Attacking the Messenger (Re:Skatalites/Moon)
Bob Timm
statement, I'm actually kind of surprised that it took nearly upwrads of
350 posts on a.m.s before somebody would declare that this whole ordeal
was my fault for letting you all know about it in the first place.
Thanks, Janos, for stating that the attack is not personal, but your
recent post does seem to imply that I'm at fault for a) posting the
statement in the first place and b) neglecting to take part in the daily
a.m.s bitch-fest that has resulted from it.
First of all, I posted Mr. Keyo's statement at his specific request. As
the band's official biographer and webmaster, he does have a certain
amount of credibility, plus his views were not entirely out of
left-field. Not that I'm agreeing with his statement, just
saying that it's not something I'd never heard before. Informally, many
people over the years have spoken of the Skatalites' disdain for some of
today's younger bands. Here, we had a
member of their camp going public with an actual quote from Tommy. That,
to me, deserved to be heard by all those concerned with today's ska
scene. Before I posted it it, I alerted Bucket to the full statement and
gave him equal time to reply. Both statements were published together.
If either Buck or Mr. Keyo had any problems with the way I presented
their views, they have not expressed them to me. They are both grown men
and I trust they can take responsibility for their own words. After all,
I'm covering the scene and do not intend to be everybody's den mother.
Secondly, I have followed the a.m.s thread as much as I have been able
to, but frankly this newsgroup is not my sole forum or concern. I'll
gladly confess that I, for one, have not read all 350+ messages. Much as
many here might believe, a.m.s. is not the center of the ska universe.
I have my own opinions on this whole ordeal, but I'll do them better
justice in an upcoming article.
Bob Timm
About.com Guide to Ska and Reggae
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mtska
>350 posts on a.m.s before somebody would declare that this whole ordeal
>was my fault for letting you all know about it in the first place.
People have been thinking it from day one... BZZT! sorry!
>Thanks, Janos, for stating that the attack is not personal, but your
>recent post does seem to imply that I'm at fault for a) posting the
>statement in the first place and b) neglecting to take part in the daily
>a.m.s bitch-fest that has resulted from it.
I think myself, and others feel you tossed gas on the fire with your headline,
being that an arguably more suitable title would have been "brian keyo slams
moon" or "tommy mccook slams moon". I highly doubt everyone in the skatalites
camp shares the exact same views... and even if they do, who likes having
someone else speak for them?
No one is trying to shoot the messenger, but there are a few wondering if he
has a gas can behind his back. (then again, I'd assume/hope you considered that
before writing it...).
>I have my own opinions on this whole ordeal, but I'll do them better
>justice in an upcoming article.
If that's the case, don't try to come off like an unbiased journalist.
(heh - sorry bob, nothing personal whatsoever, but when you walk into a
warzone, expect a lot of gunfire! LOL!)
jOe
Mike Rehfus
think what was unspoken here speaks the loudest: it took up to post
#350 for the daggers to come out pointed at Bob. That this thread made
it even that far (who knows how far along it will be by the time this
reaches post) speaks incredible volumes, all of them good, about this
group.
Think about it; when was the last time a thread of any substance made
it past post 50? Post 25 even? Think of all the snake pit trolling,
Pietaster gossip and generally irrelevant and alienating BS that
clutters up this group on a daily basis. This thread shows that there
are still people in here that care about the music and the scene.
Also consider that this thread has initiated the first meaningful
assessment of the scene beyond all the "Ska is dead!" proclamations
that were old a year ago. I also find it fascinating that this thread
itself has become a topic of several other reasonably well-reasoned
threads.
But back to the slay-the-messenger issue, I simply disagree with the
argument that Bob has somehow damaged the scene by publishing a very
direct statement by a respected author. Yes, it was nothing if not
provocative, but it struck a nerve, and an essential talent of a
journalist is to spot such a thing and act upon it for the ultimate
good.
Was it inflammatory? Yes. Was it irresponsible? Anything but. Certainly
no more irresponsible than Jamie Bogner's fanning the flames of the
Siren Six vs. Everybody issue a couple years back in Skatastrophe
(anybody remember that?). I only make this comparison because I have
profound respect for both Jamie and Bob, and while their methods are
different, and I still take issue with JB's handling of the S6! thing,
their motives are the same: understanding a scene and what's important
to it.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'd like to devote a few hours to read what's
been added to the thread in question since I started typing ten minutes
ago.
Peace!
Mike Rehfus
...........
In article <19991101104247...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,
Michael Caputo
-Mike C
Bob Timm wrote:
>
> While I knew I was sticking my neck out by agreeing to post Brian Keyo's
> statement, I'm actually kind of surprised that it took nearly upwrads of
> 350 posts on a.m.s before somebody would declare that this whole ordeal
> was my fault for letting you all know about it in the first place.
>
> Thanks, Janos, for stating that the attack is not personal, but your
> recent post does seem to imply that I'm at fault for a) posting the
> statement in the first place and b) neglecting to take part in the daily
> a.m.s bitch-fest that has resulted from it.
>
> First of all, I posted Mr. Keyo's statement at his specific request. As
> the band's official biographer and webmaster, he does have a certain
> amount of credibility, plus his views were not entirely out of
> left-field. Not that I'm agreeing with his statement, just
> saying that it's not something I'd never heard before. Informally, many
> people over the years have spoken of the Skatalites' disdain for some of
> today's younger bands. Here, we had a
> member of their camp going public with an actual quote from Tommy. That,
> to me, deserved to be heard by all those concerned with today's ska
> scene. Before I posted it it, I alerted Bucket to the full statement and
> gave him equal time to reply. Both statements were published together.
