

re ordered n

theCD:

'my

favourite oments

re

actually

he

hard dited

umps

o

he ext

rack,

udden ransitions

hich on't ccur

n

the

ieces

themselves'.

here

refew eferences

ade oother

musical

tyles,

ost

ignificantly

in

the

review f

Kevin

Drumm's

work,

where

Edwin

Pouncey

makes

omparison

with

many

hades

of

metal'

black,

death

nd

nu),

as well as

with

heworkof

Motorhead,

hitehouse,

a Monte

Young

nd Lou Reed.Earlierwe

identified

ell

and

Pouncey

s

themost

fanzine-like'

ftheWire's

riters;

erewe see them

and

Haynes)

ngaging

n

musical

nalysis

hat

gain

s similar

othat ound

n

the ound

Projector.

In

general,

hough,

he

Wire'swriters

ppear

more

nterested

n

broader

historical

nd cultural

ontextualisation,

ot

n

nternalr

comparative

escriptions

of he

music

tself.

ndeed,

part

rom

ell

nd

Pouncey,

he

Wire's riters

ave

very

little o

say

about

he

music tself

nd even

ess to

say

about heir

esponses

o

t

as

music.

oop's

review

nly

deals

with he

music f AO

in

ts

final

aragraphs;

ven

here

he ssessment

s

nterrupted:

The

lbum

egins

with

ongs

nd

rgan

hords

nd

erhaps

sense f

what

rowley ight

have

magined

or

is

elf-confessedly

nsatisfactorytaging

f

heRites f

leusis

t

Caxton

Hall

n

1910.

Elsewhere,

oop's

analytical

anguage

s similar othat ftheSound rojectorthe

female

horus

s

gorgeous';

here s

electronic

hatter'

nd a 'metal

cream').

The

Wire's eview

of

Humpty

umpty

SD contains

nly

two half-sentences

bout

the

music,

which

make

only

general

bservations:

. . . a dissolute

malgam

f

riff-

driven

onsense,

toner

umour

nd

distorted

oise.

Basses

umble,

uitars

leat

ike

geese,

rums

ound

. .'

By

ontrast

he ound

rojector's

eview

iscusses

ndividual

tracks,

uotes

rom

yrics,

escribes

nstrumental

nd vocal

techniques

nd

attempts

to

capture

he

clecticism

f

he

group's

work

'Hammer

horror

rgan

oundtracks,

speedcore,

ountry

n'

western,

vant-garde

iano,

recitals

nd

heavy

metal').

The

most

xtreme

xample

f

he

Wire's

ritical

ractice

s

Cratchley's

IMEO review.

s

wehave lreadyeen, his eviewsmostlynterestednthedangerous erformance

scenario';

n

over

00words

heres

no direct

mentionf

he

ecorded

music

ave for

a brief

eference

o

an electronic

orest

f ound'.

It seems

hat he

ound

rojector

ants

o

present

he

istening

xperience

o ts

readers

rimarily

s

a

personal

nd social

ctivity.

he

mphasis

f

he

Wire

uggests

the

pposite,

hat

t s

primarily

though

ot

xclusively:

ell

nd

Pouncey resent

counter-balance)

nterested

n the

value of

the

music

n

context,

ot

merely

n

the

music

s an

experience

and

even

ess

s an

act f

onsumption

.

This

s not o

ay

hat

the

magazine's

eaders

niformly

ccept

his

pproach.

here

re

frequent

omplaints

inthe

magazine's

etters

ages

from eaders

ho

find he

eviews

nsatisfactory.

wo

examples ppear

n the

ample

ssues

analysed.

One

reader

omments

hat ome

reviews ead as brilliantomic arodies',notherastigateshemagazine's eview-

ers

for

writing

without

ny

hints

s to

what

therecords

ound

ike'.

The

Sound

Projector

oes not

publish

eaders'

etters,

o

a

comparison

s not

possible.)



15/16

66

ChrisAlton

Conclusion

The

range

f

discoursesdentified

n

theWire

rovides

vidence

or orde's laim

about

he

olyglottism

f he

magazine.

cross he eviews

ampled

we

find

writingthat s

culturally

nd

historically

ituated nd that eeks odiscuss hemusicnterms

of its cultural

onsequences,

ts historical ntecedents

though

not

always

from

musical

istory,

s

in

the

ase of

MO)

and

ts ocial

practices.

ithin

eviews

we also

find

multiple

oices,

he

lending

rcollision f he

olloquial

with

he

cademic,

he

affective ith

he rational.

