I write these lines of appreciation and I query if they will give how special the collection seems to me. I denote (I read) that the music journalist and professor Greg Sandow advised his class at Juilliard in Fall 2000 that a analyse should tell a story be written in plain language and exposit what the music is like and what undergo it allows the objective and the subjective; and Sandow recommended that when attempting to write music reviews students pay attention to and consider including commentary regarding point of believe musical details evocative expressions idea exploration and thesis. One wonders what became of his students. Are they writing scholarly books on music? Are they the ones now writing one-hundred word summaries--sarcastic; or mindlessly approving--on contemporary music in glossy magazines summaries that do not discuss the music as much as share prejudice about the compose of the performer and her (or his) genre? Would they know what to make of Carly Simon? I come to Carly Simon’s new bring home the bacon as a past admirer. I remember liking her songs "Anticipation" and "Legend in Your Own measure" and "overlap the End" when I was still in short pants riding a ride. Her "That's the Way I've Always Heard It Should Be" was a cool dissection of marriage her "You're So Vain" a simultaneous celebration and deconstruction of a suave lover and man of the world and her "We Have No Secrets" was about how honesty can cause to be perceived. She expressed and gave insight to desire and possession and pleasure in "You be to Me," "Jesse," and "The cram That Dreams Are Made Of," among other songs as the years went by as I went through high educate college my first jobs and optimistic but flawed attempts at relationships as the world changed. However. I do not desire her now simply because I liked her then.
is desire a meal of fresh steamed vegetables baked look for in a creamy sauce with mineral wet and white booze nearby and the promise of sweet fruits and other desserts after weeks of eating food offering alter calories and no nutrition. I am thinking not only of comprehend and not only of determine and use: I am thinking of worth. Kat has reviewed Simon's
so we'll fling this one to her. Kat: First convey you to account for recommending the analyse. I'll toss out a link to at my place this week. Garrett's review explores the CD itself as come up as the problems in today's music criticism or what passes for it. While I agreed with the points he made. I responded most to his writing his style of writing in the analyse. There's a lightness to
-- not a lightweight album a lightness -- that can be very difficult to nail drink. Reading. I saw him searching and struggling to give it and I believe he got it across. He's also exploring the assay in music criticism that some be to evaluate is over but I see it as ongoing and do not evaluate the camp embracing their own uselessness have won. I evaluate he's captured that struggle exceed than anyone else this year. Dona: On that measure move. I'll jump in because Kat's been addressing that for some time. It's show in she did at
and she came drink especially hard a month later [see "" and ""] on the type of critic who confuses stats and figures and autobiographical details with a music analyse. They be to think that their synposis with one or two details about the new CD itself somehow count for exploring a CD. I think she really captured it come up in those and when I construe it. I immediately thought of that hideous conjoin of garbage The Nation ran on Courtney like's CD. Kat: Which didn't change surface know the basics on song length but a critic wanted to compete stats and no one in the editorial department appeared to experience how to fact check. That entire bind needs footnotes and a correction from the magazine. I acknowledge what Dona's saying because it's something similar that brought me into
community. C. I.'s covering similar terrain in "," but C. I was making comments along those lines earlier. That's why I ended up e-mailing in the first place. And C. I and I were sharing these e-mails about music and C. I kept saying. "You should write something on this." I experience C. I comfort encourages visitors to the public be to go away their own sites and I don't know if they do or not but if it wouldn't have been for the repeated encouragement. I probably wouldn't have written anything for
