The Afterword

Musings on the byways of popular culture

Menu

Navigation

You are here: Home / Podcast / The Afterword #68: The Navelgazecast

The Afterword #68: The Navelgazecast

by 180 Comments

Twang, Chiz, Carl and Retropath 2 gather in the pod to discuss, in a shameless bit of navel gazing, the Afterword. Topic originator Attack Dog was busy on guard duty at the time so had to sit this one out but his growl was there in spirit. The team discuss their entry to the blog, favourite threads, how to achieve an effective flounce, hate threads and much more. About half way through, reggae fans will appreciate the contribution of guest producer Lee “Scratch” Perry as participants randomly disappear into a Skype provided echo chamber, but the team are not phased by this first known venture into podcast dub, and get to the end in a positive, if cautious, mood about the future of our little corner of the internet.



10

Comments

  1. Very interesting. An unusual cast and quite a lot of contentious issues discussed. I hope you get a lot of listeners. If so, the comments on this thread could be tasty.

    • “Very interesting”? I must have listened to the wrong podcast. What I heard had all the excitement of the reading room at Machynlleth Public Library, with a bunch of old blokes rattling their newspapers and sucking their false teeth.

      • Certainly not The Thrillcast.
        A bit of (probably necessary) eggshell-treading going on there.
        And the only really effective flounce would be one involving fire, flood and ringing alarms as The Flouncer disappears into a raging storm, never to be seen again, except in the nightmares of those left behind.

    • No, Moose, you’re not. Nor are any of the hard-working regular contributors whose enthusiastic(-ish) support has kept the blog going, those weary footsoldiers, those stout yeomen, turning up day after day after day to breathe life into the feeble body of the blog. It’s a farce, frankly. Even I get only grudging recognition for my ground-breaking, wildly popular and responsibly curated threads – “not everyone’s flavour of the month” – FUCK OFF! I am disgust.

  4. A mixed bag…bag…bag.

    I enjoyed hearing the prehistory of the Word blog – and a nice tribute to J.Blast. It reminded me of what a wonderful thing the Word Blog was, and I’m proud that I had a part in keeping it ticking over when so many people (including the lauded Archie Valparaiso and Backwards 7) were very keen to put the boot in and tell us it would not work. Still here 6 years later so…..(expletive deleted) You both.

    I have to say though in spite of Twang wanting to name no names- I think Chiz got a free pass to dig at people he has a personal beef with – it was very obvious who he was having a go at even without naming names. Most of it was in Dubly so hopefully nobody will know..know..know..know..for sure

    I was interested in the lamenting of the lack of female members – without reference to recent events that saw us lose some key female and male members and probably damaged the site more than the various data dumps and crashes. I’m still posting here -but I won’t forget that shit. So the real elephant in the room was not addressed. If the Afterword really wants to grow, move on and attract new members – and particularly female members – then it needs to look deep inside itself and rethink – otherwise Carl’s bleak prognosis may come true.

    • I don’t know what the “recent events” and “real elephant” you mention are, but if they include one single post that was deemed offensive – why wasn’t the post removed and the poster banned? Why didn’t the offended parties come back after the post/poster disappeared? And if it wasn’t (in part or whole) my piece about getting my arse felt that caused the mass emigration of the great and the good, then what was it? I am baffle.

      I gave myself a hiatus because, as I said, I was getting bored. Don’t you think boredom is of greater importance than temporary offence? The Afterword has, like it or not, mostly worn itself out. I say mostly. There will always be those willing to muck in and enjoy the same old threads coming round again, or just the company and the stupid jokes (pretty thin on the ground these days). In its heyday, the blog attracted a wild variety of contributors, from respected rock writers and performers to bonkers hippies and agitprop protestors and skinheads, music business professionals, poets and artists, and smartarses up for a bit of banter (now a no-no, of course). That mix ensured a lively debate on just about anything – the high emotions and flounces are the price you pay for that. The Afterword’s following “has become more selective” and new contributors aren’t arriving because … it’s not very lively any more? There’s a general unvoiced feeling of having done everything the blog can do? And – it doesn’t look that great. None of us do, I know, but this place is minimalism taken one step too far. It has all the visual appeal of a tax return. I understand the reasons, but everything is linked, and if it doesn’t look exciting and eyecatching then its attraction for new members is weakened.

