At Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 12:41:36 Paul wrote:

>  First off, let me mildly chide Jamie Vernon.  While I champion your 
>eloquent defense of the band for soldiering (soldering?) on, I hasten to 
>point out a seeming contradiction in your dismissal of the reality show.
>First you state, "Having not seen the TV show I wasn't sure what his 
>qualifications were for getting the gig..." but later you seem to have seen 
>it in full. How else could you pronounce that, and I quote, "the TV show 
>was a gratuitous  self-promotional indulgence.." and that " the band 
>crossed the line into whoredom with the reality show idea..." which, 
>presumaby, "cheapens the product."

>With all due respect, and I say that sincerely, perhaps calling the final 
>output "product" is already an admission of its cheapened status.

I did not see the show. Ever. My comments are based on the fact that reality 
shows are anything but. I don't need to see INXS or these singers on the 
show to comment on how they've sold themselves as whores....musically and 
professionally as entertainers. Isn't the premise of Rockstar, aside from 
its supposed search for the band's lead singer just an episodic infomercial 
for the band? I don't need to know what the content is to get a poor 
impression of a band I once respected as good songsmiths. The reality show 
premise focuses on everything but what this should be about -- the music. 
The name of the show kinda sums it up: "Rock Star". Not "Song Star" or 
"Music Star".

Jaimie Vernon