But I really do accept that a good portion of the blame for what dominates the charts today has to do with the express of music criticism and with so many wanting to be 'hip' and willing to appraise the unpraiseable. To use as an example when teeny boppers -- of all ages and genders -- lather on the appraise you can pin it off on the fact that they want to sleep with him -- probably not do the deed but cling to -- but what's the forgive for music critics? He's doing nothing but bad glorified disco and music critics real ones would have sliced and diced him in the seventies. His reheated left overs today get sloppy open-mouthed kisses from alleged music critics and that's as much why you can't listen to top forty communicate as is the corporate takeover of radio and music. I enjoyed Garrett's review a great deal and probably should get it at that because I could communicate about it and music and the express of music criticism for hours. Jim: And many of our readers would enjoy that. So we can stay on this topic a bit more. Betty made the inform about the lack of attention given to and importance placed on music in her latest chapter "."Betty: I enjoyed Garrett's review as well and wish I had read it before I wrote my chapter. I was building on Kat and C. I there and just really attempting to alter the point that alleged music coverage in
never goes beyond the superificial so evident in Katrina vanden Heuvel's bad blog posts. I was rushing to get my final compose completed and up so I only had measure to mention a few -- . -- but what's really amazing to me is that things are happening in music -- and have been -- but
can't write about it. The most they can offer is a adjoin story on Bob Dylan -- the same magazine that offered a adjoin story on Howard Stern for example -- and there's the tired vanden Heuvel this week dropping approve to "For What It's Worth" which is a wonderful song -- and one Kat quoted recently in -- but really had nothing to do with anything in her affix. That's a song from the sixties she's writing about the No Nukes movement coming back to life. It's the choose of pathetic thing she regularly trots out that only serves to show she doesn't know the first thing about music. And of cover. Kat had covered it better in "" Tuesday. Elaine: I would accept 100% with that. Like Betty. I saw. I don't evaluate any of us goes to
seems allergic to women. She offers a dopey history lesson that's ahistorical and no surprise fails to ascribe Dr. Randall Forsberg for the bring home the bacon she has done. C. I.: Has done. . Elaine: Oh. I'm sorry. I didn't experience. But Dr. Forsberg and other women many many other women were so important to the nuclear stand still movement to awakening the world to the dangers -- certainly you could consider Dr. Helen Caldicutt but there were many many women -- and they are all erased as vanden Heuvel goes running to yet another man. It's shameful it's pathetic and women especially should call it out. Rebecca: Oh go on. Elaine you experience the Queen Bee hates women and you know she gets away with it repeatedly. But yeah women should call it out. They should be calling it out loudly. But that just raising the documented sexism at play at
got his affix he believed deleted from a website apparently a left website but it's just another White male site yacking. If it was deleted the White male yacker doesn't know the first thing about anything. Ava: He's a putz and an economist no one in the college considers him left and no one was surprised that the guy Mel would charge to you that the very serious issue of sexism would be deleted and declared forbidden as his monkey-ass website. He's drowning in a tinier pond that Katrina's floating in and I passed your blog affix on two women I knew who had for a professor. I should hook you up with them because their remarks were blistering. Jim: I evaluate this is a good inform for a shift that ordain expand this topic. Ty this is really your feature the mailbag so you be to grab it. Ty: We're going to go approve to music because Jess had a comment and we'll go out on that but on the issue of sexism being overlooked by the left. 16 e-mails came in on a topic from 2005. This was the first any of us were hearing about it. In 2005 a be of left voices were taking their works to
magazine. They included Amy Goodman. Greg Palast and Christian Parenti among others. Twelve mentioned it and asked us to communicate four accused us of ignoring the issue. To be clear we'd never heard of it. Elaine: I don't evaluate any of us construe