> If either Buck or Mr. Keyo had any problems with the way I presented
> their views, they have not expressed them to me. They are both grown men
> and I trust they can take responsibility for their own words. After all,
> I'm covering the scene and do not intend to be everybody's den mother.
>
> Secondly, I have followed the a.m.s thread as much as I have been able
> to, but frankly this newsgroup is not my sole forum or concern. I'll
> gladly confess that I, for one, have not read all 350+ messages. Much as
> many here might believe, a.m.s. is not the center of the ska universe.
>
> I have my own opinions on this whole ordeal, but I'll do them better
> justice in an upcoming article.
>
> Bob Timm
> About.com Guide to Ska and Reggae
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
No one user wrote me! I'm worth millions of man-years!
-MCP
Guava Baby
>
> Easy Joe, lets not speak for anyone but ourselves here. In fact, I
> think what was unspoken here speaks the loudest: it took up to post
> #350 for the daggers to come out pointed at Bob.
Is your point that Bob's role in all this is pretty minor and beside the
point? I'm just checking. My take is that most people probably noticed
the inflammatory title and the fact that the letter appeared as if it
were a news item rather than the regular old posting board on his site,
but that that was not really as interesting as the content of the
statement.
(snip)
> Was it inflammatory? Yes. Was it irresponsible? Anything but. Certainly
> no more irresponsible than Jamie Bogner's fanning the flames of the
> Siren Six vs. Everybody issue a couple years back in Skatastrophe
> (anybody remember that?). I only make this comparison because I have
> profound respect for both Jamie and Bob, and while their methods are
> different, and I still take issue with JB's handling of the S6! thing,
> their motives are the same: understanding a scene and what's important
> to it.
I'm curious, what do you think Jamie did wrong? As I recall, he printed
that part of the interview about the Pietasters (which was and still is
the only thing I like about S6!). Then when he got a bunch of letters on
the subject (including, I believe I recall, one from the Pietasters) he
printed some of those. When the subject came up in other interviews he
printed what those bands had to say on the subject. Finally, I think I
also remember him admitting where he stood on the issue, but I think
that was more in the name of full disclosure than trying to win any
fans. What did he do wrong?
Leigh
Satans Plumber
>Easy Joe, lets not speak for anyone but ourselves here. In fact, I
>think what was unspoken here speaks the loudest: it took up to post
>it even that far (who knows how far along it will be by the time this
>reaches post) speaks incredible volumes, all of them good, about this
Hey now, I'm NOT blaming bob for jack, BUT there could have been a much more
appropriate title on the article, don't you think?
>Think about it; when was the last time a thread of any substance made
>it past post 50? Post 25 even? Think of all the snake pit trolling,
>Pietaster gossip and generally irrelevant and alienating BS that
>clutters up this group on a daily basis. This thread shows that there
>are still people in here that care about the music and the scene.
well we all know that... don't we?
>Also consider that this thread has initiated the first meaningful
>assessment of the scene beyond all the "Ska is dead!" proclamations
>that were old a year ago. I also find it fascinating that this thread
>itself has become a topic of several other reasonably well-reasoned
>threads.
>
>But back to the slay-the-messenger issue, I simply disagree with the
>argument that Bob has somehow damaged the scene by publishing a very
>direct statement by a respected author.
Yes, it was nothing if not
>provocative, but it struck a nerve, and an essential talent of a
>journalist is to spot such a thing and act upon it for the ultimate
>good.
>
>Was it inflammatory? Yes. Was it irresponsible? Anything but. Certainly
>no more irresponsible than Jamie Bogner's fanning the flames of the
>Siren Six vs. Everybody issue a couple years back in Skatastrophe
>(anybody remember that?). I only make this comparison because I have
>profound respect for both Jamie and Bob, and while their methods are
>different, and I still take issue with JB's handling of the S6! thing,
>their motives are the same: understanding a scene and what's important
>to it.
>
>Now if you'll excuse me, I'd like to devote a few hours to read what's
>been added to the thread in question since I started typing ten minutes
>ago.
>
>Peace!
>
>Mike Rehfus
>
I don't think bob damaged the scene at all by publishing the article. but I
think some wording, the title in particualar, could have been a lot less
abrasive. It didn't do much to calm the emotions that would surely be evoked in
many people who read it, and might have contributed to it being a bit mroe
explosive. Who knows, it's all water nder the bridge now...
jOe
___________________________________________________________________
http://WWW.MTSKA.COM
The #1 source for ska News Interviews and Reviews!
(and online home of the satanic plumber society of the greater NYC area.)
Guava Baby
>
> >I think some wording, the title in particualar, could have been a lot less
> >abrasive. It didn't do much to calm the emotions that would surely be evoked
> >in many people who read it
>
> developed as a result of his art.
Interesting that you chose the same word Bob did. I didn't read it as a
"slam" and I would never have connected that word with the letter had it
not been for Bob's title. I read the quotation as a man being
disappointed by what he saw, that's all.
> It's an emotional and abrasive matter - a
> hero attacking some of those who hold him as a hero.