hese discourses ake

place

within

professionalised

environment:heWire

s

a

commercially

uccessful

agazine

with n international

audience.Within

his ramework

ts

reviewing

ractices

it

well

within udmunds-

son et

al.'s

(2002)

semi-autonomousield f rock

ournalism.

here

re,however,

features hat

eem better

ocated ven furtherowards he autonomous

ole:

the

writing

f Bell and

Pouncey

s

almost

ntirely

oncerned

ith

ersonal,

motional

responsesnd is more uggestivef fanzine iscourse.t is intheSound rojector,

inevitably,

here

we

find

hese atter

mpulses

most

trongly

t

work. ere he

ength

of

reviewsdoes

not

necessarily

ndicate he status f the

recording,

ather

hey

accommodatehe ess

disciplined

nd more

reewheelingtyle

f

personal

eaction

familiar

o us

not

only

from he

history

f

thefanzine

ut

also from hework

f

personalityournalists

ike

Bangs

nd

Murray.

Both

magazines

occasionally

mploy

other

echniques

rom he dominant

history

f

rock

ournalism,

uch s

the exicon f

violence,

henotion f heRomantic

genius

nd the

stablishing

f

a

canon.These

features,owever,

ppear longside

more ndividual

pproaches,

esulting

ot

n

a

reproduction

f

past

discourses,

ut

their

ybridisation

ith

more adical

pproaches. espite

his

ndividualism,

here

arecommon eaturesn the Sound

Projector's

eviews:

preference

or

olloquial

expression;

he

use of

xtended imile nd

metaphor;

laims bout he ntentionsf

artists;

nd

predictions

bout

theristeners'

esponses.

t

s

in

the

Wire

hatwe

find

the

greatest

ange

f ndividual

esponses

nd

discourses

mployed

ocommunicate

those

responses.

he

reasons or

his annot e

identified

ithin

he imits f the

present

tudy,

ut

could

nclude: he

nti-intellectualismf muchfanzine

writing,

which

ets

imits n

how the

music

might

e

discussed;

he

differing

abitus f

reviewers

the

Wire's

ontributorsnclude

professional

ritics,musicians,

rtists

and

occasionally

anzine

writers);

he

editorial

irection f the

magazine

the

Sound

rojector

eems

to have

little nterest

n

shaping

eviews,

ither

n

terms f

copy-editingr editorial uidelines); nd therecognitionfdiversitys a com-

mercial

esponse

o

the

branded,

monoglottal

usic

ournalism

hat

ominates he

professional

usic

ress.

It

s

perhaps

his inal

uggestion

hat

rovides

he

trongestrgument

or he

continuing

alue

of

music

ournalism

hat

s

(at

least)

semi-autonomous

n

itsdis-

course nd

ts

ndustrial

etting.

e have

not ound

he xtreme

elativismhat ome

discussions f

post-punk,

ostmodern

usic

ournalism

uggest,

where here s a

predilection

or

urfaces,

rovisionality

nd an

acknowledgement

f he

nadequacy

of

aying

nything

bout

music.

We

have,

f

ourse,

oted hat he

Wire's eviewers

often

ay

little

bout

the

music tself

certainly

n

contrast o those

n

the Sound

Projector),

ut

this s

arguably

ot

due to

any perceived ifficulty;

ather,

t

s

an

ideological ecision.

Finally,

e

might

onsider

he

practice

f

polyglottism

tself s an

ideological

choice,

rather

han

as a

'natural'

state that

has

all

but

disappeared

n

the



16/16

Writing

bout

istening

67

contemporary,

ommercial

usic

press.

The

privileging

f

an

array

f

ndividual

voices

might

e seen

n

terms

f a

post-modern

racturing

f the

uthority

f the

master arrative. hile his

works

gainst

n

essentialising

fcriticism

n

popular

musical

iscourse,

t

an

ust

s

easily epresent

n

ndividualisationf

nterpretationthatworks

gainst

heformationf shared ritical ramework.e haveobserved

how,

articularly

n

the

anzine,

ersonal

riticalccounts onnecto ocial

xperience

and to theformationf critical

ommunity

fwritersnd fans.

he

significance

f

community

s not

only mportant

or he

fanzine: hat

omereaders ftheWire

re

dissatisfied ith

he

tyle

nd content f he

magazine's

eviews

uggests

hat

ven

polyglottism

ight

ave

ts imits.

References

Atton,

C.

2001.

Living

in

the

past?:

value discourses

in

progressive

rock

fanzines',

Popular

Music, 20,

pp. 29-46

2002.

Alternative edia

London,

Sage)

2004.

An

Alternative

nternet:

adical

Media,

Politics nd

CreativityEdinburgh,

Edinburgh Universit

Documents

Writing About Listening Alternative Discourses in Rock Journalism