Quantcast
 Everett True

Response from a Disgruntled David Bowie fan

Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page

David Bowie - Where Are We Now?

Martin A. Egan left this comment on the Mof Gimmers (not Glimmers, he ain’t a glam rock writer yet!) post Fuck Bowie, and I felt it was interesting enough to stand alone. Right of reply, and everything. Interesting how the ‘Fuck Bowie’ post is easily the most read post on Collapse Board over the last 48 hours. It’s had thousands more views than the Song of the Day post that actually praises the new Bowie single. Once again, it seems people – Bowie fans, anyone – only really seek out the negative (a truth known to politicians and newscasters everywhere).

An Observation on this piece of scribbling: You know you yourself are an example of how conservative shit Rock/Pop/ Pap/ Smug/ Bullshit so called Music Journalism has become. So you use the word Fuck in your miserable little effort to appear controversial Big deal. Or if you want to go to the other extreme there are the Music Critics who think they are Pulitzer Prize winning Writers because they got a degree in Politics and Social Media from a College and can use polysyllabic Feminist New Man speak instead of plain English. Being too young smug and self centred seems to be the nature of Music Criticism these days with very little in depth understanding of the nature and purpose of Music from the standpoint of actually making MUSIC as opposed tosub standard so called Modern Bands cobbling together older and sometimes more obscure Music from a different generation, aping people like Bowie. Talking Heads, Iggy Pop and the Beatles and claiming it as New Music. I haven’t seen anyone on here write even vaguely original Music Criticism since I joined this place. You are all so sure of your rightness in insulting rather than criticising Music and Musicians because you view insult, character assassination, cleverness bolstered by reading too many Blogs and Wikipedia along with terminal smugness as a substitute for informed and cogent Criticism. I think its about time you raised the bar alongside the Mirror and had a good long look at your truly substandard Criticism of the “If I say Fuck or use some obscure term such as Patriarchy or Matriarchy often enough someone is bound to begin to believe I know what I’m talking about” or if I use big enough words I am bound to sound informed and intelligent. Sadly you need more than that and not just the knowledge (deep in your hearts) that u know the Modern Corporate Music World and Media u pretend to criticise is no substitute for real ground-breaking Musical Criticism and invention. I am no expert but I am a Musician and can recognise true Music when I hear it and also true emotion in Music. And that’s where the difference lies. Its about Emotion as well as invention and not using “Fuck” simply to distract people from vacuous opinion. The only saving grace this piece of nonsense has is u at least tried to keep away from the “Lets all speak Positive about this because its new” herd of sheep mentality.

Related posts:
Song of the day – 548: David Bowie (the new single reviewed)
Fuck Bowie
Fuck music critics | the new David Bowie single properly reviewed

14 Responses to Response from a Disgruntled David Bowie fan

  1. Linda Julia Paolucci January 14, 2013 at 9:27 am

    On the original author: it’s fitting that the most read thing this pukestain author will likely ever write is nothing but hollow, empty, attention-whoring clickbait bitching that says nothing and contributes nothing. Nothing shocking, nothing intriguing, just a wimpering child shouting out for pageviews through derision of a legitimate icon.

  2. Brendan Eales January 14, 2013 at 11:46 am

    Weird.

    Mof’s article is about 5 sentences of actual criticism/opinion of the song sprinkled through a discussion on the behaviour of the modern rock press by way of an iconoclastic attack on old rock stars ["like all old rockstars, fuck Bowie"] using Bowie as a perfectly good example of the problem.

    Martin’s reply is almost exactly the same. He objects to Mof’s use of the word ‘Fuck’ [if only clickbaiting were that easy] and has a different opinion on the song then 90% is an attack on modern music criticism for “polysyllabic Feminist New Man speak instead of plain English” [which is entirely missing from Mof's piece] and in the last sentence Martin actually seems to agree entirely with the bulk of Mof’s point.

    And Martin, where can we find some of this ‘real ground-breaking Musical Criticism’. I’m always up for that.

    Personally I’m underwhelmed by the song.

  3. Everett True January 14, 2013 at 12:48 pm

    One simple rule Brendan: don’t rock the canon.

  4. soooooyousee January 14, 2013 at 2:28 pm

    i don’t like the new Bowie tune or even much of Bowie.
    But i do genuinely depise shite music journalism which the original article was very much guilty of.
    Much like youre crap own Everett’s crap ‘troll’ ‘joke’ of In Utero shanigans. Tee hee hee. Fucking yawnful. Which embarrasingly tried to continue..
    Thats the style of OLD postmoderism that needs to be cosigned to garbage bin of history and which will be inevitably.
    I mean Everett Trues’s type of writing by the way not In Utero .

  5. Everett True January 14, 2013 at 3:20 pm

    (sighs) I guess it’s true. The Internet really does make people stupider… or maybe it just allows stupider people greater freedom to parade their stupidity.

    I did not write the In Utero memo. The writer’s byline is on the original blog post, where it’s been the entire time. Have a look if you don’t believe me.