      Anyway, I think it’s time for me to take a holiday again, so if anyone was offended by my contributions, they can now hold hands and skip onto the warm sunlit uplands of the Afterword and start contributing all those pieces they had lined up.

      Thanks for the hampers!

      • That’s an incredibly disingenuous post.

        Why didn’t they come back? I would imagine because they don’t want to hang around people who trivialize things in the way that you and your acolytes did. Accusing people of virtue signalling for standing up and expressing a reasonable opinion was a dick move.

        Your inability to realize how offensive your post was is, well, I understand why people stay away while you’re around.

        • In the interests of balance that thread cause a schism from “the other side” for want of a better term.

          There were people who left because what they saw as correctness, either from a view is that people can post stuff that others don’t like and/or that HPs thread was being misrepresented. Others had a view and didn’t contribute to the debate as they feared they would be tarred and feathered for not supporting the critics.

          It was an unpleasant time and some reckoned they do without unpleasantness.

          The Brexit debate was another incredibly fractious issue, though viewing that one from afar I certainly learned a lot.

          • I am gonna re-post my comment. Not because it is particularly profound but because my appalling failure to review properly rendered the thing almost incomprehensible.

            In the interests of balance that thread cause a schism from “the other side” for want of a better term.

            There were people who left the blog because of what they saw as correctness. Either from a view that people should be able to post stuff that others don’t like and also because some people thought that HPs thread was being misrepresented. Others had a view on the debate and didn’t contribute as they feared they would be tarred and feathered for not supporting the critics. It was seen as an intimidating environment. It was an unpleasant time so some reckoned they do without unpleasantness.

            The Brexit debate was another incredibly fractious issue, though viewing that one from afar I certainly learned a lot.

      • This blog will become a shrine, and punks and skins and rastas will all gather round and hold their hands in sorrow for their fallen leader. And all the grown-ups will say ‘But why are the kids crying?’ And the kids will say, ‘Haven’t you heard? Rick is dead! The People’s Poet is dead!’ And then one particularly sensitive and articulate teenager will say ‘Other kids, do you understand nothing? How can Rick be dead when we still have his poems?

    • That’s an interesting take, Doc. When you say ‘a free pass to dig at people he has a personal beef with’ I guess you’re referring to the reviews/adverts discussion, where I was invited to make the case for the prosecution – the idea being the other three would provide the defence. Which they did; so a perfectly balanced debate really. I did actually name the person most associated with that sort of post because it seems daft not to as everyone knows who he is (he’s the all-time most frequent thread starter here, by a mile), and to avoid being accused of ‘having a go at someone without naming names.’ Can’t win, can I?

      As for the ‘elephant’ – most of the principals in that discussion have left, so I don’t suppose we’ll ever get to the bottom (no pun intended) of why it went the way it did. But if we wanted more female contributors, that would be the place to start.

        • If I am not wrong I think it was me who made the flippant remarks about the disappointingly (SWIDT) now absent poster, in an attempt to revive him, much along the deliberate jibes we would cast each others way whenever the Fernando hitmakers came up. I think they were largely good natured, hindsight in the eye etc etc. (I do regret using the phrase “and his pop group” which did seem, on revisiting, below an acceptable knuckle of personal remark, as they ain’t bad. Certainly better than the Chiquitita hitmakers.)

        • It wasn’t me – I’m a big fan of Abba, that ex-poster, and his pop group. I really miss his contributions here and he seems to have disappeared off social media (or perhaps just blocked me). Is anyone in contact?

