smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Stewart Mason" <craigtorso@verizon.net> |
| Subject | Re: Receiver - an apology |
| Date | Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:27:06 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (5.0 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
----- Original Message -----
From: <Popdude@aol.com>
> Well, I certainly can't speak for Ryan, but I don't believe he was
> referencing Bob's criticism of the Receiver record specifically;
> rather, he may have
> noticed (like I have) that literally every time Bob has posted over
> the past few
> weeks, he has placed a pointed barb somewhere within his post. Yes,
> Stewart,
> "relentless positivity" is a bad thing, but so is relentless
> negativity. It
> really has nothing to do with Rickenbackers.
I took the thirty seconds to read through my deleted posts mailbox for
every single one of Bob's posts to the list since the end of November
when the book first appeared. There have been all of 16, barely half
of them concerning the book. I will grant that there are indeed some
"pointed barbs" in there, as you put it, but I'm also seeing
statements like his very first one on the subject:
"Anyone else started perusing the book yet? Any comments on surprise
omissions from the 200 best powerpop albums of all time? I must admit
I
am quite disappointed that The Davenports first album never made it in
(as
far as I can see) - it contains a stupendous bunch of songs."
And the pointed barb is...what, exactly? This was immediately
answered by David Bash and Bruce Brodeen, whose responses were,
respectively:
"No doubt this is going to be the inevitable response from most
readers: how
they agree or disagree with the selections offered in the book, what
they
feel should have been included, shouldn't have been, etc...Obviously,
if
everyone did a list of their Top 200 powerpop albums it would be like
snowflakes: no two would be alike. You must remember that the list in
Shake
Some Action is one man's opinion, albeit a very informed opinion.
There are
very few people on the planet who have as much knowledge about power
pop as
John Borack, and many people who look at the list may be surprised as
to how
many of its albums they haven't heard (or even heard of). Each entry
in
the list includes a synopsis written by Mr. Borack, and within those
synopses are mini-reviews of the album in question. Hopefully the
list will
serve to inform readers about albums they might have missed, and help
fill
some gaps."
and:
"Yr Kidding, Bob matie, right?!
Out of the thousands of great albums out there, you really thought all
200
on the list were going to connect w/ ya directly and agree and not
left
wondering, irked? ;-P
Seriously, the idea of one person (John Borack) doing a list like this
is to
--- amidst the 'amen, brother john!' --- rankle a bit, spur reaction,
discussion w/ ones self or whoever (positive and negative) and, then,
a bit
of curious researching for the items not heard of or overlooked.
I think the Davenports would be a fine, fine candidate for the Top 50
most
overlooked, unknown, unheard power pop albums, quite possibly.
But that...is for Volume Two. :-D"
To which Bob quite sensibly responded:
"Bruce, Dave - you mis-interpreted me: I really like the book and am
going to enjoy browsing it at my leisure. And I know the list is JB's
personal choice and there ain't such a thing as an official top 200
power-pop album list. All I intended to do was stir up some debate
amongst other people who had been reading the book. You know how we
like to debate here on Audities, right? :-)"
Again, I ain't seeing the whole pointed barb thing.
What I *am* seeing, unfortunately, is that whenever people have made
the tiniest criticism of your Top 200 list, they tend to get piled on:
witness the spate of posts that came after Aaron Milenski expressed
disppointment that there were so few female vocalists mentioned in the
list. The responses weren't a discussion of favorite power pop bands
with female singers -- personally, I would have nominated Boston's own
Miles Dethmuffen (later known as Permafrost), whose "Mouth of Hell" is
I think one of the great lost power pop singles of the '90s -- so much
as they were a general chorus of disapproval of the idea that power
pop bands could have female singers in the first place.
All I'm saying is that if, as David and Bruce claim, one of the points
of the book is to inspire debate about what was and wasn't included,
why is it that every time a debate comes up, it gets shouted down?
I've got no dog in this fight: I've dragged my feet in ordering a copy
simply because I have declared a full-on moratorium on any book
purchasing whatsoever until I start to see some movement in my backlog
of unread books, which at this point has, no kidding, grown to fill
two full 5x3 bookcases and the entirety of the nightstand on my side
of the bed, so I honestly don't know if I agree with your list or not.
But lists like this, by their nature, are meant to inspire debate, and
if anything, I think it's both surprising and disappointing that so
little discussion -- positive OR negative -- has come out as a result
of a book that clearly people are buying, if the print run is almost
exhausted.
S
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.