Recommended Blog: Driftwood Singers
WilliamWMeyer
I've been meaning to suggest this blog,
http://driftwoodsingers.blogspot.com/
Their music coverage is grounded in the 70s, but the main attraction is the
writing.
Here's an example. They're leading into their posting of the song Lay Lady
Lay from Melanie's Garden in the City album:
Let's start with just the barest facts. The potential transgressions. This
clocks in at 6 minutes. It's a cover of a Dylan tune. There's, um, ample
semi-dramatic overblown flute, done in a sort of wannabe Rahsaan Roland Kirk
style. And, most egregious of all, the conga player throws in an awful lot
of these little
lick-your-index-finger-and-slide-it-across-the-drumhead-to-produce-a-moaning-whale-song-sound
things. You'd think that would add up to a perfect storm of
suckiliciousness, but no. Somehow the "flavor profile" goes through some
kind of alternate-universe hydrogen-bonding ionizing valence switch -
everything that should create lameness actually adds awesomeness. ...
DianeE
"WilliamWMeyer" <fa...@dontharvest.com> wrote in message
news:13ivn94...@corp.supernews.com...
Why do people write like this instead of saying what they mean?
DianeE
Mark Dintenfass
<Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
Usually it's because they don't know what they mean.
--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply
Fred
>
> Usually it's because they don't know what they mean.
The "main attraction" of the writing is obviously meant to be of the
same type of "attraction" as a bloody car wreck. Thankfully, the only
victim in the blog is the English language.
WilliamWMeyer
Hank Hazelnuts
> I've been meaning to suggest this blog,http://driftwoodsingers.blogspot.com/
You consider this horseshit to be an "attraction?"
WilliamWMeyer
"Hank Hazelnuts" <Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1194457482.3...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
I figured you and some other folks around here wouldn't like it, but yes I
do.
driftwoo...@hotmail.com
On Nov 7, 1:44 pm, "WilliamWMeyer" <f...@dontharvest.com> wrote:
> "Hank Hazelnuts" <Savo...@aol.com> wrote in message
Fred
> Thanks for sticking up for us against the mob, William!
>
You should realize that you were quoted in the middle of an ongoing
discussion between Wiilliam and me of music criticism and writing
styles. My "car wreck" quote was made in the context of that
discussion, but it was motivated by the following:
"little lick-your-index-finger-and-slide-it-across-the-drumhead-to-
produce-a-moanin�g-whale-song-sound
things. You'd think that would add up to a perfect storm of
suckiliciousness, but no. Somehow the "flavor profile" goes through
some
kind of alternate-universe hydrogen-bonding ionizing valence switch -
everything that should create lameness actually adds awesomeness."
You manage to jam nineteen (19!) hyphens into a little more than two
sentences. I realize you are aiming at a certain off-handed (one!)
breezy tone, but please remember; everytime you abuse punctuation, the
soul of everyone who ever tried to teach you proper English is
consigned to another century in Hell. That may be exactly what you
had in mind, but those innocent folk are only paying for your sins,
and they had little idea that, through the Internet, millions of
people would be aware of their signal failure to get you to stop.
Just because you can hit the same key nineteen times doesn't mean you
have to do it, in public anyway.
You may actually talk that way. I went to school with guys who did.
The ones who weren't strangled with their own t-shirts in a room
illuminated by a blacklight ended up as taxi dispatchers and greyhound
race callers. I honestly believe that if it wasn't for people who
talk like you wrote that selection, the Walkman would never have been
invented in self-defense. For that, I thank you.
In all seriousness, the point most of us agree on here is that how you
talk about music is a whole lot less important than what you have to
say. We don't seem to always agree on what some people have to say
sometimes because language is often a blunt instrument and your turn
in our barrel happened to coincide with one of those moments. Feel
free to return the volley, most of us are adults here.
So as far as that goes, Melanie's version of "Lay Lady Lay" is the
musical equivalent of waterboarding. It is not "so bad it's
good" (which I think is your conclusion). It is just "so bad."
Melanie Sofka had an endearing personality and a warm stage presence.
She had a talent for creating a striking image ("we bled inside each
other's wounds") and then coupling it with meaningless doggerel ("let
your white birds smile up at the ones who stand and frown"). Her "Lay
Lady Lay" sounds like it was something she THOUGHT she should sing.
She was incorrect.
Life is too short to listen to "so bad" music.
WilliamWMeyer
> On Nov 15, 10:15?pm, driftwoodsing...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Thanks for sticking up for us against the mob, William!
> >
>
> You should realize that you were quoted in the middle of an ongoing
> discussion between Wiilliam and me of music criticism and writing
> styles. My "car wreck" quote was made in the context of that
> discussion, but it was motivated by the following:
>
> "little lick-your-index-finger-and-slide-it-across-the-drumhead-to-
> things. You'd think that would add up to a perfect storm of
> suckiliciousness, but no. Somehow the "flavor profile" goes through
> some
> kind of alternate-universe hydrogen-bonding ionizing valence switch -
> everything that should create lameness actually adds awesomeness."
>
I think we should be moderate in how we apply standards. A blog is like a
shark. It has to keep moving (the Driftwood Singers seem to aim for around
two posts a week). Material won't always be stellar. Though I can't say I've
done any meaningful study, other blogs I've seen have been *less*
interesting to me than theirs.
I like the overall idea above, of the valence switch, and though the hyphen
string thing falters I could easily imagine that drum sound to be a problem.
I've always been engaged by the subject matter they choose.
I'm trying to bring people into the tent, of having discussions about music.
In my ideal, the intensity of "constructive" criticism could go higher once
more people are brought in. While there's only two or three of us having
these inane discussions, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to keep the
Spanish Inquisition out of it.
I feel quite bad for exposing these nice guys to this. I thought it unlikely
they'd hear about it (I wonder if that speaks to how many people observe
these discussions silently, and whether they're inhibited from participating
by the teeth-gritting discussions going on here).
In spite of the proximity to the discussion you and I were having, Fred, I
really thought negative stuff about what I had posted would be kept to the
joking level. As you can see, I am truly a moron.
Fred
>
> I think we should be moderate in how we apply standards. A blog is like a
> shark. It has to keep moving (the Driftwood Singers seem to aim for around
> two posts a week). Material won't always be stellar. Though I can't say I've
> done any meaningful study, other blogs I've seen have been *less*
> interesting to me than theirs.
>
There are very few blogs worth reading because there are very few
bloggers with something interesting to say and with the ability to say
it well. I say this with full acknowledgement that I participate in a
group blog myself. It's been five weeks since we agreed on adding
anything, because nothing we've said in that time in the email group
that provides the basis for the blog bears repeating in public.
Sometimes, knowing not to say anything is the best part of knowing
what to say. It is nice to share the responsibility for the lack of
productivity with other people, especially since the group
collectively has a couple dozen books to our credit (to which I've
added none of my own).
> I like the overall idea above, of the valence switch, and though the hyphen
> string thing falters I could easily imagine that drum sound to be a problem.
> I've always been engaged by the subject matter they choose.
>
> I'm trying to bring people into the tent, of having discussions about music.