  5. Well, FWIW, it was a lot more difficult than the enjoyable days out at Machynlleth Public Library, mainly because we name all the elephants and laugh at their paw prints in the safety of that haven. Here had been a decision deliberately not to name names or specifics, as that tends to only excite or inflame those getting a mention, annoying and upsetting those that don’t, a bit like the last chapter of Mark Ellen’s book. In retrospect that denture free experience maybe palled. But you should hear the out takes, and see the rushes of the documentary this will prove part of, a 12-17 part series currently being crowdfunded.

    • We collectively felt it was better not to name names as it would be overly sucky if complementary or having a pop if not, though there are a few names I could raise in either direction. It is what it is, a few blokes having a ramble.

  6. Flouncing aside (the almost perfect demonstration) one of the difficulties for the Afterword is that there is no “hook” for people to find the site, as there is with many others.

    The Word links were obvious but even if you compare the AW with something like the Steve Hoffman site (just as crushingly minimalist, by the way, as are almost all “forum” sites) it at least has his name to catch people in. The AW exists purely by its own energy and if that inevitably wanes from time to time there is always a danger that the membership will spiral downwards with nothing to bring in new blood.

    Eventually demise? Certainly not inevitable but with no imperative (financial or ego based) or avenues to get new voices it will stand or fall on people’s interest in it alone.

    I’m not sure that’s a problem that can be solved, or even needs solving. No-one is “driving” the AW, no one has any vested interest in it getting bigger and that is both part of its charm but also part of the problem (if you accept that a problem exists).

    Personally, I just take it for what it is and enjoy it, hoping that it continues.

    • Indeed. As so often, I find myself reading this thread wondering where all the ill-feeling I’m reading has suddenly sprung from. I like it here. I contribute occasionally (the equivalent of getting a round in, I sometimes think) and read more.

      • To be fair I think the site still has legs, and, for this time of year, the dog day afternoons of late summer, seems to produce posts a plenty. Sure, maybe not in such volumes of response as rose-tinted suggest, but new names still appear, some of whom stay, old names reappear. This seems the first thread this year to have provoked the end is nigh for a while, which normally appears regularly and routinely at this time of year. Twang also makes fair comment about the amount of lurking in the bushes. Their opinions on the site would be invaluable. It would also be good if some of the AWs entrenched on AWoFB popped back more often rather than ploughed that schism: many of the folk who scared them away first time around have moved along to the underside of other bridges.

  7. I enjoyed it.
    In these late summer days, traditionally the naval gazing, “Oh it’s all over” / “Not as good as it used to be” threads are the ones that garner the most responses. So this podcast is upkeeping that tradition.
    Something happens around late September where a subject or event causes a new interest.

    Done a couple of these pod things previously, and glad they’re still going.
    Subject matter and time suitable, I’d happily contribute and bore you all to tears.

  8. I’m afraid I remain blissfully ignorant of what appears to have gone on. Still really enjoy this site and contribute when I feel I want to and don’t bother too much with threads if they don’t really interest me.

    I’m clearly lukewarm or some sort of moose (No, not that one)

    • I’m sure you’re being facetious but one if the great things about the original Word Blog was the acceptance of an 80’s School Disco thread. Great fun and a bit of light relief. I’ve had a break as I ran out of things to say. It’s great to see this place still rumbling on, it’s funny that there are still these introspective threads and sad to see like the rest of the Internet some would rather stick a spanner in the works than dance round the room to some Abba, Wham or Human League in yellow dungarees. Edit: That last comment wasn’t aimed at you Bang em in

  10. The Stones only thought they’d last a couple of years and fifty years later…

    I don’t mind doing reruns of old threads (there’s a good joke in there about patches and expanding waistlines but I’m not good to enough to do it) – in an idle moment recently I posted my top ten Macca post-Beatles faves and there were plenty of takers and no complaints.

    Enjoyed the podcast btw well done chaps

  11. Graveyards are full of indispensable people. There are times in life – in personal relationships – when you can “show” someone by leaving or threatening to leave. In real relationships, this is immature and manipulative. It’s an indication that things are already in a bad way.

