Way back in Winter 1998 Mark Sinker, writer for The Wire, fell victim to a cruel Ben Watson prank...those Cambridge boys, I give up. Writers for The Wire are renowned for being a sadistic bunch when it comes down to music appreciation to such an extent that for a laugh they often swap little tape compilations (with the artist/title information sealed in an envelope) and then attempt to guess who the artist might be. They call this "The Invisible Jukebox"... On this particular occasion, Watson presented Sinker with a tape containing the whole of Evil Dick's Coprophagism inserted in between tracks by other artists. Watson, then, went one step further and actually attributed the Evil Dick tracks to other artists, so that when Sinker peeled open the envelope to see who he'd been listening to, he wouldn't feel duped. That's why, when you read the extract below, the tracks from Coprophagism are reported to be by other artists. Sinker listened to the tape twice before he opened the envelope: once for initial, on-the-spot responses (scribbled notes then written up and - 'cos he's a big fraud - occasionally tidied up), second time (signalled thus) for commentary on his previous comments (and for subjective value judgements, where any arrive). Egg-on-Face-Factor (EOF)(signalled thus): Sinker's self awarded points. Zero means Sinker's a slathering pinhead, ten means Sinker really knows his music, fucko: and in-between numbers factor in all kinds of suspect special pleading of his own device. EOF sections are written with every possible hindsight slipped in. Evil Dick titles in Pink
Richard Hemmings, 1998
No one heard rhythm in this inside-out way before rap started using drum-machines. Not 'live' the way the last piece was (here Sinker is referring to Ornette Coleman: We Now Interrupt for a Commercial): the whole is achieved (in part) by tape laying, certain 'parts' (thinking polyphonically) by computerised pulseshifts effected not by pre-programming but in realtime (I'm less sure of realtime/non-realtime judgement second time round, actually). Guitar (or guitar-synth) has good timbral-morph voicings (unfurling upper partials etc.) But the whole is a bit papery and thin (which I associate with the Synclavier, which often sacrifices 'body' for range and ease of manipulation). It's way early in this Blindfold to be assuming OTL is inserting him, but Zappa does spring to mind. Though against this, the guitar seems to me way too textural, too gauzy-fuzzy, too feedback-y (to be crass about it, more rock guitar than jazz guitar; I hear Zappa as a jazz guitarist, all lines and no mass).
EOF: 6. Plus one for hearing guitarplay as of more than colorific significance
More great drum-machines, with added sense of time-stretching and scrambling. I think this is 'part' of the previous piece (my own scribbled note totally confused me here on successive listens: as this cut kind of comes in two parts. I began merrily incorporating everything backwards AND forwards.) "Don't you know I don't love you enema..." For some reason, this line and the general non-harmolodic xenchony (as in digital Nancarrow) makes me think Zappa, still. (This 'part' goes on a bit).
EOF: 5. See parenthesis above. Quaint that I secretly believe in some massive multipart modernist Zappa meisterwerk, which I haven't yet heard, that somehow justifies all. This extrapolation derives, I guess, from actual knowledge of Chrome-Plated Megaphone, Jazz From Hell, and too much close reading of NegDiPoo. Still, I do think all these 'sections' are very alike in spirit. Well dun: that's why you put them together, no? [Originally I typed "expratpotation" here]
Ok, this is either an elaborate multipart Watson segue designed to confuse me, or else a long piece in several movements. (Actually, BW's mixed competence at segues adds to the feeling that some of the 'gaps between tracks' here were present on the original recording: but this 'track' was bitten off in Crowndale Court...). 'Synclavier' again, a post-Boulez structure and sonority, but a post-Hendrix sense of sound-morph possibility (by which I mean, it might have been achieved on a synth here, but only an electric guitarist used to feedback play would 'hear' it, and know to try for it). You know, I think this part 4 of the same Zappa piece (Yellow Shark? Civilization Phase III?). Not quite so sure second time round that this belongs to 'above' tracks.
EOF: 4. Help!! Incidentally, though I can 'hear' Koln in it now, I think this is a fairly astonishing composition for 1962 rhythm wise - not to mention Hendrix soundmorph-wise.
This is either part 5 or part 2 (!) Reasons it might be Zappa, 1-2-3: the horrible singing (rhythmically, in and out of spoken aside, and collage of varispeeds). Reasons it isn't: lyric content a bit existential-moany. Actually - a sudden late thought -4a and 4b could be The Residents: who I'm none too fond of because I think they [MS never finished this sentence].
EOF: 7. The facts entirely justify my repulsion. Also I'm back in sync with which track ends where.
A stylophone pretending to be a theremin. Who improvises in real-time on synthesiser rhythm-generators this way (George Lewis? Only if he's evolved a LOT since I last saw him perform). The structural sensibility makes me think Stock Hausen and Walkman. Or Richard whatsname's group (that I did sleevenotes for): not Richard Barrett, but Richard who used to review for Wire (ie Richard Scott and The Magnificance of Stereo.) Or Alterations (but BW wouldn't give them houseroom). Or Furt, since Barrett's name's come up: but actually I'm reserving them for later guesses. The play with synth rhythm-generation in real time, here (shifting into helicopter-as-landscape, and back to theremin-stylophone blah), seems to me too 'sophisticated and professional' for any of the above, somehow: but I'm not entirely sure what I mean by that. Going way out on a limb: I'd be astonished if this wasn't British. Textural contrast of 'close' and 'far' squigglenoise is kind of fabulous.
