Ugly Things has been around for forty years now. Amazing. How about that? Twenty years ago I got it in my pudding head to write partially-mocking “reviews” on my blog of what were then issues #21 and #23, only a mere third of the way into the magazine’s lifecycle, and I’ve pretty much regretted it ever since, despite more or less “agreeing with myself” on what I had to say about it. The thing is, there’s no world in which it’s a good idea to belittle what Mike Stax and his longtime cast of contributors have achieved with this gargantuan thing: the careers they’ve resurrected, the historical records they’ve either set straight or thoroughly defined in the first place, and the sheer mania and volume of fandom and documentation, which truly has known no bounds.
Stax magnanimously dropped a comment on my old blog not long after this, sort of reminding me of something unnecessarily snarky and lame I’d said, and my face fell to the floor. Of all the people to mock, why Ugly Things?? I probably own half their issues, and I’m a happy current paying subscriber. I discover new 60s and 70s sounds every time I get one. So here’s what I had to say back then, in 2003 and 2005, across two different posts:
Ugly Things #21: November 17th, 2003
NOW A FEW WORDS ON “UGLY THINGS”….Last week I finished this year’s edition of Ugly Things magazine (#21) after spending a couple of weeks with it – well, “finished” is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration. How does one actually finish a massive tome like this, packed with absolutely insane amounts of 60s rock arcana and incidental, meaningless flotsam? I mean, the cover feature on mediocre London-via-Riverside psych band THE MISUNDERSTOOD is 45 pages of tiny type, in which the band’s marginally interesting back story and sub-stories are flogged into painful submission – and it’s only the second of three jumbo cover stories planned on the group.
I’d accuse Mike Stax of trying to grab a Pulitzer if that was even plausible. Likewise, the massive reviews section in the back would garner a lot more credibility if it weren’t for the utter lack of subjectively (yes! more subjectivity please!) and unabashed cheerleading for every tinpot reissue of flowery psych/pop turd, Danish beat combo and marginal 60s garage rock outfit. Isn’t at least some of this stuff just absolute shit? – and doesn’t some of it merit, say, a 1-paragraph review as opposed to 7-8 paragraphs of down-to-the-liner-notes scientific dissection? I think Stax does get it at some level – one reviewer makes reference to a dictat from headquarters asking for “less words” in the reviews. I’d say that judging from the boatload of bloated reviews this issue, the memo hit the circular file the second it arrived.
Hey, don’t get me wrong – I eagerly buy Ugly Things every time a new issue hits the stands, and strongly encourage you to do the same. No magazine covers its scene this deeply – and in recent years that scene has expanded to raw music from the 70s and 80s (witness the “controversial” Crime, Union Carbide Productions and Misfits cover features). There’s always some features that serve the public interest exceptionally well – witness #21’s piece that sorts through the recent mass of ABKCO Rolling Stones reissues.
They’ve even stooped to allow famous record collector Johan (“I owe you one”) Kugelberg on the masthead, and at least he does keep things verbally moving along – and covers micro-scenes that no one else does. Why, this issue JK even tackles Danny & The Dressmakers and the legend of Fuck Off Records. And he even prints up a list that he just happened to find in a scrapbook – hey, now where’d that come from??!? – of his favorite records in September 1983 – when he was just a mere teen! Not surprisingly, because he’s always been such a groover, he was way into SPK, Pere Ubu, Television and The Popes – just like all the other kids! I mean, come on. I lay even odds that this list of “favorite 1983 records” was written in, oh, how about 2003?
Anyway, the new Ugly Things is out! Go forth and prosper.
Ugly Things #23 – September 27th, 2005
Someone once said on this site that it was obvious that I didn’t “like” Ugly Things magazine, yet nothing could be further from the truth. I happen to have a strong appreciation for the way the love of music can make intelligent folks go utterly bonkers, and therefore spend precious waking minutes obsessively cataloging and testifying to their faves in the hopes that someone else might catch on. It’s why, despite my better judgment, I still post entries to Agony Shorthand at least 3-5 times per week. I’m right with you, Stax & co. I’ll buy your magazine every time.
