smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Michael Bennett" <mrhonorama@hotmail.com> |
| Subject | Re: Another poll |
| Date | Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:18:18 -0600 |
[Part 1 text/plain (3.2 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
>From: Eb <ElBroome@earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: audities@smoe.org
>To: audities@smoe.org
>Subject: Re: Another poll
>Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 12:03:41 -0800
>
>Michael Bennett wrote, in part:
>>a list, that, with the exception of a few titles, are the albums that
>>dominated
>>the 'serious' rock press in the U.S., such as it is.
>>Yet this poll, while a representive selection of some quality music,
>>is (to put it in Beefheartian terms) as 'safe as milk'
>>What exactly is your point?
>
>Oh please. The CoF poll (consider its origin) is clearly slanted toward
>white-guy retro-pop as well, just not as severely as the Audities poll.
>Albums by...mmm, let's see...Costello, Aimee Mann, Bowie, Rhett Miller,
>George Harrison, Ben Kweller, Brendan Benson, Badly Drawn Boy, Neil Finn,
>Kristian Hoffman, the Wondermints, Jellyfish, Supergrass, the Negro
>Problem, the Eels, Suede, the Shazam, Oasis and Stew finished much higher
>in the CoF poll than where they finished in most other lists. Not to
>mention the otherwise heralded, non-pop albums which *didn't* rank in CoF.
>The pop bias is pretty clear -- it's just that this poll favors more
>contemporary pop which doesn't necessarily pander to the IPO cult. Bands
>which display some signs of personal vision, rather than "mediocre bands
>who just have the basic moves down," to paraphrase a pithy Stewart M. quote
>which would have been dogpiled if I had written it instead. That was my
>"point."
Out of the 35 artists in the Audities poll that did not make the Eggbert
list, there are some that I would find to be perfunctory. But there are
records on the Eggbert list I feel the same way about. That doesn't mean
there aren't records on both list that fit this 'personal vision' criteria.
On the other hand, that's not all it's cracked up to be -- Beck has a
personal vision on his new platter, and it's a very boring one indeed.
I think that it's folly to paint all 35 artists with a broad brush and say
they are merely have the moves down. Moreover, your original post created
an inference, substantiated by this post, that somehow the listmembers are
out-of-touch with your conception of what a listener of contemporary pop
should listen to. Again, as I stated in my first response, all of the
records (maybe with the exception of Bowie) got decent support in the poll,
and certainly would have been in the Top 75 to 100.
Your attacks on the tastes of a portion of the listmembers would have more
credibility if they weren't ad hoc, but specified the artists or records
with which you feel aren't up to snuff. As it stands, with the exception of
ocassional asides, it's hard to ascertain what you actually like. Since all
I see are a series of declamatory posts, rather than an attempt to persuade
or introduce us to new, worthy pop records, you come off like an ass. Do
you expect everyone to go, 'Oh, Eb was right -- we've been listening to
shitty music all along?'. Since that's not likely to happen, what pleasure
can you derive from constant digs to this list?
Mike Bennett
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.