Naked Maja - C/D? (Market Research)

See you there, brah.

Erm, something like the 1985 list would do better in book form for the likes of me (that's prolly most people) who somehow CAN waste their days here, but can't do heavy sustained reading. This is about blog-reading habits, and I've personally lost the stamina, since I got a proper job.

Also: was Live Aid really conservative: or, is it conservative to do these things without government support? I would have thought not: I mean, the international brigades in Spain weren't exactly 'conservative,' yeah?

Quibbles. In conclusion, I'd hit it and quit it (ie do it for money).

Also, march onto King's Reach Tower with Lester, and overthrow the Allan "Americana" Jones and obvious 60s/70s rock canon regime.

ha ha.

errr. i don't read blogs. or much music press. if any. if its fun. do it. it has nothing to do with 'being a serious music writer (whatever can that mean) (dredges up images of academia rock'n'roll 101).

and 'serious writers' keep blogs! in fact i'm having that done up as a t-shirt slogan.

It's not really about Naked Maja, this question, though - it's about the blogosphere. I think it's far less competitive than you seem to imply, and it's not like it's something you have to engage with either. Everybody's trying to write the blog they want to read, but for most of us that isn't ALL we want to read. In a lot of ways your stuff is more like Glenn MacDonald's than any other web writer I can think of - and his standalone, link-free format still gets a lot of loyal readers.

X
X
Xpost

Strengths.
1) I admire the seriousness of intent. I certainly don’t agree with people who say ‘wah, it’s only a blog, they’re allowed to be stupid, lazy and badly written.’ Sure, they’re allowed to be, but don’t expect anyone to read it if it is. You realised the blog can be a vehicle for serious writing. I don’t have any time whatsoever for people who say it shouldn’t be.
2) You really can write. You use language in a very precise, careful, respectful way and I admire that. (analogies excepted)
3) You have a fine ear and an ability to translate what you hear into words. I genuinely do think the Marvin Gaye piece was a tour de force. There you really lived up to your own press. Close listening, confident, precise (not pedantic) writing.
4) The way you admit your personality, your emotions, personal history etc into the writing. There’s a good balance struck between objectivity and subjectivity. I have no respect for writers who perpetually hide behind style, who lack the courage of their convictions, who attempt to erase all elements of the human from their work.
5) Your feel for structure. It’s not easy getting such long essays to hang together and it’s to your credit that they flow as well as they do and remain as tightly focussed as they do, deathly boring or not. You clearly have impressive powers of concentration and a rigorous intellect.
6) Research and getting the facts right. It’s indicative of a respect for the subject.

I say keep on blogging just cos i like reading it.

You seem to like to exhaust a record, to explore it so thoroughly that your word has to be the final word. It's hard to imagine the Naked Maja returning to a subject. There's something exhilarating about that sometimes because it's always interesting to see someone tussle with a topic so intensely, but I also wonder if there's too much self-imposed pressure to be Definitive. Speaking entirely personally I prefer to read criticism that drops hints about how to listen/what to listen for, that suggests thoughts rather than completes them.

So, unabashedly CLASSIC, in my humble opinion. :)
I'd be happy if it did continue, even on just an occasional basis... like Tom E. I admit I do especially like the lists, as they have a real surveying sweep about them, and shed light on stuff I just wouldn't get to read about otherwise, in music writing. A 1969 piece sounds tantalising; a year close to as great and distinct as 1982, I sense...
Of course, it's all up to the writer as to whether he wants to continue; I think it's clear from these answers that there is a willing and appreciative audience. I don't necessarily think that the blog format becomes entirely devalued once one gets a foothold in print, as MC deservedly is getting.

Something has happened to me in recent weeks - something pretty terrible - which has unduly influenced my state of mind. I don't feel the need to burden ILx with this particular problem, but if anyone wants to email me I'll talk about it with them in confidence.

it'd be easy for me to completely write you off, and there are lots of things about your writing that i don't like (the longwindedness, the reviewing an album track by track in order exhaustively). but there are times where you do get it right, make me think about a record in a way i'd never thought about before. i don't think you'll ever be a writer i really like, but there is potential there.

i'd like to see you write more about jazz/improv etc and less about "modern music", for what it's worth.

You have my best wishes, as always.

i sometimes go along with the "I'd read anything by my favourite writers, even if they wrote about furniture" line, but the truth is i don't really like reading about music that doesn't matter to me (life is too short and all), and I love reading people like Reynolds, Finney, Ewing, Harvell etc because they write about stuff that interests me AND they write well.

like Church Of Me, i read Naked Maja only occassionally coz Marcello your music interest and mine differ greatly. i have nil interest in jazz, for starters. still, when the twain meet i enjoy reading - the 03 rundown was a blast, and last year's entry on Joe Meek not only made me get "The Alchemist Of Pop" (thx!) but gave me precious insight into the man's life and work and his surrounding context. still haven't found the time to check out the 85 piece, but i will.

basically - keep blogging. even when you sometimes veer off into the grumpy old fart teritorry, you're more read-worthy than most of the grumpy old farts around.

ciao da francesco

i would pay serious money to have troubled diva in book form!

"Telstar" seemed to me the logical conclusion to "1962" - thereafter it all looks as if 1963 started four months early, though I do intend to flesh out the later entries in more detail at some stage.

His 'new' one is like a bad Talking Heads album. I think he should be exclude. It's too 'obvious'.

i'm struggling to hear the greatness of 'calling out of context' too...

that's great news!! it's a bit early but please let us know in the future on NM when the CoM book it's nearly to be printed.

about Arthur Russell: boys are you kidding? bad talking heads? for what i have listened until now Russell is there with Sun Ra, Aphex, Fela, Ash Ra Tempel, Moroder, Abba, Barret and a few others in the godlike section...

ciao da francesco