    In a workplace situation, such a threat actually has some heft and can be a reasonable move to make if you really are as indispensable as all that. When you quit a job, leaving workmates in the lurch, after about 8 weeks I’d say, the workplace has recovered, got used to you not being there and you are now in The Past.

    So I am a bit sad when cyber-pals leave, (or threaten to leave) – but it’s like not going to a local pub anymore. The staff and some of the regulars might wonder where you are but that’s about it. They’re not going to burst into tears. I would say that this would be the mood in the lounge of the Aspidistra and Hatstand when a flounce or pre-flounce is announced.

    In the “personal” and “work” situations above, the tactic may have some effect but in all likelihood won’t make things better. So if you are in a flouncy state of mind, I would ask what it is you were expecting from the Afterword? Sydney Opera House perhaps? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically across the plain…?

  12. Well just listened to the podcast and as the MP3 tags notes – self referential indeed. But like watching a slide show, for those who went on the trip I enjoyed it.

    Surprised Squirrelgate and Night of Shame with a Fray Bentos Pie didn’t crack a mention.

    BTW I think that was my post regarding my seeing my son again after 4 years of estrangement. I recall vividly 129 comments of support on the Word blog. It warmed my heart then and the comments of empathy on this podcast are equally appreciated. By coincidence, it is Father’s Day down here and I just got a call from my son while listening to the podcast.

    Well done Twang et al.

  13. I still find it fascinating that people who feel it is important to be able to post whatever they think is clever/funny/justified then complain about people who write that they don’t like it.

  14. Well, I enjoyed that, notwithstanding the technical gremlins. Thanks chaps. And thanks to Twang for reviving the podcasts.

    It was a reminder of the many very good things about this place – the countless records I’ve enjoyed based on recommendations here; the often excellent writing and even better jokes; the range of well argued political views; the mostly generous spirit of the place. And, of course, of the less good moments. That Thread, earlier this year, was a low point, and we lost some very good people as a result, including, understandably, some women. I really hope some of them come back – their voices are missed.

    I think the site is holding up well despite that, but i have the feeling that above all it would be great to see some new voices here, and greater diversity – of gender, age, and musical taste. I have no idea how that can be done, but others more skilled in things digital may do. Even if we have to pay a bit, if we can afford it, to get ourselves popping up on peoples searches, it’s worth consideration.

  15. I like The Disappointment Choir. So there!

    I’ve enjoyed hundreds of records and podcasts based on recommendations and reviews on here.

    Nice to have the podcasts back, Twang. Please pass my regards onto Dave DFB if you see him.

  16. I disagree with HP’s comment upthread about the AW having ‘all the visual appeal of a tax return’. I think it looks very professionally designed, and is actually quite inviting. Its functionality is also as a result of pretty much everything we said we wanted, so it looks good and works fine for me.

    Of course, that could be because I am a boring old fart with all the visual appeal of a tax return, a view which Mrs Bungliemutt may very well endorse.

    • Basically pointless – that’s a very good if rather bleak summary. Some opinions are built on experience and research, and carefully articulated. Some are worn like hats – how do I look in this opinion? Will my friends love me for it? Unfortunately the internet gives both these kinds equal value, and the volume of hats being worn to impress drowns out the voices trying only to inform.

  18. I haven’t listened to the podcast yet but will do so.
    I still enjoy coming on here and frankly am glad that Saucecraft has once again flounced not because I am offended by him but because he has always been divisive and was prone to personal insults if someone took him to task.
    There will always be periods of quieter activity but that does t mean the site is yet on its last legs.

  20. I gave it a quick skim, first time ever. Perfectly amiable, but in answer to ‘new blood’ and more female contributors, let’s be honest. Firstly, this site is so staunchly entrenched in the guardianista Islington bien pensant liberal mindset that it’s bound to be off putting to those, like myself (pretty much a tired/can’t really be arsed arguing the toss as it’s pointless/ lone voice in the echo chamber) who don’t subscribe to this view, and secondly, women don’t generally tend to discuss the intricacies of progressive rock remixes.

    ps: It needed more Elves.

