Metamatic Forums John Foxx John Foxx Mojo February 2007 issue

I agree with you about that.

It really annoys me when, taking our local paper as an example, the WORDS in the review suggest an album is "class" or "fantastic" etc and other superlatives, and the RATING is something like 3 stars.
The same reviewer a week later will describe something as "complete rubbish" that "makes no sense" and give this 3 out of 5 as well!!
As a rating it perhaps is a bit of a cop out sometimes...

I've noticed that, too. Back in '99, I recall reading a Bowie review laced with superlatives like "fabulous" that culminated in a three-star review. Since when is three out of five a "good" score, anyway? Where I'm from, 60% is a D-minus.

Earlier, someone mentioned that genre-specific publications often put more thought and intelligent commentary into their reviews. Sadly, from my experience, this is seldom the case. Barcode E-zine, which has published several high-profile articles on Foxx, Numan, and other noteworthy new wave/post-punk pioneers, has churned out some of the vaguest, most poorly written reviews I've ever read. They rarely give Foxx anything above a 7.0/10.0, which would be fine if they'd bother to justify their ratings. Instead, they describe the music rather lazily, make a few hasty comparisons and generalizations, and dismiss Foxx as a "blip on the radar." If I were John, I'd take offense to that. He's a nicer guy than I am, though.

The problem with Foxx album reviews in the monthly music press is that half the review is ALWAYS taken up with telling the poor ignorant reader who John is. The one in this month's Mojo is no exception - ex-Ultravox....solo success in 1980s.....disappeared.....returned in mid 1990s, and only then do you get the actual review, crammed into a couple of sentences that normally feature the words "retro" and "dated".
The irony is that a couple of pages further on the magazine will devote a double spread to some tedious old fart like Dylan or Springsteen (and who could be more "retro" or "dated?) and perhaps tell us how daringly original someone like Radiohead or Muse are for sticking a few synth sounds on top of their generic indie rock.

The best magazine review I ever saw of one of John's albums was of Metamatic in the now-defunct teen mag Smash Hits.....

Good points.

Reviews seldom focus on wit, creativity, and innovation. John Foxx is awesome, but he's not fashionable and trendy enough to appeal to the so-called "zine" musos. I'd like to say their opinion is irrelevant, but I do feel that by damning him as "retro" and "dated," they turn prospective listeners away and limit the scope of his audience.

I really like 'Movies' - especially Tracks 3 and 4.

For anyone interested, there's an interview with Czukay here:

http://www.krautrock.com/articles/int_czukay.html

in which he reflects on the importance of Can.

Wow! Thanks for that Birdsong. I haven't read that interview before. Holger is such an intelligent, quirky, interesting eccentric gent. Fascinating to watch, fascinating to listen to & fascinating to read. Inspirational!

Just dug this one out.

If anyone hasn't read John's review of Holger Czukay's Movies, there is a full transcript of it here at More Dark Than Shark (Eno website)

http://www.moredarkthanshark.org/eno_int_mojo-feb07.html

Thanks Martin, completely missed this one.

Thanks Martin. A discovered treasure !

Chris

You mean ME, of course Chris? Not the article... :p