> Would a dull, un-abrasive title have been appropriate for such an issue? As a
> journalist, I think Bob was almost forced to use a stirring title.
> It's without a doubt a gross exaggeration, but should the journalists reporting
> on Columbine have tried to use un-emotional, un-abrasive language that would
> have kept everybody cool?
Uh... that would've been bad because...? As I watched the news last
night I admired the way the journalists treated the plane crash with a
certain degree of decorum. They could've said "Plane go SMOOSH!
Nantucket residents face CORPSE STEW! Halloween in-deed!" None of them
did. Bob could've taken the Times approach, but instead opted for the
Daily News. It's not really a big deal, but surely you can acknowledge
that he did some flame fanning.
Leigh
Guava Baby
>
(snip)
> I knew I'd get called on this one. My lasting impression of that
> situation is still colored by my first-impression: it was all sort of
> petty and created more barriers than bridges. I've personally found it
> bad karma (or dimplomacy) to badmouth another band in print. I'll share
> my opinions on the music, but not much is really gained from making
> personal attacks and behavior judgements. Siren 6! did this in plain
> sight and drew about as much fire as they could.
Well, I have to say I applauded them. Most of the garbage they were
spewing in that interview was a huge turnoff, but they were and they
remain the only band with the balls to say publicly that what the
Pietasters do is wrong. Tons upon tons of people in bands (along with
promoters, djs, etc.) will tell you off the record that they find the
Pietasters offensive, but no one else has the guts to make their views
public.
> But still, I'm left with the feeling that it was all just sort of
> petty.
Sorry, Mike, as a woman I have to disagree.
And to anyone who's thinking that this was a long time ago and it's all
over so forget it: it's not over. I have a long memory and I'm not going
to forget exactly who it was who came out and defended the Pietasters.
Leigh
Guava Baby
(snip)
> Perhaps
> there's another intra-scene statement around the corner:
>
> Maybe "Skatalites Camp Rolls Brian Keyo Up and Smokes Him."
>
> Maybe MTSKA could scoop About.com on that one.
>
> Mike "Deep Throat" Rehfus
Or:
"Skatalites Return from Europe and See What the Sorcerer's Apprentice
Has Been Up To"
---
"Oh, sheeet!"
---
Leigh
Mike Rehfus
guav...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Mike Rehfus wrote:
> >
> > Easy Joe, lets not speak for anyone but ourselves here. In fact, I
> > think what was unspoken here speaks the loudest: it took up to post
> > #350 for the daggers to come out pointed at Bob.
>
the
> point? I'm just checking. My take is that most people probably noticed
> the inflammatory title and the fact that the letter appeared as if it
> were a news item rather than the regular old posting board on his
site,
> but that that was not really as interesting as the content of the
> statement.
>
function was, at the least, as a conduit for Brian Keyo's remarks. At
the most, Bob was a scene scribe with an obligation to present a pretty
toxic editorial. I applaud his guts to do so. It's been very revealing,
to say the least.
> (snip)
> > Was it inflammatory? Yes. Was it irresponsible? Anything but.
Certainly
> > no more irresponsible than Jamie Bogner's fanning the flames of the
> > Siren Six vs. Everybody issue a couple years back in Skatastrophe
> > (anybody remember that?). I only make this comparison because I have
> > profound respect for both Jamie and Bob, and while their methods are
> > different, and I still take issue with JB's handling of the S6!
thing,
> > their motives are the same: understanding a scene and what's
important
> > to it.
>
> I'm curious, what do you think Jamie did wrong? As I recall, he
printed
> that part of the interview about the Pietasters (which was and still
is
> the only thing I like about S6!). Then when he got a bunch of letters
on
> the subject (including, I believe I recall, one from the Pietasters)
he
> printed some of those. When the subject came up in other interviews he
> printed what those bands had to say on the subject. Finally, I think I
> also remember him admitting where he stood on the issue, but I think
> that was more in the name of full disclosure than trying to win any
> fans. What did he do wrong?
>
I knew I'd get called on this one. My lasting impression of that
situation is still colored by my first-impression: it was all sort of
petty and created more barriers than bridges. I've personally found it
bad karma (or dimplomacy) to badmouth another band in print. I'll share
my opinions on the music, but not much is really gained from making
personal attacks and behavior judgements. Siren 6! did this in plain
sight and drew about as much fire as they could.
In retrospect I see that a lot of people made out pretty well. Scene-
folk got whipped up and generated a lot of lip service for both bands,
siding with/decrying so-and-so. Jamie boosted sales and got a lot of
mileage out the situation. Knowing now what I know from hanging out a
little bit with S6!--that they are a very good band and know it--I
don't find their remarks out of character. The Pietasters have seemed
to run pretty far and well with their reputation as lady killers and
are in no danger of succombing to a crush of negative scene cred. Also,
having gotten to know Jamie, and taken into account his overwhelmingly
positive journalistic balls, I forgive his intentions and understand
his rational behind the whole thing.
But still, I'm left with the feeling that it was all just sort of
petty.
Maybe I'm just still sore that S6! never showed up to the kick-ball
match The Articles challenged them to.
Either way,
S6! RAN SCARED! ARTICLES RULE KICKBALL!