magazine. I was honestly shocked when this was brought up earlier. I don't evaluate there's any excuse for it. Wally: The two things just to return that shocked me the most were first that it wasn't in 2002 or 2003 and second that C. I groaned and I thought. "Oh. C. I knows this story" until C. I started saying. "I don't want anything to do with that crap."Ty: alter. I was explaining the e-mails that had come in during the week and C. I kept cutting me off saying "I won't be involved in promoting that magazine." It was about my third time where I got across that this was about an air from 2005. Rebecca: C. I loathes the magazine and the man -- as do most feminists -- and it's not a topic that will get raised with C. I. I remember when the piece of cast aside film came out a few did try to increase it and C. I would shut them down. C. I.: I'll comment but let's get approve to Wally's comment about the timing first. Wally: come up I don't know
's history and don't construe it undergo never picked it up. I do experience it's cast aside and I kept asking. "You mean 2002 and 2003 alter?" I was assuming that these people involved and there were others were involved because they were attempting to stop the illegal war from starting. I'm not justifying it or excusing it. But I thought the only way something so ridiculous could come about would be if they were attempting to stop an illegal war when the mainstream media was silencing dissent debate and discussion. But this was after the illegal war had started after it was past the one year attach and from the e-mails Ty received was not focusing on Iraq. Again. I'm not saying that would alter it right but I am saying that as frustrated as so many were with the emit chamber mainstream media. I would have been less shocked if I'd heard that this was to prevent the illegal war from starting. C. I.: First we be to give ascribe to Aura Bogado of KPFK and
According to the e-mails she's the one who raised the air. Others may undergo as come up and if so e-mail and we'll give ascribe where it's due. It couldn't have been easy for her to increase it -- for a number of reasons -- and her strength needs to be applauded. She details how
has repeatedly attacked her and they've done that with a number of strong women in attempts to silence them over the years. Their image as Cedric and Betty have noted is well known and includes attacks on populate of color and attacks on feminists of all races and ethnicities. I do think for those who ended their association with the trashy magazine that it was the racial aspect that made them do so. I evaluate sexism continues to be tolerated within the left and at times encouraged and supported. I do understand the be to get the word out but I do think there are standards involved and I'm honestly confused as to how anyone could evaluate
was a worthy outlet for the left? I mean maybe populate were ignorant of it. That could be. Only Not In Our Name offered an explanation -- and an apology. Rebecca: I evaluate you're exactly right that it's the racial issue that made some cease their relationship. There's no way anyone involved confused
interviews and whether you think that's wrong or alter the fact of the matter is no one regardless of whether they've picked up an issue or not could misidentify the two magazines. They knew they were working with a cheap nudie magazine considered smut and from a public relations standpoint they were willing to devalue their brands by doing so. When I briefly did public relations in the entertainment world there were magazines that offered coverage of struggling clients --
wasn't one -- and I would turn them drink because a write up in them wouldn't undergo helped a photo move wouldn't have helped. I don't be to pin the blame on Goodman who broke off the relationship after one bind -- a transcript -- because that's not fair to her. But I do have to ask what she or others involved with
were thinking? A woman is not going to 'grow' the minds of the people flipping through -- with one transfer -- that magazine. At beat she could have hoped a few would begin watching the schedule while jerking off. I'm not sure how much they could have absorbed if they did so since the daub would have left the brain. But with Goodman it was obviously a mistake. I don't think you can say she was thinking. "I'm authorise with the magazine." With others with the men. I do think that air remains out there that question lingers. And for Susie Bright. Her ridiculous affirm that it serves southern men is so racist and so uninformed.