      • Don’t be tempted. It’s full of people carrier rhino bar yummie Danon brained minimum wage immigrant nanny late quaffing common sense intolerant chatterers, and beards. Lots of beards, and muggings in the other bit that isn’t posh.

        • Watch it! My Mum’s side of the family come from Islington (and Scotland) and she would deal with you with one arm behind her back and she’s 87 and has dementia and is in a home. She’s still slightly terrifying (and fantastic).

          • I’m sure your mum is fantastic, and I can deduce that merely by the fact that she named you ip33 rather than, say, Carlton, or Ben. There’s a deluge of Bens these days, boisterously expressing themselves in the nation’s supermarket aisles, bless them.

            (Did I mention that I recently established that my ancestral roots are Irish, Anglo Saxon, Norman, Breton, and a dash of Scottish and Welsh – the mere fact that two of my ancestors may have faced each other that fateful day in 1066 is rather mind blowing and far out, made more probable by one of them most likely being a Saxon noble. You got the call, you did your dharmic duty, like Arjuna, although he got The Fear so Krishna had to straighten his head out. Anyway, one can also deduce that a previous antecedent of his may well have stood with Alfred (let’s not mix up our Alfreds and Arthurs – you know who you are) against Guthrum! Fair get one’s juices flowing dude.

            • I won’t be doing that again. Not since the restraining order. It’s an easy mistake to make. They both begin with ‘A’, have a thr sound and two syllables, long hair, wode clothing, tight buttocks and a crown. In the dark, who can tell them apart?

    • Really? And there I was thinking that most people here whenever we have a political thread tend to be of the Clarkson tendency. It’s like bias in the BBC – the left are convinced everyone there is part of a right wind Brexit supporting conspiracy and everyone on the right thinks they’re all a bunch of pinko Islington lefties. I’d say both voices are pretty well represented here.

      • Perhaps I should have gone to an optometrist, but that’s exactly what a massive politically correctist would say. The bollocks on this site are most definitely trouser biased.

        • Trouser biased? Are you talking about over-supply of lefties or lack of women? Pretty sure you’ve put your finger on why the ladies, gawd bless ’em, are a bit thin on the ground. If my in-depth straw poll (sample of 1) is any guide, women look upon the AW with fond benevolence (tempered with occasional Are you ever coming to bed asperity), but have absolutely no desire to get involved.

          As for the political make-up, it’s pretty much self-defining, isn’t it? If it’s a hotbed of lefties (which I rather doubt, most of us flounder around somewhere in the middle), it’s just happened that way. Occasionally someone of another political stripe complains, but what are we supposed to do? (And I have absolutely no idea what your political stripe is, by the way, but the only people who have ever used bien-pensant in a non-satirical way are you and ianess.)

          Oh god: were you actually being satirical all along? This is too hard. Must go and stir my dal. (True.)

  21. No. Were there any in particular? This place is cyclical. Everything is. Yin Yang. Ebb and flow. Who ate my cornichons? Buggered if I know.

    (I miss Ian S. I had some brief contact with him, but we lost touch. If anyone knows him please say hello from me).

  24. I pop in here very occasionally these days. I suppose I just get a bit weary of the in-jokes and- whatever the subject- the endless reduction of everything to tedious, smart arse and unfunny one liner gags.

  25. Sorry, this podcast is on the back burner, along with Fatima’s Bley posting, just haven’t got around to them yet. And so what, do we all need to scurry in our little corner of the internet? People come and go, some hardly replaceable*, sure, and more women would be great: sounds like real life to me. I’m one of the Massive damned glad this place continues to hold its own. Doesn’t need to be spectacular.

    With all this scurrying going on, managed to miss the Mini flaunt narrative. Seriously, folks, someone needs to remind her she’s an institution round here and we want her back!

    That’s all, hate frigging meta threads..

