the emperor’s new clothes

Simon silverdollarcircle

Well-known member
Derrick May is a good case here. I don't *think* I've listened to his stuff since it came out that he's dodgy as fuck. In my head Ive come to equate the kind of slipperiness and smoothness of much of his music with the sleaziness of the man. Like it'd now sound like groping hands, in a way. It might be pure projection, I don't know. But once you know about the evil of the artist you can hear the tendrils of that in the music
 

luka

Well-known member
ian penmans new book is all about what terrible morally indefensible people all his favourite musicians are. he agonises a bit over it, not very convincingly but mostly i think he is drawn to the glamour of it.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
It's complicated though by the fact that much (most?) good music comes from a bad place, psychically, innit. It's the devils music, after all.
Are there any unequivocally nice, non-weird people who make good music, or are there just creeps and bastard we haven't heard about yet? Will we find out in a few years that Andy Weatherall routinely kicked his cats or something?

There was that scare a while back when we all thought Kate Bush was a massive Tory, but I think it turned out she'd just been quoted out of context.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Derrick May is a good case here. I don't *think* I've listened to his stuff since it came out that he's dodgy as fuck. In my head Ive come to equate the kind of slipperiness and smoothness of much of his music with the sleaziness of the man. Like it'd now sound like groping hands, in a way. It might be pure projection, I don't know. But once you know about the evil of the artist you can hear the tendrils of that in the music
So - by that statement above, and others like it - in actual fact, what I said here

Yeah, we all pay lip service to separating the art from the artist but when there is a truly scummy artist suddenly it's not that easy after all.

Was wrong in as much as none of us even pretend to slightly agree with that idea and in fact we all totally recognise that art and artist are, if not the same thing, inextricably linked by context and the fact that who the artist is and what kind of person they are is inevitably going to affect the art that they make, separating art and artist makes as much sense as separating method from ingredients when making a cake and now I come to think of it I don't know why the fuck I said it and even less do I know why I made the bizarre claim that everyone here somehow aspires to do it. I'm surprised I didn't get more ridicule for that come to think of it.
Thing is though it is an idea you hear espoused quite often but really I don't know why. I honestly think that in the most extreme cases almost no-one follows the rule ("no, I just happen to really like the recordings Stalin made of himself singing old Georgian folk songs") and in the less extreme cases it doesn't really matter either way cos it's not very extreme.
The one time when people do say it of themselves is when they are trying to justify a liking for something such as, for example, Charles Manson - and then it's totally disingenuous if not an outright untruth cos I reckon that with ninety percent of people who like Charles Manson it's precisely because he was a sexy dangerous cult leader and murderer and thus no separation of art and man has really occurred at all.
At least this is how i stand on this now, it will be embarrassing if when I eventually do sober up i decide that I was right the first time after all.
 

version

Well-known member
Getting back to mvuent's original point...

It's alarming how important framing is; a good book can be tainted by a bad cover. I've talked on here before about how I suspect you could take a release off Beatport, start referring to the tracks as 'studies' or something similar, slap some tasteful artwork on it and it would instantly go from Beatport to Boomkat material.

I sometimes wonder how the reception and legacy of Gravity's Rainbow would have turned out had Pynchon kept the original title, Mindless Pleasures. It seems trivial, but at the same time I feel like it would have hampered the book somewhat. It's so bland.
 

luka

Well-known member
reading the same book in different editions definitely can make the world of difference it just goes to show every detail is important
but then again, why wouldnt it be.

I​
said I would talk to you today about the second batch of Maximus, which I am glad to do, because my sense of the completion of that poem varies very strongly according to where I am, and this is a new place to be, so I have what seems to me a new poem with me
 

version

Well-known member
I said I would talk to you today about the second batch of Maximus, which I am glad to do, because my sense of the completion of that poem varies very strongly according to where I am, and this is a new place to be, so I have what seems to me a new poem with me
I was looking at picking up some Olson recently. Watched this clip of him the other day and was mesmerised,

 

luka

Well-known member
i would say read projective verse, read in cold hell, read the kingfishers, read maximus, maybe read some other mad essays
if youre into it.
 

luka

Well-known member

In Cold Hell, in Thicket​


In cold hell, in thicket, how
abstract (as high mind, as not lust, as love is) how
strong (as strut or wing, as polytope, as things are
constellated) how
strung, how cold
can a man stay (can men) confronted
thus?


All things are made bitter, words even
are made to taste like paper, wars get tossed up
like lead soldiers used to be
(in a child’s attic) lined up
to be knocked down, as I am,
by firings from a spit-hardened fort, fronted
as we are, here, from where we must go


God, that man, as his acts must, as there is always
a thing he can do, he can raise himself, he raises
on a reed he raises his


Or, if it is me, what
he has to say


I


What has he to say?
In hell it is not easy
to know the traceries, the markings
(the canals, the pits, the mountings by which space
declares herself, arched, as she is, the sister,
awkward stars drawn for teats to pleasure him, the brother
who lies in stasis under her, at ease as any monarch or
a happy man


How shall he who is not happy, who has been so made unclear,
who is no longer privileged to be at ease, who, in this brush, stands
reluctant, imageless, unpleasured, caught in a sort of hell, how
shall he convert this underbrush, how turn this unbidden place
how trace and arch again
the necessary goddess?