    Incidentally, sooooooyousee: I ain’t one of those editors that enjoys faceless trolls coming to their websites to parade their extraordinarily stupid opinions. Ask anyone. I don’t give a shit whether this affects CB’s traffic or not. I just can’t be arsed to argue with anonymous fuckwits. Keep this up, and you’ll find yourself blocked. Last warning.

  6. soooooyousee January 14, 2013 at 3:31 pm

    @ Everett
    well believe it or not i actually have a lot of time for yourself.
    But rightly or wrongly believe(d) that In Utero ‘memo’ was written by yourself.
    If not so i apologise.
    I don’t really see anything ‘stupid’ in what else have said though in regards to the Bowie article.

  7. Scott Creney January 14, 2013 at 9:51 pm

    An Observation (I’m keeping the useless capitalization of observation–if Egan can wax delusional on his own behalf why shouldn’t I?) in return: It seems Martin A. Egan is fluent in the language of corpses (no wonder he worships at the altar of Bowie). Looking back towards a halcyon past of music (excuse me, Music..or as he once writes it in a fit of desperate hysterics, MUSIC) and music criticism that never existed, condemning the use of words both polysyllabic and vulgar, both big and small, he won’t be happy until everyone else is as tedious and dull and tight-assed as he is.

    And Martin, you don’t “join” Collapse Board–you read it you pretentious turd. You’re about as much a part of CB as I’m a member of Micachu & the Shapes.

    I do appreciate your work with special needs children however, particularly the ones you allowed to write the bio on your website: http://www.martinaegan.com/about-martin-egan

    And after reading this (http://www.martinaegan.com/home/martin-anthony-egan-poetry),a last bit of advice, from one poet to another. You value sincerity FAR more than sincerity values you. Also you should be consistent in your use of punctuation and the way you capitalize the first letter of each line–the randomness of it distracts the reader. And the only place people center the text of their poem is Hallmark Cards. But I do find the line “All my damaged exposed manhood” illuminating, in ways you can scarcely imagine. I wish you luck in your future irrelevance. I have a feeling yours will be far more painful and confusing than my own.

  8. Paul January 15, 2013 at 11:21 am

    Wow, Scott. That was a pretty foul post. Pissing out your territory. I am sure you feel better.

    It could be argued that posting on Collapse Board, Martin has indeed joined. Joined in. Taken part.

    It is good that you put him and the rest of our little community in our place.

  9. Everett True January 15, 2013 at 1:11 pm

    Scott gets like that sometimes. Best to stand well clear when it happens, I find. Think he might have lost CB more contributors than I have… which is going some, I’d be the first to admit.

  10. Wallace Wylie January 15, 2013 at 2:01 pm

    I have a question for soooooyousee: what makes the Nirvana article postmodern? I wrote the original article and considered it a work of satire. Here’s a definition of satire which I found on the internet:

    “Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement.

    Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon.

    A common feature of satire is strong irony or sarcasm— ‘in satire, irony is militant’ —but parody, burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. This “militant” irony or sarcasm often professes to approve of (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack.”

    Even Everett’s follow up article was meant to play into the idea of the reality of the original satire. Now, here’s a definition of postmodernism that I found online:

    “A general and wide-ranging term which is applied to literature, art, philosophy, architecture, fiction, and cultural and literary criticism, among others. Postmodernism is largely a reaction to the assumed certainty of scientific, or objective, efforts to explain reality. In essence, it stems from a recognition that reality is not simply mirrored in human understanding of it, but rather, is constructed as the mind tries to understand its own particular and personal reality. For this reason, postmodernism is highly skeptical of explanations which claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative truths of each person. In the postmodern understanding, interpretation is everything; reality only comes into being through our interpretations of what the world means to us individually. Postmodernism relies on concrete experience over abstract principles, knowing always that the outcome of one’s own experience will necessarily be fallible and relative, rather than certain and universal.”

    Now, I accept that this definition doesn’t completely describe postmodernism. One of the most accepted definitions of the term is the artistic tendency towards kitsch, irony, and retro fashions which break with modernist ideas of artistic progress, sincerity, and taste.

    Given this, I fail to see what could be postmodern about my Nirvana article other than perhaps the ironic element of satire. Could it be that perhaps you use the term postmodern without any understanding of what the word means? That you imagine that any use of irony or satire immediately indicates postmodernism? Works of literature such as “Gulliver’s Travels”, “Candide”, and even the most seminal and archetypal novel in the Western canon “Don Quixote” all employ devices such as irony, satire, and even metafiction. So I ask again, what was postmodern about my Nirvana article? Now, you can say that the article was weak, or unfunny, and while I may disagree I would have no real issue. But calling it postmodern reeks of a barely understood, go-to, one-size-fits-all insult that helps you dismiss things you don’t like without wondering why.

