Noisey interview.

[pitilesscensor]

https://noisey.vice.com/en_us/article/g ... -the-world

[MausterofDisguise]

Thanks, dude!

[pitilesscensor]

Thanks, dude!

No problem. Good read heh?

[MausterofDisguise]

.

[possiblegrenade]

I prefer the video interviews... sometimes JM interviews are hard to read. I can't picture the manner in which he's speaking and emphasizing certain things. For some of these answers I'm not sure if it's due to editing, but I can't quite follow his train of thinking.

[Gibby]

It's a good read and yes I agree I prefer the video interviews. But in one week the ugly discourse has descended upon both John and Ariel. So this interview left me feeling strangely depressed. Like, half the runtime is given to justifying a brief collaboration with someone who turned out to be a prick. It could easily be read as John being a victim of his own trusting nature. But here his words, which are usually interestingly digressive and dense, don't seem sufficient. Probably because no words are sufficient when this contemporary malaise occurs.

Reading the tea leaves further, in a more cynical and depressed way - there is almost no doubt that if the hitpiece being written on Ariel finds its mark (the one on Anthony Fantano was easily unpicked, but Fantano is a natural combatant, whereas Ariel seems like he'd rather just be left alone) John will be asked to justify his ongoing friendship with Ariel. I'm not even an especially huge Ariel fan as it goes, and if he has been doing inappropriate things then he should probably be met with some opposition.

But you can sort of see how the future hitpiece against Maus goes - he consorted with a neo-Nazi, he consorted with an abuser, he wrote a song that seemed to mock the idea of rights for gays, he appropriated Molly Nilsson's work and made money off it. The era of Butlerian 'play' and testing the limits of the public conversation are dead. If you leave yourself vulnerable you can be shot dead. And John and his music are incredibly vulnerable to that kind of unpacking.

On the flip he seems well armoured against the slings and arrows. And his place in the pecking order of things is relatively low. But it is set to grow with this record and toue. And I just don't want to have to get to a stage where someone flips through my records and says "John Maus...isn't he that guy...[insert accusation]?"

[possiblegrenade]

On the flip he seems well armoured against the slings and arrows. And his place in the pecking order of things is relatively low.

This is also what I was thinking. I believe he'll be alright, and hopefully only take part in the press that wants to discuss the music. My take away from this Noisey interview is he got involved with something because he likes Adult Swim and TV in general, and was ignorant to the alt right connection. It's not like he sought out Nazi tv shows... but I guess that makes for a better headline.

[hyperkant]

he wrote a song that seemed to mock the idea of rights for gays,

John has said in interviews that he is against Human Rights (and he was talking in relation 2 Rights for Gays) from a Marxist perspective that it gives societies of control further control over bodies and leads to western countries invading in the name of "Human Rights".
No doubt someone's going to use this in a hitpiece

[Gibby]

But you can sort of see how the future hitpiece against Maus goes - he consorted with a neo-Nazi, he consorted with an abuser, he wrote a song that seemed to mock the idea of rights for gays, he appropriated Molly Nilsson's work and made money off it. The era of Butlerian 'play' and testing the limits of the public conversation are dead. If you leave yourself vulnerable you can be shot dead. And John and his music are incredibly vulnerable to that kind of unpacking.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/ ... ies-review

hate being right