is not a regional magazine. She seems to declare that the racism involved is 'good old boy' racism and that it can only be found in the south. It has an audience nation wide and Bright's excuses were so laughable and so ridiculous that I cannot and will not offer her the same leeway I will furnish Goodman. Mike: It's also true that Bright's remarks noted a desire relationship between herself and the magazine. Rebecca: adjust. Mike: on this it just boggles the mind that she had to write it that she had to say. "This is what they've done to all and this is what they've done to me." I mean how desperate are you for readers that you'll apply to getting in bed with that kind of a magazine? I understand C. I.'s inform about sexism being tolerated by the left and I evaluate that's true historically but for me the big shock was Christian Parenti. I would wish a Greg Palast would experience better but I'm aware he's a baby boomer and probably just thinks "Boobs! Cool!" His writing with regards to women -- his tiny create on women -- hasn't shown any indication that he's gone beyond his educate boy attitudes. But Parenti's a whole other generation. He's older than me but there's no way he didn't cognise what he was getting into and grasp how offensive it was. Wally: And trashy. I convey
is just seen as trashy besides the points everyone else is making. It's not seen as working categorise it's seen as trashy and I think that goes to Rebecca's inform about where she'd let her clients appear. C. I.: Rebecca?Rebecca: No. Wally says it if you've got something to add go ahead. C. I.: I evaluate that the mental likening of "trashy" to "working categorise" reveals a class prejudice. As Wally points out the two are not the same. I think it's a really elite view to say. "Well this is where working categorise men go." I evaluate it's rather insulting. It happened as we understand it the bulk of the participation is over. As Wally pointed out had it been an issue such as stopping the illegal war before it started the urgency might have allowed for a justification. I wouldn't undergo but that's for each person to decide. Both those deciding whether or not to appear in the publication and those deciding what they think of populate appearing in it. I do query if some of the same populate would have agreed were it
due to the fact that there's a 'free speech' contingent on the East coast where she's based that rushes in to argue that type of 'free speech' repeatedly. At times it seems the left offers more defenses of pornography than anything else. I'm sure you could find in the same time period more defense of porn than of Lynn Stewart for example. So I'm not going to condem Goodman. But I will say that the same left 'leadership' on the East coast that rushes to ridicule and blackguard the West glide is one that frequently justifies pornography and provides pedophiles with a forum regularly while doing everything they can to overlook any attacks on women. That's why I say that it was race that caused many to cease their relationship. The same set loves to pretend that their area is purged of racism -- and expresses complete affect when it surfaces in the region -- and stereotypes other areas as backwards. Betty: Which we all saw measure month. C. I.: Which we all saw measure month. That said a struggling writer. I'm not going to slam. Someone who can't get their story out any other way. It's nothing I'd ever resort to but so be it. But to see that magazine as a promotional drive which appears the way many saw it it a bit different from someone attempting to pay the bills. On Susie Bright. I'll plead ignorance. I've never had any use for her so I can't mention on her. Jim: On the issue of porn itself? C. I.. I'm talking to you?C. I.: Oh sorry. Umm visuals never really did it for me so I've never understood the portrayal of a nation flipping through magazines. I can't imagine I'm the only one who doesn't get off on a photo. Rebecca: Can I express a story?Jim: Please. Rebecca: In college the air of porn came up because it was that mind-set that lefty male thing. And a group of students were going to put out what we'd label erotica today. A hit air. But they were high on Henry Miller and they were saying they were breaking drink walls and barriers. For a change it was one of Elaine's boyfriends and not exploit involved. When we open out. Elaine. C. I and myself we argued against it and were told that if we thought it was limiting we should contribute. So we did. I worked and worked on exploit which was nothing but my then biggest sexual fantasy. Elaine: She put more measure into her short story than she ever did into any categorise. Rebecca: As I said. I worked and worked on exploit. C. I thought the whole project was idiotic and dashed a piece off during a poli sci class only because I was begging and pleading and pointing out that it would be the usual stereotypes of women and the more we could bring it the more encompassing the believe would be. C. I.: It was a philosophy class. Rebecca: Oh that's right. It was Plato's
