I am at a loss as to why David Marchese would choose Gina Arnold as his foil for this article. I've read one of her two books and countless articles she wrote throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s, in the San Jose Metro and the Mercury News. The best thing you can say about her writing is that if you already agree with her basic premise (such as, say, The Replacements were awesome) then you might not be offended by the sloppy prose and refusal to fact check. (For example [and I will admit, these are oldies...I don't doubt she's found new howlers to print]: Eric Bazilian was never in Hootie & The Blowfish. "Eye Of The Tiger" was not a Frank Stallone song. The Replacements video with the shot of the speaker? That was "Bastards Of Young.") The point of this seeming ad hominem attack? Gina is a writer with an opinion and no desire to actually do any research or critical thinking once that opinion is formed. It can be argued that the first two errors don't matter. After all, who cares about the source of a Joan Osbourne song, or about a band reduced to doing self-parodying commercials? To that I'd reply that if she can't be bothered to understand something well enough not to make ridiculous errors, in this case the terrible, terrible music she was (rightfully) dismissing, then how can we take seriously her dismissal of it?

The Replacements error, however, cuts straight to the heart of the matter. This is a band about which Gina Arnold has expressed borderline obsession. (Great band. No argument here.) But if she cannot be bothered to get something as easy as the song associated with a video right (and The Replacements made precious few videos) when she obviously cares about the band, why in the world would anyone give her a platform? She's only going to make you look foolish.

And she has. It is arguable whether SPLHCB should be crowned "greatest" anything. The Beatles made albums that had better songwriting and have aged with more grace. But to argue that the Beatles' influence is anything less than pervasive and that SPLHCB wasn't utterly of its time, that it somehow failed to express anything of the moment only cements Arnold's place at the top of the ignorant heap. Polyphonic Spree? "A Day In The Life" alone can be heard echoing through the works of many a dour, piano-based ballad. Now, I'll bet that the music Arnold (and by association Marchese) likes is probably more obviously influenced by the Stones. (It kind of comes down to her old issue: The Replacements or Husker Du. Myself, I prefer the melody-and-meth sound of the Huskers to the booze-and-blooze of the 'Mats, but even there I can hear as much if not more Beatles than Stones in the 'Mats actual music.) But again, she makes sweeping statements (and drags Marchese along with her) with little or no basis in any reality-based world. To intelligently argue about a thing being overhyped you must first understand what level of hype it may have deserved, and neither of your columnists have made the barest effort to that end.

Salon, you've repeatedly come out against people whose desire to push an agenda or opinion is untainted by fact, reason or precedent. Why the about face?

It's overdone already, but I must interject here along with the many others and say David Marchese has potatoes in his ears. Journey is easily the worst band of any profile of the 1980s, and quite possibly the worst band of all time.

The comparison with Abbey Road is an interesting one. Certainly Abbey Road was more slick than the first Ramones album. I'll give you that. But you could probably set it up against the entire Perry-era Journey's output and Abbey Road would still win for lyrical depth, musical range and melodic invention. It's not a kind comparison for even the best artists. Journey just looks silly within half a mile of it.

Steve Perry..man, where do I start? I'll admit, the man has vocal strength and agility. And how does he use this? By mercilessly aping Sam Cooke without ever adding a scintilla of taste or soul to the mix. I kind of want to compare Perry to Pat Boone in the 1950s, but there's a much more accurate, recent analogous artist. Johnny Lang, whose guitar playing was a technically brilliant, soulless copy of earlier, grittier virtuosos. Lang, however, was 15, and allowed to be an empty copyist while he (in theory) matured and developed a sound more authentic to himself. Perry has no such excuse. He's ruined damn near every Sam Cooke album for me with his pitch-perfect, utterly mechanical belting. That is unforgivable.

They were never a great band, even in those early days when Rollie, Schon & Co. were just looking for Santana-free space to play, but Steve Perry's arrival signaled an era of deep, enduring mediocrity. I will always harbor a deep hatred for those hacks. I hated them when it was nominally cool to like them. I hated them when it was cool to hate them. And I hate them now, when not hating them is held up as some asinine badge signifying one's not being fooled by empty hipsterism. Frankly, Journey sucks. They always sucked, and they always will. And I may be throwing my lot in with the hipsters, who knows. But I refuse to be cowed into denying the truth by that threat.

On a wholly different note (and in reference to a different column), the stroh violin rocks.

C'mon, King. Nessman's coverage of the great WKRP Turkey Drop was riveting radio.