Mike Rehfus
> Leigh
Mike Rehfus
sirj...@aol.commander (Satans Plumber) wrote:
> >
> >Easy Joe, lets not speak for anyone but ourselves here. In fact, I
> >think what was unspoken here speaks the loudest: it took up to post
made
> >it even that far (who knows how far along it will be by the time this
> >reaches post) speaks incredible volumes, all of them good, about this
>
> Hey now, I'm NOT blaming bob for jack, BUT there could have been a
much more
> appropriate title on the article, don't you think?
>
> >Think about it; when was the last time a thread of any substance made
> >it past post 50? Post 25 even? Think of all the snake pit trolling,
> >Pietaster gossip and generally irrelevant and alienating BS that
> >clutters up this group on a daily basis. This thread shows that there
> >are still people in here that care about the music and the scene.
>
> well we all know that... don't we?
True enough, and this thread has brought a lot of us into the
discussion. But it goes to show how many people look at this ng
everyday and haven't found much to comment on lately. Actually, I think
the last threads to include this many people were the ones that came
about in the wake of Columbine. I'll take this catalyst over that
anyday.
>
> >Also consider that this thread has initiated the first meaningful
> >assessment of the scene beyond all the "Ska is dead!" proclamations
> >that were old a year ago. I also find it fascinating that this thread
> >itself has become a topic of several other reasonably well-reasoned
> >threads.
> >
> >But back to the slay-the-messenger issue, I simply disagree with the
> >argument that Bob has somehow damaged the scene by publishing a very
> >direct statement by a respected author.
> Yes, it was nothing if not
> >provocative, but it struck a nerve, and an essential talent of a
> >journalist is to spot such a thing and act upon it for the ultimate
> >good.
> >
> >Was it inflammatory? Yes. Was it irresponsible? Anything but.
Certainly
> >no more irresponsible than Jamie Bogner's fanning the flames of the
> >Siren Six vs. Everybody issue a couple years back in Skatastrophe
> >(anybody remember that?). I only make this comparison because I have
> >profound respect for both Jamie and Bob, and while their methods are
> >different, and I still take issue with JB's handling of the S6!
thing,
> >their motives are the same: understanding a scene and what's
important
> >to it.
> >
> >Now if you'll excuse me, I'd like to devote a few hours to read
what's
> >been added to the thread in question since I started typing ten
minutes
> >ago.
> >
> >Peace!
> >
> >Mike Rehfus
> >
>
> I don't think bob damaged the scene at all by publishing the article.
but I
> think some wording, the title in particualar, could have been a lot
less
> abrasive. It didn't do much to calm the emotions that would surely be
evoked in
> many people who read it, and might have contributed to it being a bit
mroe
> explosive. Who knows, it's all water nder the bridge now...
> jOe
>
True enough, it was a pretty edgy headline. But then, Brian's words had
some wallop to them. I'll agree it was a little over-generous to make
Brian seem the spokesman for the Skatalites organization. Perhaps
there's another intra-scene statement around the corner:
Maybe "Skatalites Camp Rolls Brian Keyo Up and Smokes Him."
Maybe MTSKA could scoop About.com on that one.
Mike "Deep Throat" Rehfus
> ___________________________________________________________________
> http://WWW.MTSKA.COM
> The #1 source for ska News Interviews and Reviews!
> (and online home of the satanic plumber society of the greater NYC
area.)
>
MrRussII
>abrasive. It didn't do much to calm the emotions that would surely be evoked
It's an abrasive issue. A founder, a legend, a hero - slamming the stuff that
developed as a result of his art. It's an emotional and abrasive matter - a
hero attacking some of those who hold him as a hero.
Would a dull, un-abrasive title have been appropriate for such an issue? As a
journalist, I think Bob was almost forced to use a stirring title.
It's without a doubt a gross exaggeration, but should the journalists reporting
on Columbine have tried to use un-emotional, un-abrasive language that would
have kept everybody cool?
Anyway, as Mike R. and Marcus and Noah have said at various points, Bob's title
and this whole ordeal produced something positive - serious, critical dialogue
about some of the key issues in today's ska "scene".
I know, Joe, that you hate anyone criticizing the music scene, but I think a
lot of the analyzing, questioning, and criticizing of today's ska scene is
constructive and appropriate. Almost everyone who does speak out against ska
today, shows some love for it. If they didn't love the music, they would have
unsubscribed to the newsgroup and moved on to something else. The fact that
they are sticking around and discussing thinking about ska today shows they
love it - maybe not "it" as in 90's thrid wave ska... but "it" as ska in
general.
I hope I'm not boring you,
russ
Satans Plumber
lot of the analyzing, questioning, and criticizing of today's ska scene is
constructive and appropriate. >>
I agree, but a lot of it has been just negtive silly stuff (which bored me) and
more of it was speculation. I mean, how many hard facts do we have about this
whole deal right now? I've read a few people post about finances at moon -
which they couldn't possibly have a clue about. discusion is a great thing, but
when some people act like they know everythig and end up spreading false
rumors, it's silly.
<< I hope I'm not boring you,
russ >>
phht. hardly. as i said before i'm not bored by rational discussion. irrational
insult games is what inspires yawns from me...
jOe
Satans Plumber
night I admired the way the journalists treated the plane crash with a
certain degree of decorum. They could've said "Plane go SMOOSH!
Nantucket residents face CORPSE STEW! Halloween in-deed!" None of them
did. Bob could've taken the Times approach, but instead opted for the
Daily News. It's not really a big deal, but surely you can acknowledge
that he did some flame fanning.