> In my ideal, the intensity of "constructive" criticism could go higher once
> more people are brought in. While there's only two or three of us having
> these inane discussions, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to keep the
> Spanish Inquisition out of it.
I didn't see my comments as being an invitation to an auto da fe.
>
> I feel quite bad for exposing these nice guys to this. I thought it unlikely
> they'd hear about it (I wonder if that speaks to how many people observe
> these discussions silently, and whether they're inhibited from participating
> by the teeth-gritting discussions going on here).
>
I suspect he googled "driftwood singers" and got the link. It should
come as an indication of their low profile otherwise that the
reference in this group comes up in the top three.
> In spite of the proximity to the discussion you and I were having, Fred, I
> really thought negative stuff about what I had posted would be kept to the
> joking level.
And it was. You may find it difficult to believe, but I really never
strangled anyone for using run-on sentences in my presence. And, to
move the conversation forward, I went so far as to offer my own
capsule review of the same record.
As you can see, I am truly a moron
You hide it well.
driftwoo...@hotmail.com
Your link came up on our Site Meter, which is how we discovered you
discovering us. We're thrilled to have incited feelings, whether love
or hate! We're also amazed and delighted that somebody decided to
deconstruct our grammar (down to the number of hyphens) and drill
deeper in their analysis of Melanie (Sofka!)'s cover of "Lay Lady
Lay." Thanks to Fred, I learned why life is too short to listen to it.
Too bad it took me 500 words to find out. I could have just listened
to Melanie's version of "Lay Lady Lay"! We at the Driftwood Singers
believe the cost-benefit analysis goes to Melanie and multiple
hyphens.
Lefty
WilliamWMeyer
>
> >
> > I think we should be moderate in how we apply standards. A blog is like
> > a
> > shark. It has to keep moving (the Driftwood Singers seem to aim for
> > around
> > two posts a week). Material won't always be stellar. Though I can't say
> > I've
> > done any meaningful study, other blogs I've seen have been *less*
> > interesting to me than theirs.
> >
>
> There are very few blogs worth reading because there are very few
> bloggers with something interesting to say and with the ability to say
> it well.
There's something a little "conventional wisdom"-ish about this as a
response to my point. I'm glad you have the confidence in your literary
judgment to make such decisions, but I don't in mine. In broad terms, what
you say about blogs is also true of professional and publisher-sanctioned
writing. Books in Print by the mid-90s, had become four times the width and
length of the 1977-1978 edition. At the same time as this increase, there
was much bemoaning of declines in readership, book-buying, etc.
The modern intellectual project, I would say, is sorting through noise,
archiving, cataloging, critiquing, and importantly, distilling (Harry Smith
rocks!). The greatest favor anyone can do in this society, in a way, is NOT
to throw their hat in the various rings, of writing, music-making, etc.
That's a catch-22, because the more conscientious will tend to recognize
this, and they're the ones we would want not to opt out.
Postmodern thinkers like Deleuze and Guattari talk about play, which I take
to mean having fun with ideas. There must be a shared culture about which to
play with these ideas, thus Melanie. Lack of shared culture is the trouble I
have with obscurity riding. Trash culture is appealing as subject matter,
precisely because it's less loaded with the orthodoxies of whether it's
"really good" or not.
I'm trying to follow my gut, and I say the Driftwood Singers have got
something. I can't say for sure, though, because I'm aware of them through a
personal connection. (I find adjusting for personal influence to be very
difficult, and just another in my endless list of things I think people
should think more about.)
>
> > In spite of the proximity to the discussion you and I were having, Fred,
> > I
> > really thought negative stuff about what I had posted would be kept to
> > the
> > joking level.
>
> And it was. You may find it difficult to believe, but I really never
> strangled anyone for using run-on sentences in my presence.
In the intellectually self-policing world implied by the points I make
above, a well-timed criticism of sentence structure could shake someone's
faith in themselves. Being too thick-skinned about legitimate criticism to
even take notice of it I'm sure is responsible for huge rafts of problems in
our society. There's much ignoring of it going on on these boards.
> And, to move the conversation forward, I went so far as to offer my own
> capsule review of the same record.
Fine, but you seemed to come to the conclusion that it's not worth talking
about, which brings us back around to the 5-week writer's block on your blog
and the sparsity of discussion on these boards.
Fred
On Nov 18, 11:42 am, "WilliamWMeyer" <f...@dontharvest.com> wrote:
>
> > There are very few blogs worth reading because there are very few
> > bloggers with something interesting to say and with the ability to say
> > it well.
>
> There's something a little "conventional wisdom"-ish about this as a
> response to my point.
The reasons things get to be conventional wisdom is because they
contain wisdom, not because they are meant to be conventional.
I'm glad you have the confidence in your literary
> judgment to make such decisions, but I don't in mine.
Not my problem.
In broad terms, what
> you say about blogs is also true of professional and publisher-sanctioned
> writing.
Absolutely. Sturgeon's Revelation applies everywhere, except I think
he was being conservative by setting the level of crap at 90%.
Books in Print by the mid-90s, had become four times the width and
> length of the 1977-1978 edition. At the same time as this increase, there
> was much bemoaning of declines in readership, book-buying, etc.
>
> The modern intellectual project, I would say, is sorting through noise,
> archiving, cataloging, critiquing, and importantly, distilling (Harry Smith
> rocks!).
I disagree. Distilling is a process of reduction. Nothing new is
created through distilling. Smith was a brilliant archivist, but he
created nothing new. The highest function of intellect is synthesis.
The greatest favor anyone can do in this society, in a way, is NOT
> to throw their hat in the various rings, of writing, music-making, etc.
> That's a catch-22, because the more conscientious will tend to recognize
> this, and they're the ones we would want not to opt out.
>
No one with any actual talent really "opts out" because too many
people are doing something they can do. Talent always sets its own
agenda.
> Postmodern thinkers like Deleuze and Guattari talk about play, which I take
> to mean having fun with ideas.
You get a lot more from them than I do. If the concept of
schizophrenia as a capitalist disease is your idea of fun, so be it.
It just comes off as both pseudo-science and pseudo-politics to me,
and without a shred of "fun" to be found in it.
There must be a shared culture about which to
> play with these ideas, thus Melanie. Lack of shared culture is the trouble I
> have with obscurity riding. Trash culture is appealing as subject matter,
> precisely because it's less loaded with the orthodoxies of whether it's
> "really good" or not.
Your use of the term "trash culture" is exactly the kind of value
judgment you try to condemn, and it implies not only an understanding
of "orthodoxies" but an embrace of at least one of them. Your
"orthodoxy free" premise only makes sense if you can consistently
apply the same standards to all cultural acts and events. You can't
do that and celebrate "trash culture" or "guilty pleasures" at the
same time. It's either culture or it ain't. "Lay Lady Lay" is either
valuable or it ain't. Glorifying it as "so bad it's good" is a cheap
shot.
>
> I'm trying to follow my gut, and I say the Driftwood Singers have got
> something.
It might be curable, too.
I can't say for sure, though, because I'm aware of them through a
> personal connection. (I find adjusting for personal influence to be very
> difficult, and just another in my endless list of things I think people
> should think more about.)