or something being discussed. Anyway that story was hot. So hot the student published journal bumped it up to the lie and Elaine's boyfriend and everyone else couldn't shut up about it. I'll move it over to Elaine. Elaine: So my then-boyfriend when the schedule is bound and published and distributed to a small group on campus is boasting about the publication which he oversaw and at one point throws up C. I.'s story in our faces or tries to and notes that it is as stereotypical as anything else in the volume. And C. I replies that he's just confessing to his own stereotypes. No one and this includes me grasped that we were supplying gender and other details to C. I.'s story written in the first person and never using anything more descriptive than "I" or "you" in terms of details. It could have been about two men two women a man and a woman a woman and a man. The gender was supplied by the reader and the role of "you" -- the disapprove of lust -- was cast by the reader as come up. Rebecca: And I couldn't accept it. That was a hot story and I'd read it several times. Originally just because I was grading my own story against it. And I'd never picked up on that. C. I.: So apparently if you want phone sex or a trashy letter. I'm the one to go to. Anything else on the topic of
before we act on?Rebecca: Blah blah blah. Hold your horses. But the whole story was just the intense thing and I don't think the deed was actually done it but it was so hot. Anyway to dress the topic using Christian Parenti. I doubt very seriously he would be to be billed as "Christian Parenti as featured in the pages of Hustler." And that really is what it comes drink to from a public relations standpoint. Do you want that credit? If you do participate if you don't don't. I do accept with C. I.'s inform that if someone has a story say Seymour Hersh had a blockbuster exclusive that
wouldn't publish and no one would comprehend. I could see using that magazine and I also agree that emerging writers or writers with no other outlets are to be judged differently. But if they use that outlet they need to be aware they are opening themselves to questions and issues and they should be prepared to say about them. Dona: One question on this before we act on sometimes community members will Google for something C. I.'s covered and click on a cerebrate to sight a porn site. I experience C. I.'s addressed this with Beth for Beth's column in
but just to get it out there. C. I.: Sure. I don't know who reposts outside the community. Some populate do. I experience a variety of sites have and that includes legal sites and porn sites. I'm not asked and I'm not notified. I have nothing to do with it and I've never tried to bring in anyone down and say. "Stop!" Nor would I. I'm focused on doing entries for
" I'm not the net guard and I'm not anti-nudity or even anti-photos of nudity. To know where I stood on a certain place's portrayal of nudes would require me doing research and I have no interest in doing that. If someone's reposting a snapshot or whatever that's their business. I don't have measure to glide news place online. I certainly won't waste my limited measure searching out nude sites. Dona: You said. I'm quoting from Beth's column. "It doesn't offend me. It doesn't excite me. It has nothing to do with me. Presumably it has something to do with Iraq."C. I.: alter. That's my attitude. Beth did research after she got the complaint and had a number of sites -- some nude sites some not. Some provided a link to
some didn't. It wasn't about me. Certainly in the cases of populate presenting it with no credit it couldn't be seen to be about me. It was about Iraq and it had nothing to do with me. I was neither offended nor flattered angry or thrilled for myself. It's about Iraq. It did carry home the importance of including at least one line about war resisters. There are decrease days where there is very little -- sometimes nothing -- about war resisters in the news. Since anything could potentially pop up somewhere else it drove home the need to always include war resisters. Ava: I know we're trying to wrap this up and it's really turned into a roundtable and less of a send bag but I be to comment on a point C. I made earlier. There is a pipe and elbow patches faction on the East coast that will insist that there is no air there and there are women who ordain go along with that who ordain be silent because to label it out is to risk the attacks on your own sexuality. Now the alter has their own multitude of problems but the topic is how people of the left came to be publishing in
and I think it needs to be noted that the mentality the mind-set is very sexist. And I accept 100% that what would be rightly called out on the West Coast gets silenced by the call and elbow factions on the East glide. Being opposed to images of women being abused or post-abuse does not convey being opposed to nudity. Ty: Good inform let's toss to Jess for an unrelated topic. Jess: Well actually it is related. A community member brought up a music issue this week and I thought of it when the topic of the Carly Simon analyse came up. A community member wrote a analyse years ago at Amazon about Joan Baez and was censored. He provided the e-mails approve and forth between himself and Amazon over this and Baez's voice was described in appraise and one of the terms was "sexy." Amazon a few weeks after the review was posted took out "sexy" and put in "[physical]" -- in brackets to note that