Leigh
>>
heh. i think i'll just shut the heck up and let leigh take it from here!
(what are you doing, reading my mind tonight?)
Marcus
that he agreed with the siren six on the interview, and he intended to mention
it soon.
(snip)
> Was it inflammatory? Yes. Was it irresponsible? Anything but. Certainly
> no more irresponsible than Jamie Bogner's fanning the flames of the
> Siren Six vs. Everybody issue a couple years back in Skatastrophe
> (anybody remember that?). I only make this comparison because I have
> profound respect for both Jamie and Bob, and while their methods are
> different, and I still take issue with JB's handling of the S6! thing,
> their motives are the same: understanding a scene and what's important
> to it.
Marcus
Pounding The Pavement Zine Distro and Mailorder
Ska Soul Reggae and some other stuff to keep it ecclectic
http://members.aol.com/ptpzine/index.html
ptp...@aol.com
MrRussII
>Daily News. It's not really a big deal, but surely you can acknowledge
>that he did some flame fanning.
His title choice definitely promoted flames. No doubt about that. I guess I
separte this Keyo-McCook-Moon deal from things such as plane crashes and other
death causing issues.
But how many politcial writers, art critics, etc use provactive titles and
phrases. I guess my overall point was that Bob took the role of "columnist"
rather than "reporter."Though he didn;t necessarily insert biases, he framed
his article in such a way as to promote further discussion/controversy.
Obviously there's something wrong with discussing plane crashes and such in
this way, there are some topics of news (political debates for example) that
are meant to be debated/discussed in such a controversial manner. I think this
is one of those issues.
I think it's better that ska fans reacted in such a way - discussion, arguing,
etc. - than simply reading the comments and feeling no emotion.
russ
Jamie Bogner
wrote on 11/1/99 5:44 PM:
> Yes, I'd say that's pretty much my point. Bob's (or About.com's)
> function was, at the least, as a conduit for Brian Keyo's remarks. At
> the most, Bob was a scene scribe with an obligation to present a pretty
> toxic editorial. I applaud his guts to do so. It's been very revealing,
> to say the least.
Let's also not forget that it was Bob's interview with Buck and his
promotion of that interview on the skagroup and alt.music.ska that led to
Keyo's response and Bob's promotion of that response through the same
internet channels. If a journalist gets people talking about something that
they obviously care about but hold differing opinions about, is that wrong?
I think it just makes things a hell of a lot more interesting.
> I knew I'd get called on this one. My lasting impression of that
> situation is still colored by my first-impression: it was all sort of
> petty and created more barriers than bridges. I've personally found it
> bad karma (or dimplomacy) to badmouth another band in print. I'll share
> my opinions on the music, but not much is really gained from making
> personal attacks and behavior judgements. Siren 6! did this in plain
> sight and drew about as much fire as they could.
As an interviewer, I've never been one to tell a band what to say, or edit
out things they really wanted to say just because I didn't want to make
trouble. I will tell you that as soon as Dan Backhaus talked me into doing
the interview with them, he promised that they would be the most
controversial interview I'd yet done. They definitely went into the
interview as a band no one had really heard about, but left as a band many
people loved to hate.
You can call it cheap posturing for the press, and they definitely did that
to an extent, but there is no such thing as objectivity. People act out a
variety of motivations which may impact their action concurrently. Is it
strange for them to say something partially out of a desire to rock the boat
and partially because they believe strongly in something and partially
because they are looking for a bit of self-promotion at another's expense?
Motivations are complex things, and you can't define them so simply.
Similarly, my motivations in editing and printing that interview were mixed
as well. Certainly I was looking for issues that were charged and which
people had investments in. Why be another ska zine that just printed glowing
reviews of every new crappy release, and asked bands how they formed and got
their name in every single interview? At the same time, a little controversy
does tend to help readership, and more readers meant more advertising which
meant more opportunities for the zine. It would be silly to say I'm not
motivated by financial concerns, but it would be wrong to say that I am
*only* or *primarily* motivated by them.
> Also,
> having gotten to know Jamie, and taken into account his overwhelmingly
> positive journalistic balls, I forgive his intentions and understand
> his rational behind the whole thing.
Why thank you Mike. You're insuring the Articles next release will get a
positive review in our next issue... ;) (but still send that cash you
promised me, just to be safe...)
> But still, I'm left with the feeling that it was all just sort of
> petty.
As the only straight male in the history of my college to take the senior
seminar in Contemporary Feminist Theory, I can assure you I had strong
feelings about the issue they brought up, and it's wasn't purely a cheap
ploy. Of course, right after wrapping up the interview, I hopped in the car
and drove to Gainesville to see the Pietasters play. Ironic, huh?
Ultimately, I'm just pissed that Bob beat me to a great story.
However, Moon-bashing is nothing new. Everything that's being said now was
said four to five years ago in some of the great skagroup battles of the
early and mid 90's. Only now, we have the benefit of hindsight...
JB
Mike Rehfus
Jamie Bogner <jbo...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> in article 7vlfl8$ga$1...@nnrp1.deja.com, Mike Rehfus at
mre...@earthlink.net
> wrote on 11/1/99 5:44 PM:
>
> > Yes, I'd say that's pretty much my point. Bob's (or About.com's)
> > function was, at the least, as a conduit for Brian Keyo's remarks.