If you mean that you cannot separate your own opinion of them from the
opinion of the person who introduced you to them, you need to spend
less time with the theorists and more time using, and trusting, your
own faculties. It's an opinion, and you are entitled to have them.
>
>
>
> > > In spite of the proximity to the discussion you and I were having, Fred,
> > > I
> > > really thought negative stuff about what I had posted would be kept to
> > > the
> > > joking level.
>
> > And it was. You may find it difficult to believe, but I really never
> > strangled anyone for using run-on sentences in my presence.
>
> In the intellectually self-policing world implied by the points I make
> above, a well-timed criticism of sentence structure could shake someone's
> faith in themselves.
Not my problem, and I don't think that "intellectually self-policing
world" exists anywhere near here.
Being too thick-skinned about legitimate criticism to
> even take notice of it I'm sure is responsible for huge rafts of problems in
> our society. There's much ignoring of it going on on these boards.
I don't understand what this means.
>
> > And, to move the conversation forward, I went so far as to offer my own
> > capsule review of the same record.
>
> Fine, but you seemed to come to the conclusion that it's not worth talking
> about,
I never said that.
Go back and read my "review" again. I could have expanded on the idea
that her version of "Lay Lady Lay" sounds like something she thought
she SHOULD sing to say that a sincere intent is not all that is
necessary to create artistic value. The limitations of Melanie's
vocal talent pretty much insured that achieving anything positive was
going to be a struggle, but there isn't a glimmer of understanding
evident in her singing.
Compare this song to Richie Havens' contemporaneous "I Pity The Poor
Immigrant." Havens' singing voice is no more professional than
Melanie's, but Havens has more than a clue about the meaning of the
song, and he knows how to communicate it. The result is an
extraordinarily perceptive interpretation of a rather obtuse Dylan
song.
Now, Havens' rendition doesn't lend itself to a too-clever-by-half
analysis that implies a certain superiority to the reviewer, so it is
not likely to get a nod on the Driftwood blog. Celebrating Melanie's
"Lay Lady Lay" as so bad it's good tells us nothing about the song,
and a lot about the reviewer. Maybe that was the point.
Calling Melanie's song "suckalicious" is not saying anything worth
hearing about it.
which brings us back around to the 5-week writer's block on your
blog
> and the sparsity of discussion on these boards.
It isn't writer's block. The silence is a result of very high
standards as to what is worthy of posting in public. I thought I made
that clear.
As for what goes on here, the level of dialog is precisely where it
should be, given the participants.
driftwoo...@hotmail.com
Fred
> I feel like Harold Bloom just sat on my face.
He obviously mistook you for a piece of furniture. I can see how that
happens to you.
The next time it happens, just keep repeating "suckilicious." He'll
get annoyed and sit elsewhere.
driftwoo...@hotmail.com
day? It's all reruns till you go back to work!
But seriously. I didn't write the word "suckalicious" (I'm another
Driftwood Singer), so I won't argue for or against it. But I had no
IDEA that Tory rock critics existed. I stand in awe.
By the way, I imagined Winchester from MASH when I read this:
>The silence is a result of very high standards as to what is worthy of posting in public. I thought I made
>that clear.
>
>As for what goes on here, the level of dialog is precisely where it
>should be, given the participants.
"Funny"!
L
Fred
> Wait, didn't I see you picketing outside Jay Leno's studio the other
> day?
I don't know. Was that you working the drive-thru at the White
Castle?
>
> But seriously.
Thanks for letting me know you were trying to be humorous. You ought
to do more of this kind of explanation on the blog. Guys like William
won't get confused so easily.
I didn't write the word "suckalicious" �(I'm another
> Driftwood Singer), so I won't argue for or against it.
Way to stand up for the group, or, in a format you will probably
understand Way-to-stand-up-for-the-group-when-it-appears-that-you-
can't-defend-someone-else-making-up-a-word-that-dismally-fails-to-
convey-the-utter-coolness-the-actual-author-desired..
But I had no
> IDEA that Tory rock critics existed. I stand in awe.
Tory?
Is Driftwood some codeword for clueless? Or do you just like reacting
defensively when someone points out your blog (whoever writes it) is
devoid of intelligent life?
>
> By the way, I imagined Winchester from MASH when I read this:
>
> >The silence is a result of very high standards as to what is worthy of posting in public. �I thought I made
> >that clear.
>
> >As for what goes on here, the level of dialog is precisely where it
> >should be, given the participants.
>
> "Funny"!
And I imagined a petulant kid with crayons writing your response.
"Dul!l"
Go back to your own sandbox. There's a whole world of people to bore
with your opinions. Your job is done here.
Dean F.
> Their music coverage is grounded in the 70s, but the main attraction is the
> writing.
In my freshman year of college, my Journalism 101 teacher introduced my
classmates and me to the phrase "purple prose," as in bloated and
gaseous. The Driftwood Singers' blog writer is a perfect example of
purple prose.
"Suckiliciousness?" Hey, I made up my own word, just like James Joyce!
Come watch me be all cool and hip and stuff!
Dean F.
> "Hank Hazelnuts" <Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> You consider this horseshit to be an "attraction?"
> I figured you and some other folks around here wouldn't like it, but yes I
> do.
Yeah, some folks just can't get into pomposity and self-importance. Go
figure!
By the way, if what you posted is an example of what this group is
capable of writing, I'd hate to be subjected to their music! It's
probably the audio equivalent of "Manos: The Hands of Fate."
Fred
> WilliamWMeyer wrote:
> > "Hank Hazelnuts" <Savo...@aol.com> wrote in message
Be careful, Dean. They might call you a "tory" because you find heavy
handed whimsy to be boring. These Driftwood guys are very clever.
Ask them, they'll tell you so..
Dean F.
> Be careful, Dean. They might call you a "tory" because you find heavy
> handed whimsy to be boring. These Driftwood guys are very clever.
> Ask them, they'll tell you so..
Yeah; they're the Emerson, Lake & Palmer of music writing!
WilliamWMeyer
> > That's a catch-22, because the more conscientious will tend to recognize
> > this, and they're the ones we would want not to opt out.
>
> No one with any actual talent really "opts out" because too many
> people are doing something they can do. Talent always sets its own
> agenda.
>
They wouldn't opt out for that reason. But I was saying that it might be
better if some of the multitudes who seek this type of success did opt
out -- this is in the cold economic terms of people's fathers discouraging
them from going into the arts. People should examine the drive to become
writers and artists.
And talent doesn't always set its agenda well enough for success. Few
talented people are talented in all the ways needed for success, which is
where a talented person's supporters come in. Then the supporters need to
have agenda-setting talent-judging talent. Many of the answers you're giving
me are far too easy.
> > Postmodern thinkers like Deleuze and Guattari talk about play, which I
> > take
> > to mean having fun with ideas.
>
> You get a lot more from them than I do. If the concept of
> schizophrenia as a capitalist disease is your idea of fun, so be it.
> It just comes off as both pseudo-science and pseudo-politics to me,
> and without a shred of "fun" to be found in it.
