smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Eb <ElBroome@earthlink.net> |
| Subject | Re: Another dogpile |
| Date | Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:32:49 -0800 |
[Part 1 text/plain us-ascii (3.7 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Craig Leve, more levelheaded than most:
>But please reread your own last line and decide if you want to be here and
>participate in these conversations and debates. Your tone says more than
>that you don't care whether Squeeze or XTC is better, but that those who
>would deem to talk about these things are themselves trivial and not worthy
>of your time.
Well, you missed the point of that line by a mile. The point was not
that debating Squeeze vs. XTC is silly -- hey, I *like* those bands,
and it certainly beats debating Myracle Brah vs. Starbelly, etc. --
but that people seem too accustomed to their anointed pop bands being
graded on essentially a scale of 7 to 10. It shouldn't be such a
jarring, apocalyptic shakeup when a debater rates a band much lower
and actually gives *negative* views rather than varying degrees of
positive ones. Seems like the only accepted reason for voicing a
serious *dislike* for a little-guy pop band is if it contains someone
like (gasp) Ric Menck, who is Not Of The Body. Or someone like Kyle
Vincent who's in it for the money, mannnn. Actual *musical* variables
aren't so much of a factor, 'cuz as long as you "have the basic moves
down," everyone's straining to find a way to luv ya.
In any case, my point was that a Squeeze vs. XTC debate is pretty
mild and non-divisive, since most subscribers probably own at least a
few discs by both bands. Maybe a *lot* of discs (like me). So, it's
really just a debate about the greater of two goods. Meanwhile,
debates with a wider scope of disagreement seem to really startle
some subscribers. Seems pretty normal and expected to me.
>There's no point in simply being intransigent and spouting bile.
>Your constant personal animosity here has made you all but
>irrelevant, even to those of us who sometimes share your perspectives.
Maybe it would be instructive to repost the ferocious, squalling
diatribe of all-compassing hellfire, which launched this thread:
"http://www.eggbert.com/reviews/COF_2002_top10.pdf"
"For me, the above poll is a vivid illustration of the strangely
incompatible gap between guitar-pop fans and guitar-pop cultists.
This and the Audities top 50 have just 15 items in common, by my
count? Despite the generally similar aesthetic of the contributors?"
Three brief sentences and a link somehow turn the world upside-down.
The response I received at least doubled the heat of that initial
notice. The thread could have ended, after just that one post.
Actually, I didn't expect it to go any farther than that. I figured
there might be a Pazz & Jop thread in the near future, and guessed
*that* would be where some fireworks might occur.
>p.s. and since you feel you have to blast folks for the most trivial of
>things - not cc:ing you personally in their responses, I'll be expecting
>some kindness from you for doing just that.
"Blast." Uh-huh. Let's try quoting, again:
"(Note: If you're motivated to respond to this, you might try Bcc:ing
your post. Those of us taking the digest are really handicapped,
lately...the backlog of posts is incredible. Over the weekend, I
posted something and received *five* complete digests before my post
turned up in the queue. I only found your above comments by checking
the Web archive.)"
"Eb, once again asking for CC:/BCC:s in these post-impacted times, so
he doesn't have to rummage through the web archive"
Oooh, just FEEL the heat of those blasts. Oooh. Truly incendiary.
Almost psychotic in their raging intensity.
Thanks for the CC: anyway. I'm tired of combing the web archive,
clicking on links and mailing myself pasted text so I can properly
edit/quote the text in my response, etc. so I think I'm going to just
wait for the digests from now on.
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.