> > At the most, Bob was a scene scribe with an obligation to present a
> > pretty toxic editorial. I applaud his guts to do so. It's been very
> > revealing, to say the least.
>
> Let's also not forget that it was Bob's interview with Buck and his
> promotion of that interview on the skagroup and alt.music.ska that
> led to Keyo's response and Bob's promotion of that response through
> the same internet channels. If a journalist gets people talking about
> something that they obviously care about but hold differing opinions
> about, is that wrong? I think it just makes things a hell of a lot
> more interesting.
My point exactly.
> > I knew I'd get called on this one. My lasting impression of that
> > situation is still colored by my first-impression: it was all sort
> > of petty and created more barriers than bridges. I've personally
> > found it bad karma (or diplomacy) to badmouth another band in
> > print. I'll share my opinions on the music, but not much is really
> > gained from making personal attacks and behavior judgments. Siren
> > 6! did this in plain sight and drew about as much fire as they
> > could.
>
> As an interviewer, I've never been one to tell a band what to say, or
> edit out things they really wanted to say just because I didn't want
> to make trouble. I will tell you that as soon as Dan Backhaus talked
> me into doing the interview with them, he promised that they would be
> the most controversial interview I'd yet done. They definitely went
> into the interview as a band no one had really heard about, but left
> as a band many people loved to hate.
They accomplished their goal in spades. Though even without the
interview S6! did have a bit of street-level start-up supergroup status
with the whole Stinkfish/Pacers lineage. Plus, I think the print
campaign and packaging for "Voice With The Built In Promise" was
brilliant on its own. Very top-shelf and honest, yet with much major-
label sex appeal. In light of all this, I'd say that as a part of a
multi-media push for the band and that record, "The Interview" was
superfluous at best, gossipy and damaging at worst. The old PR axiom
holds: "There's no such thing as bad ink", though I'd add: "but good
ink is best of all". They had a choice to give you good ink, and there
are a million ways for an interviewer to not blow sunshine up a bum.
But if their intentions were to inflame for the sake of inflaming, they
didn't give you much choice, I suppose.
> You can call it cheap posturing for the press, and they definitely
> did that to an extent, but there is no such thing as objectivity.
> People act out a variety of motivations which may impact their action
> concurrently. Is it strange for them to say something partially out
> of a desire to rock the boat and partially because they believe
> strongly in something and partially because they are looking for a
> bit of self-promotion at another's expense? Motivations are complex
> things, and you can't define them so simply.
Yes, their motivations were indeed complex, though I think their
driving motivation was to give you the full monty. Shockingly honest,
yes! Good interview conduct? No. But that's a crime for them to police;
an editor is not a spin doctor. On the contrary, a good interviewer
gives the subject unlimited permission to reveal themselves. Maybe the
only thing you were guilty of was being a good interviewer.
> Similarly, my motivations in editing and printing that interview were
> mixed as well. Certainly I was looking for issues that were charged
> and which people had investments in. Why be another ska zine that
> just printed glowing reviews of every new crappy release, and asked
> bands how they formed and got their name in every single interview?
Aye, Skatastrophe's teeth were always its most attractive feature.
Taking an article I'm intimately aware of into consideration, your
review of Flip F'real (penned by Justin Hopper) had not a single pulled-
punch and much critical grist, so much so that we still use it in our
presskit, warts and all. Fact: it's the only 'Zine article we still
have in there. Dang I miss Skatastrophe.
> At the same time, a little controversy does tend to help readership,
> and more readers meant more advertising which meant more
> opportunities for the zine. It would be silly to say I'm not
> motivated by financial concerns, but it would be wrong to say that I
> am *only* or *primarily* motivated by them.
Come on now, we all know JB has an insatiable taste for the finer
things in life.
> > Also, having gotten to know Jamie, and taken into account his
> > overwhelmingly positive journalistic balls, I forgive his
> > intentions and understand his rational (ratinbehind the whole thing.
>
> Why thank you Mike. You're insuring the Articles next release will
> get a positive review in our next issue... ;)
Aw yeah!
> (but still send that cash you promised me, just to be safe...)
Okey dokey. Say, I just had an idea of how to raise money to pay off
that printer of yours...
> > But still, I'm left with the feeling that it was all just sort of
> > petty.
>
> As the only straight male in the history of my college to take the
> senior seminar in Contemporary Feminist Theory,
What a great way to meet chicks! I'm sorry, you were saying...
> I can assure you I had strong feelings about the issue they brought
> up, and it's wasn't purely a cheap ploy. Of course, right after
> wrapping up the interview, I hopped in the car and drove to
> Gainesville to see the Pietasters play. Ironic, huh?
Don't you think? Okay, I'll be serious. It's been such a while since
the whole thing went down, and I can't remember the finer points of the
interview--in fact I'd love to get my mits on few back-issues while
we're talking about it--but it's all too easy to victimize the victim
in the victim's defense, the victim in question here being women. I
can't, and won't, say that S6! did this intentionally, but the final
take-away from the issue for me was "S6! hates The Pietasters,"
not "S6! champions women's rights."
> Ultimately, I'm just pissed that Bob beat me to a great story.
Did he ever!
> However, Moon-bashing is nothing new. Everything that's being said
> now was said four to five years ago in some of the great skagroup
> battles of the early and mid 90's. Only now, we have the benefit of
> hindsight...
Ahh, the good old days. I don't remember them at all. Skagroup. Now
there's a subject in and of itself.