I don't know about their schizophrenia. I picked D&G because I was struck by
how fanciful they seemed to be trying to be (rhizomatics and such). All I
know about theory is from secondary sources, where some university galley
slave guy reads it. I can't understand it. (Then you shouldn't be citing it,
Fred says.) Those secondary sources are part of the distillation I'm talking
about in the point below.
> > The modern intellectual project, I would say, is sorting through noise,
> > archiving, cataloging, critiquing, and importantly, distilling (Harry
> > Smith
> > rocks!).
>
> I disagree. Distilling is a process of reduction. Nothing new is
> created through distilling. Smith was a brilliant archivist, but he
> created nothing new.
Is it known how many of the tracks on the anthology would have completely
disappeared if not for Smith? If there are any, then it's almost as if he
created those ones himself, isn't it?
> The highest function of intellect is synthesis.
I've seen this model of synthesis, but I don't think I understand it other
than abstractly. I'm trying to come up with completely new ideas. If
original ideas don't come, I have to settle for synthesizing existing ideas,
credited to other people.
Besides, it sounds like a rule, and as a rule I'm against rules.
> > personal connection. (I find adjusting for personal influence to be very
> > difficult, and just another in my endless list of things I think people
> > should think more about.)
>
> If you mean that you cannot separate your own opinion of them from the
> opinion of the person who introduced you to them, you need to spend
> less time with the theorists and more time using, and trusting, your
> own faculties.
My faculties direct me toward dismissiveness, and the conventional wisdom
kinds of things you say. It's easy to say we should be able to separate, but
I don't think the matter is unproblematic. I've been in the position of
trying to evaluate friends' books and determine where the lines are of, Is
it good? Is it publishable? Is every bad record out there the result of
(groups of) people not being able to separate their personal needs and
perceptions from their aesthetic judgment?
What is your experience of picking hits? Picking hits I think is a test of
how well one does separate these things. I know about Bettye LaVette. I'm
not saying this in a challenging way.
> It's an opinion, and you are entitled to have them.
Here's an example of play. I'm playing with the idea that there's no such
thing as opinions. There are only truths. We say everyone has a right to
their opinion just to keep the peace. But some people are right and some are
wrong. Are there shades of gray, approximations of the truth? Yes.
WilliamWMeyer
> Go back to your own sandbox. There's a whole world of people to bore
> with your opinions. Your job is done here.
I guess stalking around the playground all alone like Nelson on the Simpsons
is your idea of maturity.
WilliamWMeyer
>> I figured you and some other folks around here wouldn't like it, but yes
>> I
>> do.
>
> Yeah, some folks just can't get into pomposity and self-importance. Go
> figure!
>
> By the way, if what you posted is an example of what this group is capable
> of writing, I'd hate to be subjected to their music! It's probably the
> audio equivalent of "Manos: The Hands of Fate."
Responses to the points you raise are contained in my discussion with Fred,
Johnny Come Lately.
Oh, and their music is like a wonderful combination of Metallica and Petula
Clark.
Fred
I guess you just couldn't resist making another inane comment.
Fred
> > > to throw their hat in the various rings, of writing, music-making, etc.
> > > That's a catch-22, because the more conscientious will tend to recognize
> > > this, and they're the ones we would want not to opt out.
>
> > No one with any actual talent really "opts out" because too many
> > people are doing something they can do. �Talent always sets its own
> > agenda.
>
> They wouldn't opt out for that reason. But I was saying that it might be
> better if some of the multitudes who seek this type of success did opt
> out -- this is in the cold economic terms of people's fathers discouraging
> them from going into the arts. People should examine the drive to become
> writers and artists.
>
The only reason to become a creator is if you have the undeniable urge
to create. The Driftwood folks would appear meet this criteria.
However, the urge to create does not automatically confer value to the
creation, which their last responses here appear to presume.
Writing a blog because you think you have something to say is fine.
Going on a Usenet group to challenge someone who finds your blog
puerile, and by doing so proving your critic's pont, reveals that the
intent of the blog is simply to draw attention to yourself. They've
succeeded admirably, and in a truly post-modern sense. They have
achieved a notoriety in this small neighborhood by not doing anything
worth noting.
> And talent doesn't always set its agenda well enough for success.
It depends on what you mean by "success."
Few
> talented people are talented in all the ways needed for success, which is
> where a talented person's supporters come in. Then the supporters need to
> have agenda-setting talent-judging talent.
I have no idea what this means.
Many of the answers you're giving
> me are far too easy.
Then you don't understand the questions.
>
> > > Postmodern thinkers like Deleuze and Guattari talk about play, which I
> > > take
> > > to mean having fun with ideas.
>
> > You get a lot more from them than I do. �If the concept of
> > schizophrenia as a capitalist disease is your idea of fun, so be it.
> > It just comes off as both pseudo-science and pseudo-politics to me,
> > and without a shred of "fun" to be found in it.
>
> I don't know about their schizophrenia.
They're psychologists.
I picked D&G because I was struck by
> how fanciful they seemed to be trying to be (rhizomatics and such). All I
> know about theory is from secondary sources, where some university galley
> slave guy reads it. I can't understand it. (Then you shouldn't be citing it,
> Fred says.) Those secondary sources are part of the distillation I'm talking
> about in the point below.
Secondary sources are interpretations, not distillations. Cliff's
Notes are not a substitute for the real thing.
>
> > > The modern intellectual project, I would say, is sorting through noise,
> > > archiving, cataloging, critiquing, and importantly, distilling (Harry
> > > Smith
> > > rocks!).
>
> > I disagree. �Distilling is a process of reduction. �Nothing new is
> > created through distilling. �Smith was a brilliant archivist, but he
> > created nothing new.
>
> Is it known how many of the tracks on the anthology would have completely
> disappeared if not for Smith?
No, because the question is essentially irrelevant. As I recall, few
of the records archived by Smith were rarities in and of themselves.
If there are any, then it's almost as if he created those ones
himself, isn't it?
No. A librarian is not an author.
>
> > The highest function of intellect is synthesis.
>
> I've seen this model of synthesis, but I don't think I understand it other
> than abstractly.
It isn't that difficult. An individual who can take two separate
concepts and create a third is engaged in synthesis. Marconi noted
that sound could be translated into electrical impulses (which was
already known), and that electronic impulses could travel great
distances without the need for physical connection (which was also
already known). He combined the two to invent wireless telegraphy.
That's synthesis. So is the guy who took the concepts of an apple and
a hammer and invented applesauce.
I'm trying to come up with completely new ideas. If
> original ideas don't come, I have to settle for synthesizing existing ideas,
> credited to other people.
You will have to give me an idea of an "original" idea that has no
foundation in existing ideas.
>
> Besides, it sounds like a rule, and as a rule I'm against rules.
>
I realize that is supposed to be clever, but it doesn't work, and it
makes no sense. That the highest function of intellect is synthesis
is not a "rule." It is a observation of fact.
> > > personal connection. (I find adjusting for personal influence to be very
> > > difficult, and just another in my endless list of things I think people
> > > should think more about.)
>
> > If you mean that you cannot separate your own opinion of them from the
> > opinion of the person who introduced you to them, you need to spend
> > less time with the theorists and more time using, and trusting, your
> > own faculties.
