From: daniel farquharson, jerichohawk@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Must. Crush. All. Dissent. Date: 2/25/2002 6:14:05 PM To: fulmer.4@osu.edu seance@lists.no-fi.com >From: Mike Fulmer >To: Seance Mailing List - The Church >Subject: Re: Must. Crush. All. Dissent. >Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:24:42 -0500 > >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. > i completely agree with this, i mean, what better place to flame critics(esp. for negative press about the church!) ;-)than on seance or the womb? perhaps the u2 reference was because of his(bottomly) partial listen to "kings"?! in that case he's got the wrong album!!! i know it's unlikely..but that's the only correlation(sic) i could see between the two bands, ever. my 2 cents- jerichohawk _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com