> JB
Sock it to 'em baby,
Mike
Guava Baby
>
> In article <B443FAAD.C6F%jbo...@cfl.rr.com>,
> Jamie Bogner <jbo...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > Let's also not forget that it was Bob's interview with Buck and his
> > promotion of that interview on the skagroup and alt.music.ska that
> > led to Keyo's response and Bob's promotion of that response through
> > the same internet channels. If a journalist gets people talking about
> > something that they obviously care about but hold differing opinions
> > about, is that wrong? I think it just makes things a hell of a lot
> > more interesting.
>
> My point exactly.
Ok, I'm still genuinely confused by this exchange and I don't feel like
reading the rather long Bucket interview again, so let me give you my
view of the "discussion:"
Bucket: Well, things are tough these days, but we're doing our best.
Brian: Tommy never liked you!
Huh? What am I missing? Undoubtedly the statement was interesting, but
am I the only one who thought it was completely out of left field?
> (snip re: S6!)
> But if their intentions were to inflame for the sake of inflaming, they
> didn't give you much choice, I suppose.
Well, when they've got you backed into a corner like that all you can do
is what Mr. Bogner did: give 'em enough rope.
Leigh
Satans Plumber
uhm, speaking of which, might i ask if/when there will be another issue?
Satans Plumber
Bucket: Well, things are tough these days, but we're doing our best.
Brian: Tommy never liked you!
Huh? What am I missing? Undoubtedly the statement was interesting, but
am I the only one who thought it was completely out of left field? >>
no, your not.
Mike Rehfus
> > > Let's also not forget that it was Bob's interview with Buck and
> > > his promotion of that interview on the skagroup and alt.music.ska
> > > that led to Keyo's response and Bob's promotion of that response
> > > through the same internet channels. If a journalist gets people
> > > talking about something that they obviously care about but hold
> > > differing opinions about, is that wrong? I think it just makes
> >
> > My point exactly.
>
> Ok, I'm still genuinely confused by this exchange and I don't feel
> like reading the rather long Bucket interview again, so let me give
> you my view of the "discussion:"
>
> Brian: Tommy never liked you!
>
> Huh? What am I missing? Undoubtedly the statement was interesting, but
> am I the only one who thought it was completely out of left field?
>
as I understand them:
1) Bob Timm interviewed Bucket in June and posted it on About.com. The
general take-away was "Moon is embattled, Bucket's embittered".
2) When the Moon embezzlement story finally hit Skagroup a few weeks
ago, Bucket posted a brief remark to Skagroup.
3) Bob picked up that remark and ran it as the lead story on About.com
that week and referred readers back to his June Bucket interview.
4) It's assumed that Brian Keyo examined the embezzlement story, the
Bucket Interview, and juxtaposed them against the subtext he was privy
to as Skatalites insider; ie, The Skatalites' general disdain for Moon
bands and Tommy's distaste for The Toasters and other third wavers.
5) Brian, it's then assumed, wrote a letter to Bob and gave him
permission to post it. Bob gave Bucket a preview and an opportunity to
respond, which he did in customarily pithy Bucket style.
6) Bob posted both the Keyo letter and Bucket response on About.com on
10/27, and the rest is ams history.
I'd say the Keyo letter was pretty hot, and it's unclear what some of
his intentions were, especially the flat-footed remark about illegal
funding for the label. But Tommy's perspective on this very insular and
self-aware scene was very, very interesting, and I'd go on to say
valuable. Tommy offered no clear advice for us, nor do I think he'd
wasted any time formulating any, but painful as they were, his opinions
were pretty damn insightful.
The only problem now is the sheer size of that original thread. I'm
scared for my life to even go in now. I like it out here where it's
quiet, don't you?
> > (snip re: S6!)
> > But if their intentions were to inflame for the sake of inflaming,
> > they didn't give you much choice, I suppose.
>
> Well, when they've got you backed into a corner like that all you can
> do is what Mr. Bogner did: give 'em enough rope.
>
> Leigh
>
I think S6! brought all their own rope.
Swing, daddy-o, swing!
Mike Rehfus
(Bob, Brian, Bucket). I still stand by my meticulously obvious
recounting of the timeline though.
I believe the question asked was, "Did Brian come at Moon from out of
left field".
I'd say yes and no. Yes, his remarks were unsolicited and nothing
directly precipitated them, and they would seem to be ill-timed
considering the current perceptions of Moon's frailty, but I think
Brian's post was an act of guided passion.
Sometimes the dogma gets so thick around here you either want to pull
the plug or drop a bomb, especially when you're on the inside and know
what's actually going on. From time to time I've known some stuff that
would probably have blown some minds, but the desire to share it never
occured because the costs of violating various trusts and inflaming the
masses never outweighed the intrinsic value of the knowledge. The Moon
embezzlement scandal being one example. I certainly wasn't the first to
know, and at a street level Moon wasn't very good about concealing it,
but I, and certainly many others, have had the good taste and judgment
to keep our lips buttoned until an official statement was made. I'm
still not certain if it has yet.
Back to Brian, though. His knowledge was more than assumption and petty
gossip, it was qualified insight and apparently he couldn't sit on it
anymore. He dropped the bomb. Was it harsh? Definitely. Was the timing
dubious, possibly. Was it destructive? Absolutely not.
Did I answer that right?