>
> My faculties direct me toward dismissiveness, and the conventional wisdom
> kinds of things you say.
Then you must spend a lot of time reinventing the obvious. Is this
the kind of idea creation you referred to above?
It's easy to say we should be able to separate, but
> I don't think the matter is unproblematic. I've been in the position of
> trying to evaluate friends' books and determine where the lines are of, Is
> it good? Is it publishable?
Two different questions, and, to be frank, hardly up to you. The
assessment of "goodness" is intellectual and individual. The
assessment of "publishable" is commercial and more objectively
quantifiable.
Is every bad record out there the result of
> (groups of) people not being able to separate their personal needs and
> perceptions from their aesthetic judgment?
First, you will have to define "bad," especially in light of the
Driftwood gang's espousal of the "so bad it's good" elevation of trash
culture.
But my preliminary answer is No. Not by a long shot. A lot of bad
records are the result of lack of talent. Individuals and groups that
are unable to adequately articulate their vision create "bad" art.
This lack of skill has nothing to do with faulty discriminatory powers
you suggest.
>
> What is your experience of picking hits?
My musical talent begins when I turn on my radio. It ends when I turn
it off. I'm not in the business of having to pick hits, thankfully.
Picking hits I think is a test of
> how well one does separate these things.
I'm not sure why you think so. Being attuned to popular taste has
nothing to do with the creative urge.
I know about Bettye LaVette. I'm
> not saying this in a challenging way.
>
By a purely populist standard, Bettye isn't a hit. Her latest CD
hasn't sold enough copies to match one-tenth of what the Eagles new CD
has sold in less time. The reviews of Bettye's CD have been uniformly
excellent, and most of those focus on the creative aspects that make
the CD notable. I think it is a great CD. My opinion, however,
doesn't make it a great CD.
> > It's an opinion, and you are entitled to have them.
>
> Here's an example of play. I'm playing with the idea that there's no such
> thing as opinions. There are only truths. We say everyone has a right to
> their opinion just to keep the peace. But some people are right and some are
> wrong. Are there shades of gray, approximations of the truth? Yes.
Your argument does not follow.
You start by saying that some people are right and some are wrong
because there is only truth and that (from what I gather) wrong
opinions are personal misapprehensions of the truth.
Then you say that there can be approximations of truth.
If that were true, two people with contradictory apprehensions of a
truth could both be "right." If so, your initial conclusion (that
there are only truths) is incorrect.
In order to make sense of this, you end up needing to adopt a
nonsensical qualifier - "Some truths are truer than others."
I know the Driftwood boys, in another attempt to be lighthearted and
charming, will hear the tory voice of "Winchester" again, but I am
going to go Manichean on you. Either something is true or it isn't.
What is true under a stated set of conditions today will be true under
the same conditions tomorrow, and next week, too.
The idea that you've adapted from Delueze and Guattari requires that
the play involve new modes of thinking to reach new understanding and
perception outside traditional processes. It doesn't mean you get to
bring in things that don't make sense and presume they do. That's not
play, that's masturbation. I'm not drawing a value judgment there.
I'm simply pointing out that it isn't as creative as you think it may
be.
driftwoo...@hotmail.com
[insert sound of cannon being lit]
http://driftwoodsingers.blogspot.com/2007/11/let-games-begin.html
Fred
> [insert sound of cannon being lit]
>
> http://driftwoodsingers.blogspot.com/2007/11/let-games-begin.html
Insert sound of yawn.
I don't play games with halfwits who own the playing field.
joe_...@hotmail.com
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Let the Games Begin
Holy shit! Now even our favorite neocon warmonger David Brooks is
dropping the bomb on the white boy crew, writing an op-ed on the
fragmentation of rock music and Little Stevie's desire for a tangible
rock'n'roll canon. It's like we're back on campus in 1991 preparing to
fight the PC wars again, with Harold Bloom hoisting the righteous
sword of a Dead White Man Literary Canon against the incoming hordes
of brown people. Great stuff!
And it couldn't come at a better time, just as one of Brooks' right-
wing acolytes on the obscure Google Group "rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.
1970s" is doing a full frontal assault on your very own Driftwood
Singers. It started out with a kind and reasonable fellow named
William telling his pals on the message boards that he was a fan of
this site. But then came a horde of geriatrics with canes a-waving,
led by a dude named Fred -- or as I like to call him, Winchester from
MASH-meets-John Houseman-meets-Harold Bloom-meets-Rich Little-
etcetera. Here's a taste of his elegant skewerings:
Fred contra Mr. Poncho's post on Melanie's cover of "Lay Lady Lay":
You manage to jam nineteen (19!) hyphens into a little more than two
sentences. I realize you are aiming at a certain off-handed (one!)
breezy tone, but please remember; everytime you abuse punctuation, the
soul of everyone who ever tried to teach you proper English is
consigned to another century in Hell. That may be exactly what you had
in mind, but those innocent folk are only paying for your sins,
and they had little idea that, through the Internet, millions of
people would be aware of their signal failure to get you to stop. Just
because you can hit the same key nineteen times doesn't mean you have
to do it, in public anyway.
Fred contra Harry Smith:
Distilling is a process of reduction. Nothing new is
created through distilling. Smith was a brilliant archivist, but he
created nothing new. The highest function of intellect is synthesis.
Fred contra Lefty, accusing me of self-Googling:
I suspect he googled "driftwood singers" and got the link. It should
come as an indication of their low profile otherwise that the
reference in this group comes up in the top three. [Note: Factually
inaccurate. We are HUGE in Cleveland.]
Fred contra new ideas:
The reasons things get to be conventional wisdom is because they
contain wisdom, not because they are meant to be conventional.
Fred contra William, the poor bastard who had the gall to enjoy our
site:
If you mean that you cannot separate your own opinion of them from the
opinion of the person who introduced you to them, you need to spend
less time with the theorists and more time using, and trusting, your
own faculties. It's an opinion, and you are entitled to have them.
On why he doesn't post more often (except when he does, and boy does
he!):
It isn't writer's block. The silence is a result of very high
standards as to what is worthy of posting in public. I thought I made
that clear. As for what goes on here, the level of dialog is precisely
where it should be, given the participants.
I must say, we've been surprised by the attack. But also secretly
delighted! As Mr. Poncho put it to me, we thought we were just "some
dudes swigging whiskey, eating beans, singing a little and talking
music" around the campfire. Turns out we were doing it in the student
union at Brown and the fire marshal just showed up.
Ah, I should have more sympathy. Sources tell me Fred and his boys are
all in their 60s, so as they barrel towards death they're just trying
to teach the whipper snappers some values before the godforsaken world
starts to like obscure Melanie tunes.
Well, screw sympathy. Good sir, this is war! And in honor of the
occasion, I recall the wonderful gate-fold photo of the Bee Gees doing
their historical reenactment of the death of Lord Nelson at the Battle
of Trafalgar. We may die in the battle, dear friends, but these
fuckers are the French and Spanish. Count on it!