EOF:4. Heiner Goebbels isn't a bit British. I'm even more embarrassed given how dismissive I've been (in my head) of C.Cutler's contributions over the years. His book is a covert inspiration of Elec Storm, incidentally: when I first read it, I was so exasperated by how a smart idea (which I now know to call 'instrumentalist materialism') was dismayingly muddied up by A) student lefist moralising and B) shameless pimpery on behalf of talentless dope-smoking RIO Eurobuddies.
Billy Bragg channels Gary Numan. The texture (which is rangy and inventive, esp. the jump into Schoenburg-y string passages) is out of sync with the form (which is lumpish and undemanding). (I'm warming to it more second time round: reminds me of Wire, if less consciously diffident). This kind of a vaguely fake wideboy Cockney-Reject accent feels like it ought to date it very precisely, to the moment after singing in your own regional accent was a big, daring, punky deal, and before it had become lull-the-lefty-student shtik (or thoughtless habit) [ie 1979-1982]. But the non-vocal music is from way later: so probably the accent isn't fake at all. Yes: I really like it.
EOF: 6. I'm not embarrassed by this guess, or my judgement. Inventive = Durrant's contribution; fake/non-fake cockney = Mark Perry's influence. And it DOESN'T really quite marry form and content.
I always find myself thinking of this kind of post-Webern shape (with vibes: some of which contain little fans to sustain the notes) as 'Calder-mobile music': everything delicately suspended. The electronic sounds make me think IRCAM, but it ain't Boulez - nor is it Koln or the RCA synth. It's certainly mid-70's or later: who's that French guy who just died Gerald something? I really like this too.
EOF: 3. Touche. So why exactly 'ain't' it Boulez, then, Mark? Well, I THOUGHT not because of the 'electronic' textures, which Boulez has never been quite bold enough to cut off into. Except it's music for a piano and marimba: and no 'electronics' in earshot! (side from poor miking, and/or some filter treatments?)
As close to New Age minimalism as BW will ever waste time putting on a blindfold tape, give or take the radio bleeps. Boring actually: if Ben like this, I'm fairly surprised. (One of the maddening things about responses to my blind fold is how everyone assumes it's a tape of my favourite music ever, rather than a sequence devised to produce significant but unspecific reactions). The safeness of the 'minimalist' harmony does set the radiobleep bits up to sound stronger: but the tune is very Recommended Records, or further down.
EOF: 5. Makes no sense without the visuals. Minimalism is good for soundtracks by virtue of its self-conscious backwardness, perhaps.
Squirty little noises from the Popular Mechanics end of the 'small instruments' movement (you know, 'small instruments', as in Art Ensemble of Chicago). People I'm put in mind of, despite knowing they're not involved, are Peter Cusack and Richard Teitelbaum. After good collage (including crackle) some extremely tiresome Zappa-style 'singing' ensues (perhaps Anglos putting on an American accent -would any American say "shit music"? -but I won't stake my life on it). I think Furt would be a good guess round about now. The response this music most inclines me to resort to is description, FMP-sleevenote style. I'll leave reasoning why to second pass. Nothing to add, second time round, actually.
EOF: 1. Furt!!! Oops. Good thing I didn't stake my life on anything, I guess.
Obvious the moment the 'piano' sounds get out of sync: Conlon Nancarrow. No idea of the title: one of the more music-boxy pieces (as opposed to the Knees-up Round the Joanna at the Crazed Elder Gods' Nursing Home type pieces). I often wonder about all the piano-rolls Nancarrow threw away: did he get faster or better at being Nancarrow-ish purely in holepunch mode, or did he have to try everything out before he knew it was another triumph for 'his' muse? Great (and proof that 'Reichian' systems composition needn't produce boring music, providing no boring humans are involved...)
EOF: 3. I'm a bit disappointed, though. It's such a very Nancarrow CONCEPT. What's a youngster like Hemmings doing recycling such ancient ideas?
Live. No idea, and don't much care. The riff wears out its welcome very soon (because it's a boring riff, not because riffs are boring). The leap from unison to wonky and back has a very jobsworth aura to it: "Hey, we're only human - we're doing the best we can." If they can't be bothered, why should we be? I was obviously playing it far too quietly the first time: the assault on the speakers makes up some for the secondhandness of much of the material, and of the ABABABABA device - but not really enough, in the end.
EOF: 7. I can't work up much enthusiasm for the Wonder, now that I'm some the wiser. Fraid I thought the Zappa was more tape segue blunders! I should place greater trust in your slyness!
Same problem: a creaky shift between prettiness and wackiness suggests a highly categorical cast of mind (like kids on a school bus all jumping to one side of it at the same time, then the other, to bug the driver). Boring rhythm, and the kind of non-tune that makes me think of recommended Records. Made by people who're so certain that pop music's industrially produced allure is easy (because just look at the cretins who make a living from it) that anything they spend ten minutes bashing out can function as a magnificently subversive parody of pop. Negation as soft option, basically pick an in crowd who agree with your dislike, and devote your career pandering to them. The squeaks and bleeps entirely lack thoughtful input. Actually, there is a nice orchestral-romantic build throughout the whole, but on it's own it's nothing Yes don't do just as well.
EOF: Bit sad about this. I'd hoped for more from Egg. (Henry Cow's first LP has a track 'Nirvana for Mice': and Cow especially are guilty of the "prettiness is pretty easy" delusion...)
Comments by Mark Sinker, 1998
Later, in an e-mail Sinker sent to Evil Dick he commented "I liked many of your pieces more when I still thought they all belonged to one massive meisterwerk. And obviously the 'categorical/bus' crack hardly applies, once everything else is factored in. It was relevant if that piece had been representative of the whole of some unknown artist's work. (There's a really interesting essay by Dahlhaus, on what constitutes a 'work'. Obviously he's talking papermusic, but it's even more pertinent to record-makers).