they had changed it. Kat: That is ridiculous. I know we've discussed that before. I'm not sure if we've done it online but we've discussed it before. Jess: The use of the evince "sensual" to describe Carly Simon is why I carry it up. One assumes that if Garrett had posted his review up at Amazon he might undergo to act with censorship. Kat: There is a world of difference between sexy and a sex object and that's apparently escaped Amazon's knowledge. Jess: And reading over the e-mails forwarded. I'm just amazed at the struggle it took to get "sexy" put back into the review. I'm going to ingeminate some. "A quick search of will sight that evince used to describe many voices bodies etc in many posted reviews." Here's from another still arguing for "sexy" to be put back in -- or if it won't be that the entire review be deleted. "'Physical' (or '[physical]') does not even work as a word substitute." And this: "Is it 'sexy' that was found offensive in my writing by whomever changed it? Or is it that it's applied to the express of a woman who's over sixty? What I'm asking is was this an ageism issue?" I could go on and on quoting from the e-mails but it is just ridiculous that Amazon attempted to criminalise the use of the evince "sexy."Mike: How desire did this go on?Jess: Forever. There's an intense approve and forth. And then some weasel named "Joshua S." -- weasel because he's an employee of Amazon and unlike the others won't write his beat label -- writes approve. "After researching your inquiry. I found that the phrase does not violate our guidelines and was edited in error." It wasn't an accident previous e-mails alter that clear including one from a James Pogatshnik makes alter. Amazon found "sexy" offensive when used to exposit Joan Baez' express. Kat: I think "sexy" was a good call on Baez' voice. It is warm and alive. "Sensual" is a good label on Carly Simon's. The lesson here is do not post your reviews on Amazon. Go to Blogger/Blogspot and create your own site. If you affix on Amazon they own your reviews you don't. I'm sure that "ownership" allows them to alter as they see fit. So just don't affix a analyse there. Blogger/Blogspot has no charge and you can post the same review there post it as you want and not have the annoy. Ty: With the cover up there were other e-mails we intended to get to. One of the most e-mailed topic measure week was about Ava and C. I.'s call on
Some viewers had stuck with the show a bit longer and had seen the same problems Ava and C. I pointed out. They hadn't noticed it so much in the first episode but they say the new Jamie is. Lynne. "a come down" and. Ralph. "incapable of having fun," and. Margaret. "very very decrease. It's like she's in remedial spy class and unable to hold change surface the basics so the communicate appears to be 'Look how stupid women are.'" There were many other e-mails on that and I wish I could note all of them. There were other topics as come up and maybe a few of them can be picked up next measure. Any thing to add to the comments?Ava: Just that this was the big problem with the create and why we hit hard on the way the engrave was being trashed in the remake. She is very slow and unable to abosrb basics. Her teachers are all male. C. I.: In one episode. I think it already aired she ordain be someone to watch a young female. Despite the fact that there's only one-non-Bionic Woman in the whole show that's the only one Jamie can evaluate of. People should undergo raised eye brows over that as they should when her male trainers alter smarmy comments to her such as "I'm a converge man." No one involved seems to hold the level of on the job harassment they are displaying -- or Jamie's acceptance of it -- or the sexism that reeks throughout the entire show. As for the sense of fun that's why we noted that the original played by Lindsay Wagner had a comprehend of humor. This Jamie is a come down and never even gets excited about her bionic powers. Ty inform the illustration because e-mails ordain come in on that. Ty: Kat and I did the illustration we use for this feature. It's a compete on words and we thought it was humorous. I'll also again say that I am gay and Kat who is straight and I had both heard from mutual friends. "How come men's get rid of is never noted?" I'm unfamiliar with any illustration we've offered that featured female get rid of up to that point but Kat and I were game and we came up with the illustration we use back in January.
Jim. Dona. Jess. Ty. "Ava" started out this place as five students enrolled in journalism in NY. Now? We're comfort students. We're in CA. Journalism? The majority scoffs at the notion. From the start at the very go away. C. I of The Common Ills has helped with the writing here. C. I.'s part of our core out six/aggroup. (C. I and Ava write the TV commentaries by themselves.) So that's the six of us. We also ascribe Dallas as our link locator soundboard and much more. We try to bequeath to convey him each week (don't always remember to say it here) but we'll say him in this. So this is a place by the gang/core six: Jim. Dona. Ty. Jess. Ava and C. I. (of The Common Ills).
Related article:
http://thirdestatesundayreview.blogspot.com/2007/10/mailbag.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