Trafalgar - Bee Gees
Fred
>
> http://driftwoodsingers.blogspot.com/2007/11/let-games-begin.html
It doesn't take a whole lot to make you look smarter than you have
been here, because you haven't been smart here at all, but getting to
edit my posts and take potshots at the misrepresentations is certainly
a step in the right direction.
If you can't score points on merit, move the game to your home field.
If that ain't the politics of privilege that you seem to rail against
otherwise, I don't know what it is.
Fred
Thanks, Joe. Here we get to see creative editing as it exists in the
wild.
If nothing else, that hideous screed proves my point about the
emptiness of most blogs. Given that this one seems to be about the
guys who write it, they started out at a disadvantage by being both
inarticulate and having nothing to be articulate about. The fact they
have to misrepresent what I say in order to make themselves look good
is just icing on the cake.
I really didn't think it was possible to get more self-important than
the "review" William originally posted. It's clear I was wrong.
These guys are clearly mining the Comstock Lode of superciliousness.
I think trying to defend your own blog on Usenet may be the definition
of terminal self-adsorption. It may also be a sign of the
Apocalypse. If it means there won't be anymore ego-centric Driftwood
contributions disguised as music criticism, I would be willing to
accept the End of Days..
Fred
But they have a blog, too! And if they don't like how the
conversation is going here, they'll re-invent it to their liking on
the blog! That takes guts!
driftwoo...@hotmail.com
This usenet doesn't constitute "terminal self-adsorption"? Pl-ease!
Seems to me we cured your writer's block, Mister Fred. Should be give
you a back massage while we're at it? (Oh, I forgot, you were only
being silent because of your high standards -- so we've apparently
brought them WAY, WAY back up! Driftwood Singers 1, Fred 0)
By the way, this is the best blurb ever written about our site:
WilliamWMeyer
> Thanks, Joe. Here we get to see creative editing as it exists in the
wild.
Here's a creative edit that shows your better side peeking through.
> I know the Driftwood boys, in another attempt to be lighthearted and
charming,
It's not an attempt. They are lighthearted and charming.
We're all sitting cross-legged at your feet.
(I think the charges that they're trying to be cool, or trying to set
themselves above their subjects, are completely off the mark.)
Fred
> This usenet doesn't constitute "terminal self-adsorption"? �Pl-ease!
> Seems to me we cured your writer's block, Mister Fred. Should be give
> you a back massage while we're at it? �(Oh, I forgot, you were only
> being silent because of your high standards -- so we've apparently
> brought them WAY, WAY back up! Driftwood Singers 1, Fred 0)
>
Go back and read my original comment for comprehension. I was
referring to lack of entries on a group blog I participate in, not my
individual posts on Usenet. You wouldn't consider editing your blog
entry to correct your error, I know. It's a matter of integrity to
you.
Feel even stupider now? You should.
Just because you consider yourself young and hip and liberal, it
doesn't mean that everyone who finds your blog to be vapid to the
point of weightlessness has to be old and cranky and conservative.
Fred
Sure they are.
Dean F.
> Just because you consider yourself young and hip and liberal, it
> doesn't mean that everyone who finds your blog to be vapid to the
> point of weightlessness has to be old and cranky and conservative.
When the Bush-lovers at absm.1950s aren't accusing me of being a
terrorist-loving left-winger, the liberals at this group now imply that
I'm a right-wing Neocon.
I think I know how James Brown felt 40 years ago, when the Black Power
movement called him an Uncle Tom while the white music establishment
accused him of being too militant.
Fred
You're just not as cool as the "Deadwood" Singers, Dean. And, despite
that, you had the temerity to not agree with them about their music
writing. The conclusion is inescapable; you can never be as cool as
them, and you're David Brooks in disguise, just like me. You can't
think their writing sucks without damning their entire political
agenda. It just ain't possible.
They have very deftly moved the subject away from music to the only
subject they really like, themselves. By putting up a fun-house
mirror version of this thread on their blog, they have made themselves
the center of a self-generated tempest in an exceedingly small
teapot. It is what, and it is all, they want to be.
What those great thinkers don't seem to appreciate is that they, by
finding something to be "so bad it's good" that they are fragmenting
music and setting themselves above it, just as Brooks claimed. They
have created Brooks' nemesis where one really didn't exist. One of
their interchangable parts has attempted to distance himself from the
use of the word "suckalicious" to describe a song, but what it comes
down to is a disparagement of a creative work without any communicated
criteria.
In other words, a cheap shot.
In other words, something to make themselves look smarter than anyone
else,and that breathless and sloppy prose style was employed to
distract the lack of content by directing attention to the writer.
Perhaps William can offer some other interpretation, or maybe the
Driftwood gang can do it themselves, if they can stop admiring how
well they write long enough to actually say something about music.
But, as they say themselves, they're just guys talking (about
themselves talking) about music.
Leave a light on. It's going to be a long time before they get back
to talking about music, and when they do, it will probably be
"suckalicious." If I criticize it, I guess I'll be compared to
someone even more pernicious than Brooks. Heaven knows what
conservative demons inhabit a lower circle of Deadwood hell, but I'm
sure they'll stick to name calling rather than actually talking
music.
WilliamWMeyer
Squirm, squirm, squirm.
You're driving yourself into paroxysms of your own guilt. Your inability to
yield combined with the fact that you know you put your foot in your mouth,
will make you hang yourself in a noose of your own making. ...
[Fred's internal monolog]:
What can I say? Oh, they're self-centered. Oh, they're not talking about
music. Oh, they're creatively editing. Oh, they're calling me conservative.
They admire their writing -- which I said was poor but it's not -- yet they
deftly change subjects. Oh, why didn't I read more of their blog before I
posted the car crash comment?
[back to wm]
I felt bad for my role in what I did to them. Now I feel bad for my role in
what I've done to you.
I think what this episode shows is that we're all trolls down here. Let's
let these nice boys go on their merry way. If you ask, I bet they'd take the
post down from their blog.
Fred
> Squirm, squirm, squirm.
>
> You're driving yourself into paroxysms of your own guilt. Your inability to
> yield combined with the fact that you know you put your foot in your mouth,
Where? How?
> [Fred's internal monolog]:
> What can I say? Oh, they're self-centered. Oh, they're not talking about
> music. Oh, they're creatively editing. Oh, they're calling me conservative.
> They admire their writing -- which I said was poor but it's not -- yet they
> deftly change subjects. Oh, why didn't I read more of their blog before I
> posted the car crash comment?
Your mistake. I did read other blog entries before I posted. They
aren't any great shakes as writers or music critics. Their blog is
self-congratulatory shit. (and I doubt they'll use that as a quote).
So are 90% of other blogs I've read.
It was clear to me from reading the rest of their blog that the
Driftwood boys are working with limited grasp of their tools, and that
an irrelevant attack on me was a likely response, with a much greater
possibility than actually addressing my comments. I must admit that I
didn't expect that it would be an attack on my politics, or that it
would be so off-target to be one of the silliest things I have seen
online in some time. I didn't expect them to set the bar that low.
Beyond that, you've spend too much time imagining what I'm thinking,
without the slightest substantiation for your fantasies.
