RTP-area local music and culture

[grady <grady AT ibiblio.org>]

gcurrin AT gmail.com wrote:
> Ross, you got me: I spend more time on a Web site that I get paid to
> help maintain than on a.m.c.h. It's my job, so I do devote some energy
> to it. If a reader is wondering about a comment, I try to respond.
> That seems fair, right?

Sure, that's all very well and good, but we're still waiting to hear 
what you think about Local 506, smoking, and cookies.

By the way, none of us get paid to post to a.m.c-h either, unless you 
count "posting from work" as getting paid to post ;-)

> A huge chunk of this is online, where you
> can hear-instantly at the Web site-most of the bands we're writing
> about. A huge reason for this redesign was to provide for an online
> focus: Read about the band. Or just hear them. If you disagree with
> our opinion on a band, do tell! There's also a downloadable song of
> the week that uses a Q&A and, we hope, a great piece of music to
> function as a show preview. 

Perhaps I'm simply blind, but the URL for the website is only listed 
once, in normal type, down in the lower left-hand corner of last week's 
section, and it's a link to the top level of indyweek.com. Until you 
figure out how to get my browser to open to the correct page 
automatically when I open the paper, I suggest printing the URL more 
prominently, and make a static URL that always points to the current 
content (such as hearingaid.indyweek.com) so that peeps can bookmark it.

> Rather, we're giving the
> local music scene loads of positive support and, in a very small
> section of the paper, offering opinions on touring bands that we feel
> people should pass on if they're on the fence. 

This is a wee bit disingenuous. I defy you to find a single Indy reader 
who was "on the fence" about either the Styx/Foreigner or the Mike Love 
shows. *Some* of the intention might be to provide this invaluable 
service to the on-the-fence reader, but some of it is clearly to stretch 
out the snark muscles a bit.

> I feel if you have critics writing about what they love,
> they should be able to mention their objections to bands that they
> don't love, too. 

This is the thing: there are fewer and fewer jobs where listeners are 
forced to endure exposure to any/all new/popular music that comes down 
the pike. Working that lone remaining retail job where the PA isn't 
permanently set to "80s Mix" is one, and "weekly paper music critic" is 
another, at least if you take the job seriously enough to actually 
listen to most/all of the music that comes in over the transom.

The rest of the world has moved to a "listen to what's already on my 
iPod" model. Under that model, expressing a contrary opinion about a 
relatively unknown band (and believe me, "2 albums on Kill Rock Stars" 
does not a household name make) isn't really doing many folks a service, 
because the only people going to the freaking show are people who either 
want to see their friends' bands play opening sets, or people who heard 
the album and like it. Are there even people who think "gee, I'll go see 
anything on KRS!" anymore, other than maybe Dave Cantwell, and that's 
usually because he's in one of the opening bands anyway?

Moreover, since nobody but rockcrits is forced to develop opinions about 
music they don't like anymore, you don't even get the sympathetic nod 
you might've gotten 10-15 years ago. Instead you get this outpouring of 
"what the fuck, dude?" posts in this thread.

> Doesn't mean people have to subscribe to those words
> at all, but, to me, the irresponsibility is in giving readers only the
> positive half of your "honest opinion" out of allegiance to
> boosterism.

An argument I made last weekend while floating in an inner tube on the 
Haw with some friends. It didn't fly all that well, to be honest (the 
argument, not the inner tube). I suppose I would suggest that there's a 
difference between dismissing band X in passing, in the service of 
explaining why band Y is doing it better, and just outright dissing for 
its own sake. People seem not to like pot-shots, regardless of 
justification. They also seem to be really attuned to wording; you 
could've changed about 15 words in the They Shoot Horses blurb, to make 
it read more like "regardless of order, the true headliner of the show 
is CGJ, who do more with their three members than headliners TSHDT do 
with six," and you might've gotten far less flack.

Although part of the objection seems to be to the "Eh, Whatever" 
heading. Maybe you should reserve that for shows that you don't feel 
strongly enough about either way to even write a blurb for? Or reserve 
the whole section for dissing Walnut Creek shows . . .

> I had a good conversation about this with Steve last night, and we
> talked at length about one of the main concerns here-that is,
> occasionally negative coverage for a national band will hurt the local
> bands opening for them. 

The reality is that a *lot* of people don't even wanna see 2 or 3 bands 
per show. If you can write a blurb in which you strongly recommend that 
someone show up early enough to see the opener, and then (briefly!) note 
that they can leave before the [lousy] headliner takes the stage, then 
you're doing everybody a service. I think a big chunk of the objection 
around here was not to the idea of dissing some out-of-town band, but 
rather (a) the manner in which they were dissed (in the case of They 
Shoot Horses vs. CGJ) and (b) the relative amount of space devoted to 
the dis vs. the space that could've been dedicated to praising the 
openers, who weren't going to play less-impressive shows by virtue of 
whom they were opening for.

> But, if someone is going to take stock in what
> we say about The Ladybug Transistor (and I'm not saying they will!),
> then there's a decent chance they've seen us gush about openers Un
> Deux Trois and checked it out for themselves.

Here is where Todd Morman would spit his coffee on the screen and then 
make a rude remark. Dude, most people skim, not read, and when they're 
skimming, they're processing based on matrices they've already 
half-built in their heads. Yes, there is a chance that someone whose eye 
is caught by the phrase "Ladybug Transistor" will have already checked 
out Un Deux Trois based on your previous mentions, but that chance is 
about 3%, unless Un Deux Trois were on *another* opening bill for 
*another* sounds-like-Merge-circa '98 band, and that person knew to show 
up early enough to see them, *and* managed to figure out who they were, 
since most bands around here only mention their name once per set, if that.

> ("This McEntire could
> wait forever, and she'd be OK. That's a strength not necessarily
> absent on Bellafea albums, but far more visible here."; Un Deux Trois
> is bouncy and vibrant, and the 150 perfect seconds of "45rpm" should
> make the room's mood more seasonally appropriate.")

Not to go all lit-crit on you, but I wouldn't call that "gushing."

> One last thing: Martin, if you'd like to write an "Eh, Whatever" about
> either of the bands on Burly Time Records, tell me the best way to get
> promo copies to you. Your office is on the way to my office, so I'd be
> happy to drop them off. 

Be careful, Fiver! He's been promising to drop off copies of those CDs 
to WXDU for several months now, but something always comes up. Of 
course, we're not right down the street from the best bakery in the 
Triangle, so maybe you'll have better luck than we have. Hey Grayson, 
feel free to leave our copies with Fiver, I know he knows how to find 
'XDU . . .