Plan B

[JohnDTraynor]

Monpot said:

It [Plan B] just wants to be ahead of the pack so that 6 months down the line it can brag about how ahead of the pack it was.

I want to read a magazine that is trying to do that so I can hear about an artist that maybe I don't already know.

[Monpot]

Your delibrately misinterpreting the point now.

[JohnDTraynor]

Monpot said:

Your delibrately misinterpreting the point now.

I didn't intend to.

What I like in a music magazine is writing that is enjoyable and informative to read, and maybe I will read something about an artist I didn't know and subsequently try to find an mp3 so I can find out for myself whether they live up to their praise. It's always been that way for me. So, I prefer magazines that are full of artists that some people like to label as "obscure".

My favourite is The Wire. Plan B is good enough.

[tafkac]

There's a difference between championing interesting underground music, and trying desperately to be underground, obscure and "clever" at all times. I guess I have pretty high standards when it comes to writing. I like it when people are a bit clever, but when content is sacrificed I don't see the point. Ultimately I want to read about music, and any genuinely interesting thoughts the reviewer has about it, not about what they had for breakfast. The magazine is totally, horrifyingly Nathan Barley in a way that made me want to curl up in a ball and weep on their behalf. It might be redeemed if it was in any way funny, but it isn't. The cod-philosophy makes me cringe. About Arcade Fire:

"they understand that love lies in the network and never in the node; that a love letter should only ever be a set of directions to the midpoint between two people, never an unburdening of where you are now, but only where you're going in order to connect with another."

Yeah. Good one. Quite an intriguing combination of stating the obvious, laboured sentence-construction, and nonsense.

If I could see any merit in this magazine I would try, but having been back to it again, I can really honestly say I think its not just a a little bit irritating, but absolutely mind-crushingly awful. I remember Tibor Fisher talking about the experience of Martin Amis's latest book as like catching your favourite uncle masturbating. That's how bad it is. I'd rather read Kerrang or the NME.

[tafkac]

Monpot said:

Well I think what Bamos is saying is that it's trying to be cool/obscure for cool/obscure's sake, not for the sake of actually championning new music.

I really don't think Plan B is like that at all.

Are we talking about the same magazine here? I don't think I've ever read anything that fits this description better. As I say, I found it even more annoying than Pitchfork.

[JohnDTraynor]

It may be true that Plan B could be more selective in who they hire to write for it.

I prefer The Wire's dryness.

[John Brainlove]

The Wire bores me to tears. It's so stuck up, they miss the point half the time by dissecting everything until there is nothing left. And what's with the grouping by made-up genres thing? I buy it if I'm interested in the cover feature, because those articles are often very detailed and interesting, but I just can't be bothered with their poncing, obnoxiously superior writing..

[John Brainlove]

tafkac said:

Are we talking about the same magazine here? I don't think I've ever read anything that fits this description better. As I say, I found it even more annoying than Pitchfork.

That's just not what I see in Plan B. They champion new music all the time, and while the style in which they do it evidently puts some people off, I don't think you can really accuse them of being obscure for obscurity's sake. I don't see where this statement comes from, or how it can be justified. I think Plan B is about a genuine will to push new music to wider audiences.

[Smileadelic]

I've never read Plan B. I think people need to lay off Pitchfork a bit though (except the occasional writer... I find William Bowers utterly impossible, for example).

[JohnDTraynor]

John said:

The Wire bores me to tears, etc.

I quoted the lucid part of your post .

The Wire writes for the audience that it has. It started as a jazz magazine and has expanded a bit. But, it has never made any pretence about being a pop magazine.

The genres section is there just to provide a basic guide ("The artists on this page might use a guitar") and to split the magazine up visually.

What I like about The Wire seems to be what you don't like: The style of writing. Most of The Wire's writers assume that the readers are fully-informed, about the artist, about similar artists, about the structure and theory of music. Obviously, this is an incorrect assumption, but if some readers don't have sufficient knowledge in order to understand a review then it is up to them to find out elsewhere. Why should The Wire make things easy for its readers? It deliberately appeals direct to the most knowledgable, and the others, the majority, have to be a bit of work to do. This means that the knowledgable have an enjoyable magazine to read and the rest of us have to get up off our intellectual arses and learn, if we want to. The magazine's style is deliberate, but not deliberately elitist or obscure.

I don't want to be spoon fed. I want what I read to encourage me to take an interest.

I have found some extraordinary music via reading The Wire, and I have also just enjoyed reading it purely and simply as intellectual fun.

[John Brainlove]

JohnDTraynor said:

I quoted the lucid part of your post.

This is the only part of your reply that I read. I can't be bothered with the rest I'm afraid Traynor, because that was more than a little obnoxious and dismissive, and I don't really enjoy talking with obnoxious and dismissive people. You do realise you were inferring that the rest of my post wasn't lucid don't you? That only one of the sentences made sense, and therefore that the rest was senseless? I am well aware you don't agree with the content of the post, but are you sure it wasn't lucid? Or is this just you affecting a superior attitude as a lame argument-winning tactic, to cast yourself in a more knowledgable light than me?

Either way, your unpleasant manner means the rest of your post went unread.

[John Brainlove]

Traynor has apparently closed his account - I didn't ban him.

... oh well, we'll soldier on, eh.

[Monpot]

"Well fuck me a tear-duct."

-Andy Falkous, 2005.

[tafkac]

John said:

Traynor has apparently closed his account - I didn't ban him.

Can't say I'm sad to see him go. He was a prick.