William, you were the one who exposed them here and "recommended"
their writing. I found it puerile. I wasn't alone. Your heros
responded to my criticism by making an attack on what they think are
my politics. rather than to challenge my opinions on what they wrote.
They took quotes out of context and put them on their blog as if that
is some sort of shrine to their inherent coolness. And to them, and
you, they are cool. To me they're not.
Big deal.
I understand why you have to make it seem like my comments are not
what I really think, but my opinion is really as I posted. The only
internal dialog I am engaged in is supposition as to what medication
you aren't taking because you get wrapped up in the strangest things..
Now they desperately have to prove to someone that they are cooler
than me. After all, they have a BLOG, so they must be special. And I
must be some deviant CONSERVATIVE if I find their writing inane.
>
> [back to wm]
> I felt bad for my role in what I did to them. Now I feel bad for my role in
> what I've done to you.
>
You've done nothing to me. Your Deadwood buddies are Internet
buffoons. They can't hurt me.
> I think what this episode shows is that we're all trolls down here. Let's
> let these nice boys go on their merry way. If you ask, I bet they'd take the
> post down from their blog.
I don't care. It's their blog. It's a dumb, inaccurate and
misleading post, but it's all theirs.
One last thing, you know that original quote that impressed you so
much?
Just so you know, that "little
lick-your-index-finger-and-slide-it-across-the-drumhead-to-produce-a-
moanin�g-whale-song-sound
things" has a name. Conga drummers it a "finger slide." It isn't
nearly as cool as running all those words together in some breathless
attempt to sound clever, but if you are going to discuss music, rather
than just try to sound clever, it helps to use the right words.
WilliamWMeyer
I meant to mention my joke about "we bled inside each other's wounds" which
is that Melanie anticipated the AIDS crisis with that line.
Fred, I enjoy talking to you, and I take from the fact that you go easy on
me, and some other things, that you feel the same. Just like in real life,
I'm not that interested in talking to people who don't like me. In fact I'm
one of those people who kinda can't stand the thought of anyone not liking
me.
My posting about the Driftwoods was not something I gave a lot of thought
to. I would have liked to respond to Diane and Mark, but when you came in
with the car crash, I was too weary from my earlier tussle with you.
I had an earlier perception of you as the valiant defender of people with
amateur websites, but in context, maybe that was wrapped up in your
perplexing relationship with Bruce.
I'm just trying to find a way to extricate the Driftwoods from this
discussion, because I did expose them. If they want to come back and
participate in other threads I'd love to have them. I think anyone,
including the critics of their writing, would think they comported
themselves quite admirably here, given the circumstances. I can't believe
that when you go slash and burn on people that you then fault them for
calling you Harold Bloom and conservative. You're a sore winner! They mean
intellectually conservative, not politically. Those are both backhanded
compliments; I'd love to be compared to Harold Bloom.
driftwoo...@hotmail.com
By gum, Winchester, your prose is so damned dapper you've actually
convinced ME that we suck! God knows you've written a minor novella on
the subject. Although I keep imagining it as a terrific one-man show.
Too bad the guy in the old E.F. Hutton commercials is already dead,
he'd be perfect. When he spoke, people listened!
The only truly inaccurate statement in all of these scintillating
screeds is Dean F's preposterous claim that he knows how James Brown
felt at any moment, ever, EVER. Needless to say, James would never
play Sancho to anybody's Quixote. But keep it coming, fellas, this is
good sport.
A Deadwood Boy
Fred
Troll elsewhere. Your work here is done.
Fred
>
> Fred, I enjoy talking to you, and I take from the fact that you go easy on
> me, and some other things, that you feel the same. Just like in real life,
> I'm not that interested in talking to people who don't like me. In fact I'm
> one of those people who kinda can't stand the thought of anyone not liking
> me.
You're going to have to get over that.
>
> My posting about the Driftwoods was not something I gave a lot of thought
> to. I would have liked to respond to Diane and Mark, but when you came in
> with the car crash, I was too weary from my earlier tussle with you.
After our earlier conversation, I was a bit surprised that the
Driftwoods was as good an example of music blog writing as you could
come up with. I can direct you to a half dozen blogs that
consistently feature coherent writing without feeling the need to
impress or condescend to the reader. And they never need to say
"suckilicious" to be hip.
>
> I had an earlier perception of you as the valiant defender of people with
> amateur websites, but in context, maybe that was wrapped up in your
> perplexing relationship with Bruce.
I believe the Internet gives everyone a voice, and that is an
astonishing thing. The democratic potential is nearly infinite.
However, I believe that anyone given such a golden opportunity to
reach out to others has an obligation to raise the bar as far as they
can.
Making fun of the Driftwoods hamfisted writing could have had any one
of several responses. They chose to make an issue of what they think
my politics are, apparently because no one who finds them tedious
could be anything but an old conservative. They started out being
silly, and ended up as just another bunch of trolls. There's a lot
of that going around, and it will always be with us. They seem to be
proud of it.
I am a "valiant defender" of those who honestly try to share insights
and experiences without taking the position that they're cool because
they're talking about it first. I value sincerity over glibness. I
also value skilled glibness over clumsy failed attempts. The
Driftwoods are dismal failures at creating any value at all.
Bruce is a bully. That is all the explanation needed of how I address
him.
>
> I'm just trying to find a way to extricate the Driftwoods from this
> discussion, because I did expose them. If they want to come back and
> participate in other threads I'd love to have them. I think anyone,
> including the critics of their writing, would think they comported
> themselves quite admirably here, given the circumstances.
You read their last post and still believe that? They are trolling
trying to keep the flame war going so they'll have something
interesting to put on their blog and make it seem like they're
important. It's not working.
I can't believe
> that when you go slash and burn on people that you then fault them for
> calling you Harold Bloom and conservative. You're a sore winner! They mean
> intellectually conservative, not politically.
They called me a neo-con acolyte of David Brooks because I thought
their writing was third-rate. The presumption here is that only some
hidebound conservative would find their blog insipid. It's a pretty
big presumption, but they are a presumptuous lot. It really wasn't
what they called me, it was the fact they had to come up with
something rather than address the criticism. It's bush league stuff.
Those are both backhanded
> compliments;
Accent on the backhanded.
I'd love to be compared to Harold Bloom.
Bloom's translation of the Republic is brilliant. Closing of The
American Mind is uneven. He doesn't really get popular culture at
all. The Bloom line was the best shot the Driftwoods had, and, sad to
say, it wasn't original.
driftwoo...@hotmail.com
Hobbitan.
The one thing we'll say about you, Fred, you're a relentless sparring
partner. A war-like persona. We can appreciate this! All of your
critiques of our site -- and I assume you've read all two years of the
archive -- are spot-on and utterly correct. It's hard to conceive that
you could be wrong. Except! You're fundamentally misinformed about our
sense of self-worth regarding the love of Melanie. Please! We've been
listening to and talking about Melanie for many years, on and off this
site. The original post you bitched about began from the position that
you're probably ready to dismiss Melanie's cover of "Lay Lady Lay,"
then asks you to reconsider. In other words: this isn't cool, but
maybe it is? If our language is "breezy," that may have something to
do with the fact that we're talking about, um, MELANIE. Remember,
Fred, she got a brand new pair of ROLLER SKATES.