    What I also find puzzling is your use of the term “consigned to garbage bin of history”. That phrase was made popular by Leon Trotsky when he said of the Mensheviks “You are pitiful, isolated individuals. You are bankrupts. Your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on, into the dustbin of history”. What he meant was history would judge them worthless. Actually less than worthless. History would make them nothing. (It was the inspiration for Orwell’s ‘memory hole’ in “1984″). This idea endorses the concept that the judgement of history is a positive thing. Whatever history blesses with its continuation must be good, whatever it condemns to the dustbin is bad. In other words it endorses the postmodern idea that all truths are relative and that society itself creates the truths that its inhabitants embrace. Marxism’s attack on bourgeois values was the catalyst for postmodernism’s attack on all Western notions of truth. Trotsky, and by extension your own, idea of ‘good’ endorses the same kind of nightmarish totalitarian postmodernism that Orwell described in “1984″. You seem to take sadistic glee in the idea of concepts which you disapprove of going down the memory hole.

    What I’m essentially trying to say is that my Nirvana article displays no elements of postmodernism while you yourself endorse the most oppressive and nihilistic aspects of postmodernism. I suppose we should call that irony. You may also feel that the term postmodernism means whatever you think it should mean, which is also very postmodern. Then again you could be 14 in which case you would be remarkably similar to myself as a 14 year old, though I admit my spelling was of a higher standard. All I would ask is that you ensure that you know what you’re talking about when it comes to the words you use, and don’t assume that anything that has elements of irony must be postmodern. Stay safe out there.

  11. Scott Creney January 15, 2013 at 2:39 pm

    Ah the internet. People can say whatever they want to about your writing, your intelligence, your friends–anything they want, really. And if you respond in kind you’re just a mean person. Martin’s a contributor alright, a contributor of nasty ignorance draped in condescending paternalism. I was in no mood for his bullshit so I responded in kind, more eye-for-an-eye than defending my turf. But you’re welcome to see it however you want, Paul. Thanks for becoming part of the Collapse Board community. I couldn’t feel more fucking honored. As for Martin, considering he despises the writing/music/opinions/vocabulary on this website, the question lingers in the air like a damp Irish fart, why is he here in the first place?

    And if I really wanted to be mean, I would’ve said he looked like a cross between a middle-earth dwelling dwarf and a member of ZZ Top. Because he does. But that would have been cruel, because when Martin insults people he’s somehow ‘contributing to the CB community’, but when I do it I’m just a foul asshole swinging my dick around.

  12. Lucy Cage January 17, 2013 at 3:30 am

    It’s really fucking depressing, actually. This whole thing. Because Martin complains bitterly and inarticulately about there being no decent, original criticism on here when it’s glaringly obvious he hasn’t read anything without his Hate Goggles on.
    Everyone who posts on here LOVES MUSIC (sic). The rants about big names might get by far the most traffic but the passionate promoting of new or obscure or forgotten acts (or even the positive reviews of well-known bands, ferrchristsake) seems not to be what people – even people who come on here to complain at us about our dreadful writing and our lack of respect for Real Music – want to read. What a fucking shame.
    As for all that anti-intellectual bullshit: no, not having it. Pop music is worth taking seriously. There a million places on the internet where you can read boring one-paragraph summaries of who and what is flavour of the month, with no contextualisation, no calls to arms, no righteous fury or delight… but Collapse Board, this is the place for the visceral, the critical, the experimental, the meta-meta, the grumpy, the political, the magnificently over-thoughtful, the blood-n-guts and the life-or-death. I don’t care if it doesn’t always work (that Fuck Bowie piece didn’t particularly resonate with me) but I’d rather write for a site that tries than somewhere steeped only in mundanity.
    Take your pick, then. And please try for coherence next time. This shit matters.

  13. Chester Whelks January 18, 2013 at 9:46 am

    Oh, but soooooyousee, don’t you see?

    You belong now!

    You just got gang-rape hazed by the Contributor Circle Jerk!

    Welcome to the oroborous of the semi-professional contrarian!

    A measure of consideration from these snakes is like hearing applause that turns out to be a waterfall of severed genitals.

    …and about as likely.

  14. Mister Lettuce January 18, 2013 at 2:16 pm

    Wow, this is fun! I wanna join in!

    I didn’t much care for the “Fuck Bowie” article, but I put on my big boy panties and move on. If I were to take offense and go on a tirade on every site that wrote something that I disagreed with, I would most likely have severed my internet connection with a pair of scissors (or maybe have even bitten the wire in half with my teeth). This being a site that has championed many a great artist or band that doesn’t get press in the usual “modern” outlets, I love it. I look beyond the occasional article that disagrees with my tastes, because I understand that if my tastes were shared by everyone, life would be pretty fucking boring (although if life for everyone were boring, would we even know without having anything to compare it to?).

    Anyways, this letter. It is a large block of text with some criticism of the article that it was originally a comment on peppered with complaints of music/musicians (some points good, other points lost in the maelstrom of text), complaints of this site itself, and complaints that people apparently aren’t choosing words with their penises (which I will assume “polysyllabic Feminist New Man speak instead of plain English” means that instead of typing small words with their penis, they are actually using all fingers on the keyboard and are actually using intelligent words). That was a long sentence. Long sentence aside, I have to wonder if the writer of this comment has actually spent any time browsing the more positive articles here, discovering bands in the “song of the day,” or reading about some of the more interesting bands currently making music. Probably not. He is probably spending too much time cleaning his keyboard, considering how he prefers to type.

Leave a Reply