On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Cyclone Wehner wrote:
> This is off tangent but I know a lot of the UK press sucks but the
> antagonism towards journalists is really out of control right now. There are
> good and bad writers out there and the press in other countries varies
> considerably, so to use the UK's as a universal model is unfair.
But maybe part of that stigma comes from how ubiquitous UK music/dance
mags are worldwide. Q, Mixmag and the like can be found in all corners of
the world. Maybe they don't (or shouldn't) set the standards for music
journalism, but they do such a good job w/distribution it can give people
that impression. Which is equally bad, IMO.
> Freelancers get no kick backs on ads and there is less editorial control
> than you would think in Australia, at least. Freelance rates for many
> Australian magazines hasn't risen in a decade - not even in line with
> inflation, in fact many glossy magazines are cutting their rates, or worse,
> not paying at all regardless of rising circulation and ad income. The people
> who do this are committed. Writers are underground even if sometimes the ads
> aren't.
Writers who actually do the stories and are commited to things good and
pure is one thing, but the British dance music press/editors strive to
play Popularity Contest with what they choose to go into magazines. Just
look at how Musik & Jockey Slut devolved over the past 2-3 years. It's
all about clubbing, Ibiza, and progressive trance now, and it's really
sad. Sometimes I read old issues of Magic Feet for solace.
Even though I admire DJ magazine's effort to bring UK techno back into the
spotlight, I thought they gave more attention to certain people in it and
shortlisting everyone else on the last page because mentioning certain
producers in magazine articles will help sell it. Or maybe DJ mag wanted
to prove a point about how vague/diverse 'techno' is.
> >there is a interviews with British techno producers
> >Surgeon, Oliver Ho, James Ruskins, Regis and Female.
> >when they respond to a question about how they affiliate with Detroit
> >techno, to my surprise I think all of them try to separate themselves with
> >what they do and what Detroit music is, was doing, dont take my
> >interpretation, I dont have 100% memory,
> >my thing is that I would at least expect some mention or respect from them
> >to the originator and fore father, detroit techno
> What issue is this?
> I find that a lot too - and here too among some quarters there is always
> some new name the techno heads are championing, usually white and British -
> but you will always find that Black producers like Dave Angel and Carl Cox
> identify far closer with it, which I think says something. It could be a
> English thing - the likes of Laurent Garnier and DJ Q are less inclined to
> see Detroit as something that they have to rebel against or whatever.
The most recent article is the 2nd September issue of DJ Magazine (I
think). Why these UK producers don't give as much props
to Detroit producers is because (and the DJ story mentions this) their
musical influences come from more experimental music like Coil, Throbbing
Gristle, Steve Reich, and less from Detroit. That they and
Detroit-influenced producers meet at the same crossroads is part
coincidence. And maybe Laurent Garnier & DJ Q draw their influences from
elsewhere too. But what all this is not is an anti-Detroit
sentiment. It's more like people assuming that techno automatically comes
from Detroit in one way or another, and other influences just doesn't
matter as much.
Doris
x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
'Opium? No! Cocaine? No! The Great
American Brain Killer Is Dance Music!'
--Portland Oregonian, 1932
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