Ours is a project of appreciation and comradery, not some intellectual
wank-fest populated with the disgruntled faculty of a community
college. The fact that we've taken your blowy rants seriously is the
highest compliment you're likely be paid during your lifetime on the
World Wide Web. That said, it's self-evident that you privately wish
to be a Driftwood Singer. Okay, fine. But only if you say please.
Godspeed,
Lefty
WilliamWMeyer
>> I'd love to be compared to Harold Bloom.
> Bloom's translation of the Republic is brilliant. Closing of The
> American Mind is uneven. He doesn't really get popular culture at
> all. The Bloom line was the best shot the Driftwoods had, and, sad to
> say, it wasn't original.
Just to clarify. Allan Bloom is the U of Chicago classical scholar of the
Republic, who wrote Closing of the American Mind. I haven't read anything of
his. Closing expresses the UofC attitude toward the canon and great books,
but my impression was that he came off in that book as a bit of a crank --
criticizing Elvis Presley among other things.
Harold Bloom is a literary critic at Yale and probably the most well-read
person alive. He's done famous works on biblical scholarship (The Book of
J). My knowledge of him is limited, but from what I know about him I feel
about him the way I do about Christgau. That we should let guys like that do
our heavy lifting -- and do what they say, within reason.
He's also cranky, but I think in a reasonable way.
I recently watched an interview with him from 2000 on book tv's archive. He
bemoans the state of current intellectual discourse, wearily. He's not
lashing out. Toward the end he talks about reading through university
libraries, having a photographic memory for everything he reads, and reading
very rapidly. Very impressive.
http://www.booktv.org/booknotes/index.asp?schedid=495&segid=8166
Intheway
> Okay, our last post here, promise. We'll stop "trolling" about in
> Hobbitan.
>
Right. You're still cooler than me. I got it.
You really can't help yourself with this stuff, can you?
> The one thing we'll say about you, Fred, you're a relentless sparring
> partner. A war-like persona. We can appreciate this! �All of your
> critiques of our site -- and I assume you've read all two years of the
> archive -- are spot-on and utterly correct.
No. I sampled it. I admit you may have strung together a couple
coherent sentences on the entries I missed, but the sheer neediness of
all those exclamation points on the ones I suffered through finally
wore me down.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Not all the stuff on the blog
has to be third-rate self-aggrandizement. There's probably some
really second rate self-aggrandizement on there.
But let's face it, you're just not as exciting as you think you are.
We've been over this before. Large amounts of superfluous punctuation
is not a substitute for actual content! !! !!!
It's hard to conceive that
> you could be wrong. Except! You're fundamentally misinformed about our
> sense of self-worth regarding the love of Melanie. Please! We've been
> listening to and talking about Melanie for many years, on and off this
> site. The original post you bitched about began from the position that
> you're probably ready to dismiss Melanie's cover of "Lay Lady Lay,"
> then asks you to reconsider. In other words: this isn't cool, but
> maybe it is?
A point to remember in the future: if you have to go back and explain
what you've written, think about rewriting it.
Your post doesn't ask anything, except that we fight back the rising
gorge reading it causes.
If our language is "breezy," that may have something to
> do with the fact that we're talking about, um, MELANIE.
I said you ATTEMPTED to be breezy. I didn't say you achieved it.
Your writing had all the airy subtlety of a concrete block. You
really have as big a problem reading for meaning as you have writing
for meaning.
Remember,
> Fred, she got a brand new pair of ROLLER SKATES.
>
Right. You're cooler than Melanie. I got that part the first time
you said it.
> Ours is a project of appreciation and comradery, not some intellectual
> wank-fest populated with the disgruntled faculty of a community
> college.
Got it. You're cooler than community college faculty! After all, you
BLOG! It doesn't get any cooler than that!
If a community college faculty lounge is a "wank-fest" (and I take it
your fantasy stems from a really bad personal community college
experience), a blogger is the flasher outside the lounge window.
That's because blogging is just wanking in public. One problem with
that is that no one ever finds your performance as interesting as you
do. The real risk for sensitive types like you, however, is that
blogging exposes your "shortcomings" where everyone can see them, and
someone like me might mention them.
I'm not sure where you got the idea you were entitled only to praise
for your efforts. I'm sure your mothers love the blog. After all, it
is just a digital extension of the refrigerator door where they used
to put your drawings. Unfortunately for you, William invited everyone
into the kitchen.
And as for what you say you aren't, I say bullshit.
Your first response to criticism was to try and label me a neo-con for
no other reason that I thought your writing sucked.
That lowly community college instructor you're so much better than
would pick apart your transparent illogic in seconds. And there you
would stand, in front of all the other students, stripped of your
dignity and doomed to be known as "uncool" until you decide to stop
going to all your classes.
At least you will still have the alternative of the University of
Phoenix. There you can be the cool kids in the student center right
in the safety and comfort of your parents' basement, and there would
be no nasty faculty members to remind you that you aren't as hip as
you think you are.
The fact that we've taken your blowy rants seriously is the
> highest compliment you're likely be paid during your lifetime on the
> World Wide Web.
Right. You're cooler than me. We've been over this.
You, as a group, haven't been able to write three consecutive
sentences without veering into fantasy or cutesy punctuation, and I'm
supposed to consider your poor attempts at trolling a compliment?
This will probably come as a terrible disappointment to you, but I
don't share your overwhelming need to be complimented on the Internet,
even by self-important nebbishes who can't bear the idea someone
thinks poorly of their blog. The next time someone upsets you by
finding your scrawls to be less than brilliant, just keep telling
yourself that this isn't real life.
It isn't real life. You do know that, right?
That said, it's self-evident that you privately wish
> to be a Driftwood Singer. Okay, fine. But only if you say please.
>
Thanks for the offer. I'll get back to you as soon as I figure out
what am I supposed to do with the rest of my brain while I'm hanging
out with you. Until then, tell each other how cool you are.
I'm so glad that was your last post.
DianeE
<joe_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7d514530-72b1-4313...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> FROM THE DRIFTWOOD SINGERS:
>
>....It started out with a kind and reasonable fellow named
> William telling his pals on the message boards that he was a fan of
> this site. But then came a horde of geriatrics with canes a-waving,
> led by a dude named Fred -- or as I like to call him, Winchester from
> MASH-meets-John Houseman-meets-Harold Bloom-meets-Rich Little-
> etcetera. Here's a taste of his elegant skewerings:
>
>
> Ah, I should have more sympathy. Sources tell me Fred and his boys are
> all in their 60s, so as they barrel towards death they're just trying
> to teach the whipper snappers some values before the godforsaken world
> starts to like obscure Melanie tunes.
First of all, as Bob Dylan once put it, "he not busy being born is busy
dying." Don't kid yourself, kid, we're *all* "barreling towards death."
Secondly, please clarify: do you object to older people *having* opinions,
or do you object to older people *expressing* their opinions, or do you
object to older people being *passionate* about their opinions?
Incidentally, I'm not defending Fred. I loathe Fred. I do, however, object
strenuously to your ageism.
DianeE