smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | <zoogang@cox.net> |
| Subject | Re: Receiver - an apology |
| Date | Wed, 9 Jan 2008 14:14:43 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain utf-8 (6.9 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
A very well-reasoned survey of various comments made, Stewart, but... It always seems that as soon as people on this list start to disagree, someone else is following right behind them to explain the whys and wherefores and the list becomes a back-and-forth shouting match for 30 or 40 messages or so.
This is just so much time wasted over nothing, in my opinion, and exactly why I rarely read the messages from these parts that some days simply clutter my mailbox. John wrote a book, and people were bound to disagree with what he said in it. If I were putting together my top 200 power pop CDs, my list would hardly resemble John's, and most of it probably wouldn't be "power" pop. As close as our tastes are, I think, they are sometimes not, but that's what makes the record player go 'round. And that's why I liked reading John's list--he writes about a lot of CDs I wouldn't normally listen to, which gives me some stuff to hunt down.
In the end, the book is his. Disagree with him, or don't. But don't beat him up for having an opinion. That seems to be the thing here, and has been for a long time. I got beat up a while ago on something I said in a post--you know, my opinion--and I just had to shake my head. I was angry about the whole exchange, but I got over it. And I took the tussle off list, because the list didn't need to be involved.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I long for the early days of Audities, when none of this ridiculousness took place. Everybody's opinion was respected, and everybody kept his head when things threatened to get heated. I guess those days are gone.
Please, can everybody leave the rancor off this list?
Alan
---- Stewart Mason <craigtorso@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> ----- 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.