http://archivedmusicpress.wordpress.com/

Most of you will have probably seen this already. Mind, most of you wrote it.

Lovely stuff, thanks for that. This is quite interesting. I never had Reynolds and Stubbs down as fans of Metallica and Womack & Womack.

Fucking hell. David Stubbs with hair.

That's a very dashing shot of Wingco in the '88 critics' choice, isn't it?

I remember that Mr Agreeable that's up now - one of my favourites at the time. The Derek Kent is very good, too, but not as good as some of his interviews with top female celebrities of the day, none of which I can remember right now, bringing this sentence to a rather unsatisfying close.

As yet, none of my articles have gone up there. I suspect that one of two things will happen: 1. he never puts anything by me up there, and I can relax, but feel slightly bad about myself, or 2. he puts up one of the (many) very bad articles for which I was responsible, and I get pitched into another bout of "I was never any good"-ing. I mean, I was quite good. But not always. And sometimes, I was fucking dreadful. One or two reviews in particular still haunt me, and I'm almost prepared to put money on one of them appearing on that site soon. I shan't name them because he clearly checks out who links to his site, and if he reads this I don't want to give him any ideas.

Very odd and seemingly arbitrary choice of stuff he's got there. Several articles by Push (who was a lovely bloke, but without being unkind, I only remembered he existed when I saw his name on that site), some of Chris Roberts' worst stuff, some of those memorable NME articles by Ted Kessler, etc. In fact, pretty much nothing he's got there is remotely "significant" or "important" - no last interviews with Kurt Cobain, no classic slag-offs, no controversy. It's like he's picked them totally at random. I quite like that in a way, but it would be nice to get a bit more meat.

Best thing is that I followed a link, and then another link, and found Neil Kulkarni's interview with Marilyn Manson, which is fantastic, and which I'd never read before (despite - I think - still writing for Melody Maker at the time, albeit halfway out the door). The fact that this got printed in the music press in 1997 is absolutely astonishing.

The main stage at Glastonbury in '89 featured sets from Amabuthu, Mahlatini and the Mahotella Queens, David Rudder, Heathcoate Williams, and (thanks to a typo) an unthinkable hybrid named Pixies The Proclaimers.

That's a site to get lost in.

Even the '91 singles reviews on the front page at the mo took me spiralling back (I could hum you 80% of the tunes mentioned) and has made me reassess the early 90s somewhat.

I'm going back in. I may be some time.

If it's any consolation, I don't think I'm on there as a 'name' writer either. You can see a few of my insignificant downpage reviews when you zoom in on the scans of other people's lead reviews, that's all.

Oh wait, there's a David Bowie live review by me. Not a bad piece of work. Could have been a lot worse.

And I think the Boo Radleys cover story was by me, but he's only scanned the cover, not the story...

You're namechecked in the blogger's text a few times, Simon.

Not having read MM in the 90s, I had never known the stylings of Mr Stubbs before OTF. He had it going on in 1989 already. That bit about De La Soul and their physical shape in Mr Amusing (?) had me laughing out very loudly.

Those James Brown singles reviews are bizarre. And I don't just mean the idiosyncratic punctuation.

There is something on there by Taylor and Everett True about the Cranberries according to the Plan B forum.

http://archivedmusicpress.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/taylor-parkes-interviews-the-boo-radleys-18th-february-1995/

Taylor has made it at last!

So have I!

Not an article I care to be reminded of, really. Bits of it are shockingly bad. Could have been worse, though, which is a chilling thought.

Crazy days, man. Crazy days.

The Horse wrote:

QUOTE:
Those James Brown singles reviews are bizarre. And I don't just mean the idiosyncratic punctuation.

"Bizarre" isn't the word I'd use, to be honest . . .

Ah, you're too modest, Taylor. I still remember that passage about listening to The Beatles in the car (although I'd forgotten it came from a Boo Radleys piece), and it makes a really compelling case for The Beatles, even to a hater like me.

Another remarkable thing about that piece, of course, is how long it is. You just can't imagine any music mag (apart from the glossy dadrock monthlies, who only talk to old duffers anyway) running such an in-depth article about a young/current band, but it was routine for MM in those days.

Taylor, a more comforting thought is that it's hard to imagine how a feature about the Boo Radleys could have been better.