2


The branches made against the sky are not of use, are
already done, like snow-flakes, do not, cannot service
him who has to raise (Who puts this on, ths damning of his flesh?)
he can, but how far, how sufficiently far can he raise the thickets of
this wilderness?


How can he change, his question is
these black and silvered knivings, these
awkwardnesses?


How can he make these blood-points into panels, into sides
for a king’s for his own
for a wagon, for a sleigh, for the beak of, the running sides of
a vessel fit for
moving?


How can he make out, he asks,
of this low eye-view,
size?


And archings traced and picked enough to hold
to stay, as she does, as he, the brother, when,
here where the mud is, he is frozen, not daring
where the grass grows, to move his feet from fear
he’ll trespass on his own dissolving bones, here
where there is altogether too much remembrance?


3


The question, the fear he raises up himself against
(against the same each act is proffered, under the eyes
each fix, the town of the earth over, is managed) is: Who
am I?


Who am I but by a fix, and another,
a particle, and the congery of particles carefully picked one by another,


as in this thicket, each
smallest branch, plant, fern, root
—roots lie, on the surface, as nerves laid open—
must now (the bitterness of the taste of her) be
isolated, observed, picked over, measured, raised
as though a word, an accuracy were a pincer!
this


is the abstract, this
is the cold doing, this
is the almost impossible


So shall you blame those
who give it up, those who say
it isn’t worth the struggle?


(Prayer
Or a death as going over to–shot by yr own forces–to
a greener place?


Neither


any longer
usable)


By fixes only (not even any more by shamans)
can the traceries
be brought out


II


ya, selva oscura, but hell now
is not exterior, is not to be got out of, is
the coat of your own self, the beasts
emblazoned on you And who
can turn this total thing, invert
and let the ragged sleeves be seen
by any bitch or common character? Who
can endure it where it is, where the beasts are met,
where yourself is, your beloved is, where she
who is separate from you, is not separate, is not
goddess, is, as your core is,
the making of one hell


where she moves off, where she is
no longer arch


(this is why he of whom we speak does not move, why
he stands so awkward where he is, why
his feet are held, like some ragged crane’s
off the nearest next ground, even from
the beauty of the rotting fern his eye
knows, as he looks down, as,
in utmost pain if cold can be so called,
he looks around this battlefield, this
rotted place where men did die, where boys
and immigrants have fallen, where nature
(the years that she’s took over)
does not matter, where


that men killed, do kill, that woman kills
is part, too, of his question


2


That it is simple, what the difference is—
that a man, men, are now their own wood
and thus their own hell and paradise
that they are, in hell or in happiness, merely
something to be wrought, to be shaped, to be carved, for use, for
others


does not in the least lessen his, this unhappy man’s
obscurities, his
confrontations


He shall step, he
will shape, he
is already also
moving off


into the soil, on to his own bones


he will cross


(there is always a field,
for the strong there is always
an alternative)


But a field


is not a choice, is
as dangerous as a prayer, as a death, as any
misleading, lady


He will cross


And is bound to enter (as she is)
a later wilderness.


Yet
what he does here, what he raises up
(he must, the stakes are such


this at least


is a certainty, this
is a law, is not one of the questions, this
is what was talked of as
—what was it called, demand?)


He will do what he now does, as she will, do
carefully, do
without wavering,
without


as even the branches,
even in this dark place, the twigs
how


even the brow
of what was once to him a beautiful face


as even the snow-flakes waver in the light’s eye


as even forever wavers (gutters
in the wind of loss)


even as he will forever waver


precise as hell is, precise
as any words, or wagon,
can be made


—Charles Olson (1950)
 

luka

Well-known member
i find him really irritating. i really dislike his bluster and his sloppiness. i think he reads very badly. i hate his fag-wheezing, husky, bloated voice.
but he's worth reading.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Getting back to mvuent's original point...
It's alarming how important framing is; a good book can be tainted by a bad cover. I've talked on here before about how I suspect you could take a release off Beatport, start referring to the tracks as 'studies' or something similar, slap some tasteful artwork on it and it would instantly go from Beatport to Boomkat material.

I sometimes wonder how the reception and legacy of Gravity's Rainbow would have turned out had Pynchon kept the original title, Mindless Pleasures. It seems trivial, but at the same time I feel like it would have hampered the book somewhat. It's so bland.
Josef Heller originally titled his biggest hit Catch 18. Now that seems to me as though it isn't as catchy and effective, but is that cos Catch 22 is simply better or is it cos that got burned into my brain by the book. i know literally no way to check that out... except if we could somehow go to a parallel universe where he did call it Catch 18, would there be loads of people going "I can't believe he almost called it Catch 22"? And also, when you think about it, who cares?
 

luka

Well-known member
First, some simplicities that a man learns, if he works in OPEN, or what can also be called COMPOSITION BY FIELD, as opposed to inherited line, stanza, over-all form, what is the “old” base of the non-projective.


(1) the kinetics of the thing.[6] A poem is energy transferred from where the poet got it (he will have some several causations), by way of the poem itself to, all the way over to, the reader. Okay. Then the poem itself must, at all points, be a high-energy construct and, at all points, an energy-discharge. So: how is the poet to accomplish same energy, how is he, what is the process by which a poet gets in, at all points energy at least the equivalent of the energy which propelled him in the first place, yet an energy which is peculiar to verse alone and which will be, obviously, also different from the energy which the reader, because he is the third term, will take away?
 
Top