Where I part company with the Ugly Things crew is in attempting to see the forest for the trees. For every genre of music, including 60s garage and beat, there is a cut-off line, below which the music is so unremarkable or throwaway that it merits not a second’s worth of debate. For Ugly Things, that line is waaaay down there. Not only does Ugly Things refuse to really “debate” anything (bad reviews are barely allowed — you can actually watch reviewers like Mike Fornatale squirm as they attempt to be magnanimous), but they joyfully celebrate every unfilled pothole from the 1960s — like, in this issue, “The Checkmates”, “Charlie Crane”, “The Belfast Gypsies” and “Las Mosquitas”. Those might be some fucking out of control rock monsters, but I highly doubt it, and the approach to their music is strictly biographical name/rank/serial number scribing. Aggressive skimming is unavoidable.
Still, the sheer repetition of underwhelming 60s rock music paints a picture of a sort, and the Ugly Things team are so incredibly clued-in to their world that you end up getting jazzed about some of it in any case. Not like I need another 60s punk comp, but they’ve got me excited to buy “The Ikon Records Story” 2xCD (Sacramento!!). They also view just about every cool music DVD that hits the shelves and read every single rock book as well, and if that’s your bag, these guys have it nailed better than anyone. This particular Ugly Things issue seems to be lacking a little something, like they’re just waiting to get this Misunderstood saga out of the way before relatively firing on all cylinders again. And I never thought I’d say this, but I actually miss Johan Kugelberg this issue (I guess he was making his electroclash album with Moby). Still, for 9 Paypaled bucks, you’ve got a quality read that’ll last you all Autumn. The worst Ugly Things is better than, say, the best “Maxim Blender”.
OK, so here we are back in 2023 again. I just finished the Summer 2023 issue, Ugly Things #62, last night. I left more on the table than I was able to cognitively take away from it, which is normal, because if I spent time actually reading the word-for-word entirety of, say, The Petards cover story and every story like it, I’d never again read books, watch films, have friends, etc. Yet that Petards cover story will always be there when I need it, like if I hear one of their songs at a fab hullabaloo or a far-out shindig and I’m like, “Let’s Shazam this fucker – oh, it’s The Petards??!! I gotta go back to Ugly Things #62 and find out what those young Germans were really on about in 1968!”.
Another thing Ugly Things does really, really well: you’ll be reading along with a record review, and all of a sudden it’ll be accompanied by an impromptu interview, like this issue’s MX-80 Sound chat. In other words, the cover doesn’t encompass the totality of the contents therein, and that makes for some really great surprises. And Phil Milstein writes for it. God bless Ugly Things and I’m sorry again for my snarky blather of the early aughts.
Fanzine Hemorrhage 
I would class your earlier comments as constructive criticism. It’s not as if you didn’t leaven yor damnations with mucho praise and exhortations to buy, buy, buy. Yes, I appreciate that we should all support ‘the scene’, otherwise we meant as well just jack it all in and become cops. Not too long ago I was told by a zine editor that he would never publish a negative review, because he only covered bands he liked (and, by strange coincidence, he released records by). What of the poor consumer, who deserves unbiased or at least honest opinion before forking over hard-earned. The hard-core investigative, historical articles have to be admired for their intense commitment, relentless, uncritical positivity can only get one so far. It starts to seem a bit suspect. Is some other agenda being pushed (such as inflating the credibility of cruddy records), or is it some kind of comfort-bubble support network trip. Nothing wrong woth that per se, but it’s going to be of limited appeal to a vanishing niche at best. I think writing honestly, including admitting to changes of heart, and not from spite or too many cheap shots (it supposed to be fun though?), is the best policy and beyond reproach really. Personally, as a mere slob-spectator I enjoy very much the reading of J. Hinman, who history will recognise as a titan (I would zero in on your writing like a dowsing rod over the last twenty years on various sites and whatnot), and Ugly Things, which is magnificent. I wish I had every issue, which is a veritable wad of fascinating entertainment. Arse kissing aside, there will still be articles in every issue where I will be thinking ‘who gives a f___ about these guys’. That’s all part of the fun. Why does Johan K ‘owe you one?’ I hope he is planning a mega expensive art-book on Killed by Death for the 35th anniversary of said, and for which alone he remains a figure of reverence round these parts, spoken of in only in tones of hushed admiration.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Long ago he and I executed a record trade in which I’d sent him the debut Brainbombs 45 and he sent me nothing at all. My understanding from others at the time was that was not unusual in “deals” with him, but we’re taking thirty years ago and it’s very much water under the bridge at this point.
LikeLike