smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Holmes Online <bholmes_fm@msn.com> |
| Subject | Re: Joe Jackson vs. Alex Chilton |
| Date | Thu, 6 Jan 2011 14:42:41 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain windows-1252 (1.2 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
>> you won’t find many descriptions of Jackson’s early work that
doesn’t use the word in the first couple sentences and it’s used with
some measure of distaste.
>> I think critics like to reference Jackson’s wit almost as a way of
punishing him.
>>While we were willing to follow Costello into whatever genre
experiments he cooked up, while we were happy to laud Alex Chilton for
his steadfast worship of the pop gods, we didn’t give Joe Jackson the
same room to operate
The first two statements reference idiot writer/critics, and I think
those referenced are a minority. Jackson's early records were popular
and his clever lyrics were often highlighted.
The third statement is patently false; there are a TON of people who
bailed on Chilton's non-pop explorations and/or merely tolerated the r&b
songs at shows to be able to see the Big Star tunes performed live.
I think the only question really posed here is whether Jackson would
trade money for credibility. Since he's financially secure and - to my
knowledge - has a solid reputation as a songwriter, performer and wit, I
would suggest he doesn't even have to consider the deal.
cheers
b
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.