From: Mike Fulmer, fulmer.4@osu.edu
Subject: Re: Must. Crush. All. Dissent.
Date: 2/25/2002 12:24:42 PM
To: Seance Mailing List - The Church, seance@lists.no-fi.com


John,
   Sure, the reviewer can share his own impressions. But when he 
writes that Radiance "creates a keen portrait of an incestuous 
community" I'm confused. He doesn't expand on that thought. I don't 
see it myself. Maybe he was using some meaning of incest of which I 
am not aware. He even starts his review proclaiming that "...The 
Church want to be U2...." Never explains this supposition, but he 
sure bases the rest of the review around this idea. Find me any 
interview in which any of the members of The Church claim U2 
aspirations. I actually see them as near musical antipodes (in 
lyricism, popularity, politics, etc.). I find this kind of reviewing 
"ill-informed," and worthy of rebuttal.

C. Bottomley uses words like "grim," "exhausted," and "gloom" to 
describe the songs. Fine, that's his opinion. But he describes Steve 
as having "adopted the guise of a tortured poet," and his vocals as 
"never rising above a jaded mutter." Just like the sad old 
Bono-wannabe he sees him as. Was he confusing AENT with "Pink Moon"? 
Steve rises far beyond a mutter on Reprieve and Seen It Coming, for 
example. And by the time Invisible ends I feel absolved and charged, 
not exhausted.

I'm not one to squelch dissent, but critics/reviewers/anyone sharing 
their opinion should make their case in a clear, thoughful, informed 
way - good review or bad. Then be prepared for and accept the 
response they get. You'll read a lot of passioned responses on a 
mailing-list of fans. Yet most of us are adults here and accept 
criticism of the band, but it's doubtful we would post to say, "I 
hear you and your opinions are valid and accepted." I'm guessing most 
people on this list are quiet lurkers anyway (and sad Bono-wannabes 
:^).

Mike F.


At 1:59 PM -0500 2/25/02, John L. Micek wrote:
>Mike:
>I've read some of the ripostes to the VH-1 review. WhatI find hysterical is
>the
>fact that the respondents are denouncing the critic for being "wrong" for
>completely subjective judgments.
>It is not, in fact, empirically provable that the Esmeralda song is about a
>virgin visitation at Fatima. Yes,
>it makes reference to it, but if the VH-1 reviewer took away the impression
>that it was about "an incestuous community,:" then so what? That's the
>beauty of song lyrics, it means something different to each person.
>Or, for instance, countering that the Church has rocked you harder than U2
>does not disprove someone's opinion that the Church, musically speaking,
>resemble U2. It is simply countering someone's opinion with your own. It
>does not, by any stretch, make the reviewer provably wrong for drawing his
>own conclusions from the music.
>To my way of thinking, "ill-informed," in this case, translates into "I
>don't agree with your slamming my favorite band."
>
>And, really, that's my complaint about this whole thread of late. Any
>review that does not speak of the band in anything less than hushed and
>reverential tones is immediately shouted down as heretical. That's
>hypocritcal in the least and intellectual facism in the extreme. They're
>not sacrosanct and can, in fact, be criticized.
>
>john.