Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 54 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Oh, please....
[Read the article: The Hillary juggernaut]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Speaking as a Democrat, here, I'm absolutely befuddled by the whole Hillary nomination concept. She's almost universally disliked outside of her powerbase, and is a guaranteed loss. Her name recognition is high -- but so is the accompanying loathing; her nomination will result in a lock for the Republican candidate. Is it really that difficult for the Democrats to come up with a legitimate, skilled, erudite contender capable of being elected on his or her own merits?
-
Ick....
[Read the article: Download. Listen. Vote! Song Search begins!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Okay, this kind of gets to the heart of my issue with Audiofile: a preference for mushy, toothless sonic experiments instead of, y'know, actual songs. The second piece is marginally better than the first, but I'd skip past either if someone gave me a mix CD with them on it.
-
Think not just twice...
[Read the article: "No" means nothing once sex has started]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"And think not just twice but three and four and five times before you agree to shag someone," Ms. Traister writes.
Well, yes. Absolutely. Why aren't people doing this already?
-
Harder choice...
[Read the article: Our first finalist -- and a new faceoff]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Last time, I had to decide between two songs that bored me to tears. Now I have to decide between two songs from completely different genres that come pretty close to listenable. Sadly, they're BOTH a bit repetitive; they both have memorable melodic lines, and then run them into the ground. And they're both channeling earlier musical eras in a fairly effective way. Which means the choice boils down to "which genre, at the end of the day, do I think is more listenable?"
-
Dark omens....
[Read the article: Two new contenders step up]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]for they are clearly the future of independent music, and salon has always been on the cutting edge of new and exciting developments in independent music
I sincerely hope you're wrong.
-
"Like Castanets"
[Read the article: Song Search: Two New York bands square off]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Decent lyrics, a vocal that gets slightly less annoying the longer you listen to it, and fairly interesting instrumentation add up to a song that, while fluffy, is still pretty charming. "Every Night's a Bust," while bouncy enough, was IMO underproduced.
-
Getaway Car
[Read the article: The last contenders]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's a perfectly ragged song, although I could probably have done with a little more slickness and a little less "art;" it was trying waaaay too hard. That said, at least parts of it CHANGED, and I think most of it worked pretty well. It's not a participatory song, but it's a song that makes you wish it were more participatory -- and it's not MUCH too long.
That said, this contest was made up mainly of songs that, like "End of Summer," have 12 bars of good (if mellow) music that are then repeated for the next infinite-feeling three minutes. I feel almost compelled to vote for the ones that contain obvious stylistic breaks. :)
-
Oh, dear....
[Read the article: The bunny vs. the blue box]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Finally we discover that hipster macaroni-in-a-box is not measurably healthier than Kraft dinner. Next up: an article revealing that braised tofu is not a taste sensation, soul patches are, like, SO over, and $120 "fair trade" outfits for toddlers that make children look like midget Land's End customers are both overpriced and impractical.
It's a very small segment of the population that's actually impacted by this article, even if we include anyone who might briefly feel a bit of schadenfreude.
-
A call for more specific elitism....
[Read the article: The readers strike back]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And yet, it's too easy simply to celebrate the downfall of the elite media and glory in the toppling of the gatekeepers. Yes, they -- we -- could and can be smug and arrogant. Yes, we should be summoned to account when we screw up. And yes, the online revolution has made it easier to do that. But to be part of an elite doesn't mean you're divinely anointed. It simply means you have some aptitude for what you do and have spent years learning to do it, and so you're probably better at it than most people.
But here's the problem: what, exactly, are columnists -- like bloggers in general, or the writers here at Salon -- the "elites" of? Are you writers first, meaning that you should be better at writing than most people? Are you journalists first, and better at ferreting out the truth? Are you prescriptive sociologists, better at stirring up society until the cream comes to the top -- and then skimming it up with your pen?
A lot of the unfocused, random thrashing of the "comment gallery" -- at least, the part that's not all "Look at me! Look at me! I have an angry face on my bum!" -- is due to the fact that readers and respondents will hold you to a different standard than you hold yourself, a standard you might not even consider. Perhaps you got into column writing because you wanted to be a novelist, and this is a step along that path; in the interim, though, you're now reporting on facts, at least from the POV of some of your audience. (And the same holds true in reverse.) I suspect it's exactly that person who wants to do ALL of the above who is most vulnerable -- emotionally and professionally -- to hostile criticism from "hoi polloi" who, through anonymity or obscurity, do not risk as much.
-
No running away...?
[Read the article: Porn free]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A lot things in my life don't add up, but then I was never good at math. It's just a part of my past, and as anyone who reflects on the past realizes, it contributes to who I am today. No apologies, just recognition. No running away, just moving forward.
I'm not sure that looking at the inconsistencies and minor hypocrises of your past out of the corner of your eye as you "move forward" very fast -- just long enough to "recognize" them, and fast enough to outpace them and/or avoid having to process them -- is particularly distinguishable from "running away." How would you tell the difference?