smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Holmes Online" <bholmes_fm@msn.com> |
| Subject | Re: Physical Graffiti/Musical Apologists |
| Date | Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:14:30 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (1.4 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
> On another note, I've noticed -- over the past year or so -- an apologetic
> mindset forming here on Audities, people posting stuff like "Duffy's voice
> is kind of weak but it's not bad" or "the new Matthew
> Sweet songs are pretty OK, all thing considered", etc.
>
> Wow. Does anyone have standards anymore, or is merely "ok" good enough
> when it comes to music these days?
Considering that those posts weren't ringing endorsements - more like
announcements that an album was out from someone - yeah, I think Auditeers
still have standards. We've never agreed on everything, and for my money
people don't post enough, even if it is informational and not judgmental.
I'd rather read that Matthew Sweet comment and know that there's an album to
check out than have the (apparently underwhelmed) person not even bother to
post.
But you completely missed Stewart's point. The PussyDolls tanked because
they were vapid. It was the record exec who thought they'd sell on their
looks, not the consumers. The general public seemed to see through that one
and walked away.
But kErRy, you can't really be shocked that in record exec minds, looks
trump physical talent...can you? (Granted, in your prog world hot pants is
never enough - I'm talking about the more commercially simple music formats)
Stop being a curmudgeon and suggest a band we should all listen to.
b
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.