    * However, see next paragraph for logical fallacy

  26. Hi folks, I’m glad to see many things on the old AW have changed not a jot since I was last here.
    If a thread about navel gazing can get 2500 views, I’d say there’s nowt wrong with the site that a bit more Steely Dan wouldn’t fix.

  28. Have ‘we’ ever done a Jonicast? I’d be very keen to be involved if we could get that together, especially with some gender diversity amongst the participants

  29. This gender issue. I run a Bowie podcast, in which I invite various people to come and pick a DB album of their choice and have a natter about it. My inbox is full of chaps of a certain age, literally queuing up, but only one female guest has taken the plunge thus far (Charlotte Hatherley). I have tried many many many times to get a diversity of guests from across the board, I’ve invited loads of women on to speak, but no one’s particularly keen. It is frustrating. And then, this being 2018, I get snarky private messages from people, bemoaning the stale pale maleness of the podcast.

    • Like others hereabouts, I keep my other half abreast of assorted discussions on AW. She knows more about (certain forms of) music, art, literature and media than I will ever grasp and god knows she can talk shite for Britain and yet (strangely?!) she has no interest whatsoever in participating on a forum like this. It is what it is. It appeals to the people it appeals to (to whom it appeals). We shouldn’t self-lacerate about this stuff. Some people have got better or at least other things to do, different priorities and different ways of connecting with their fellow beings.

      • There’s the rub – to encourage a broader readership the AW would have to change, and then would it still be the AW? It wouldn’t just be the occasional reference to enjoying having your bum felt – they are rarer than some make out, I think – but also some of the behaviour that puts off people of other genders, ages and ethnicities. Reviewing, rating, collating and listing the music of the 60’s and 70’s is probably more appealing to a certain type of men of a certain age than anyone else. But take that away and what’s left?

        • But wouldn’t actively promoting the site with new content and a higher profile involve making it into a commercial enterprise of some kind, as it would need to support editorial staff. Some sites like The Quietus seem to depend on their staff for content, and even Mumsnet, which has a lot of user-generated content, also has paid staff as far as I know. And I think anyone producing the business plan for all of this would, rightly, expect to see some of return on their efforts. I don’t think anybody would take all of that on for nothing.

    • Two thoughts on that podcast situation (and internet forums):
      1. Lots of men will only have to read two articles on any subject and immediately feel perfectly confident that they are now able to discuss and debate it at length with any expert on that subject, while lots of women will have extensive first-hand knowledge about that subject and still feel “oh no, I’m no expert, find someone else to speak about it”…
      Part of the reason of that may have to do with:
      2. Plenty of men out there (not here, thankfully) enjoy finding fault (or inventing it) with anything women say or write, and leave highly unpleasant comments, and plenty of them. It’s a tactic that clearly works, as most women (unless forced by their occupation) will avoid making their voices heard apart from in “safe spaces” on social media. And if it isn’t threats, it’s often slippery unwanted offers of sex (which can feel threatening as well, depending on the circumstance).
      Not all women have bad experiences online, but just hearing horrible tales from friends who has, or reading about what kind of messages that female journalists etc get in their inbox daily, can put lots of women off from drawing any sort of risky online attention to themselves (the same way most women IRL think very carefully about what they wear and which way they choose when walking home late at night etc).

      Of course, you can always adopt a username that doesn’t immediately identify you as a woman! 😉 (But on a podcast, probably not…)

      • Yes @Locust I think what you say is true. I read a lot about all this stuff, talk about it with my wife and daughters, follow the #metoo stories. I think we’re a pretty benign lot of 50-60+ year old blokes here (see The Afterword Survey thread) but I speak as one of those chaps and I can’t speak for everyone else. I for one welcome the contributions of women here – you and the other half dozen who have the wit and humour and thick skin and, actually first on the list, interest in music to stick around

      • What some female colleagues have told me about online “interactions” – even in places like LinkedIn ffs – has left me aghast. Safe spaces are commonly mocked; more than once on here. I thought your post was very insightful (if that’s a word ….)

Leave a Reply