Mike
In article <381F22...@mindspring.com>,
guav...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Mike Rehfus wrote:
> >
> > In article <B443FAAD.C6F%jbo...@cfl.rr.com>,
> > Jamie Bogner <jbo...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> >(snip)
> > > Let's also not forget that it was Bob's interview with Buck and
> > > his promotion of that interview on the skagroup and alt.music.ska
> > > that led to Keyo's response and Bob's promotion of that response
> > > through the same internet channels. If a journalist gets people
> > > talking about something that they obviously care about but hold
> > > differing opinions about, is that wrong? I think it just makes
> > (snip re: S6!)
> > But if their intentions were to inflame for the sake of inflaming,
> > they didn't give you much choice, I suppose.
>
> Well, when they've got you backed into a corner like that all you can
> do is what Mr. Bogner did: give 'em enough rope.
>
> Leigh
>
I think S6! brought all their own rope.
Swing, daddy-o, swing!
Mike
Michael Caputo
>
>
> ---
> "Oh, sheeet!"
hee hee... I love you leigh! :)
-Mike C
> ---
>
> Leigh
Satans Plumber
ago, Bucket posted a brief remark to Skagroup. >>
get your scoops right. i covered that one first, maybe 2 months ago...
THPT!
Satans Plumber
left field".
I'd say yes and no. >>
I say no, beyond a shadow of a doubt. the entire confrontation could have been
avoided if brian or anyone in the skatalite camp picked up the phone and called
moon. going public with a private distaste for someone is similar to the stunt
one mr. wildman tried to pull on me here in this NG just last year - it
resolved nothing and in the end made him look pretty dumb (to the point he just
about never posted here afterwords). brian seems to be on that road right about
now...
Mike Rehfus
sirj...@aol.commander (Satans Plumber) wrote:
> << 2) When the Moon embezzlement story finally hit Skagroup a few
> weeks ago, Bucket posted a brief remark to Skagroup. >>
>
> get your scoops right. i covered that one first, maybe 2 months ago...
> THPT!
> jOe
You covered Bucket's post to Skagroup two MONTHS ago? I still have the
post in my account at home, but I'm fairly certain he posted the exact
remark quoted in About.com no earlier than October 20th.
Who scooped who is not even really the point though; About.com's
posting the Skagroup remark and then dovetailing it with the June
Bucket interview is no doubt what set Brian off, and ultimately is what
implicates Bob Timm in the question of scene-baiting.
Speaking of scene-baiting, I'm going to go follow that Brian Keyo
Rebuttal thread. Dang.
Mike
> ___________________________________________________________________
> http://WWW.MTSKA.COM
> The #1 source for ska News Interviews and Reviews!
> (and online home of the satanic plumber society of the greater NYC
area.)
>
Guava Baby
>
> << I believe the question asked was, "Did Brian come at Moon from out of
> left field".
>
> I'd say yes and no. >>
>
> avoided if brian or anyone in the skatalite camp picked up the phone and called
> moon.
Uh, maybe I'm misusing the expression but I meant "came out of nowhere,"
i.e. his statement did not really seem prompted by anything in the
interview.
Whassat from, anyway? "Out of left field." Baseball?
Leigh
Satans Plumber
> THPT!
> jOe
You covered Bucket's post to Skagroup two MONTHS ago? >>
No, i covered the story 2 month ago - before it even hit skagroup. I ran a
story on the newspage, but snipped it soon after. the rumor mill was already
working on it by the time my story hit so...
jOe
Mike Rehfus
guav...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Satans Plumber wrote:
> >
> > << I believe the question asked was, "Did Brian come at Moon from
> > out of left field".
> >
> > I'd say yes and no. >>
> >
> > have been avoided if brian or anyone in the skatalite camp picked up
> > the phone and called moon.
>
> Uh, maybe I'm misusing the expression but I meant "came out of
> nowhere," i.e. his statement did not really seem prompted by anything
> in the interview.
>
> Whassat from, anyway? "Out of left field." Baseball?
>
> Leigh
Yeah, it's a baseball term. I knew what he meant though.
Hey Joe! I know what you meant!
I still disagree with you; but that's what I love about you.
*SMACK*
Mike
P.S. That was a kiss, by the way.
Mike Rehfus
> > I knew I'd get called on this one. My lasting impression of that
> > situation is still colored by my first-impression: it was all sort
> > of petty and created more barriers than bridges. I've personally
> > found it bad karma (or diplomacy) to badmouth another band in print.
> > I'll share my opinions on the music, but not much is really gained
> > this in plain sight and drew about as much fire as they could.
>
> spewing in that interview was a huge turnoff, but they were and they
> remain the only band with the balls to say publicly that what the
> Pietasters do is wrong. Tons upon tons of people in bands (along with
> promoters, djs, etc.) will tell you off the record that they find the
> Pietasters offensive, but no one else has the guts to make their views
> public.
>
As far as taking pointed remarks about another band's behavior public,
especially in a public print forum, that's still counter-productive, or
rather, mis-productive, if there is such a word. What I'm meaning to say
is that you will trivialize any issue by taking it public in the wrong
manner. See the very real royalty-dispute going on in full view right
now between Keyo and Hingley? There's a serious issue at hand, but the
fevered pitch of it all is leaving the ugly funk of personal conflict
and little else. Soon nobody will know what the issue was and all we'll
focus on is how these two guys are out for blood. There's a reason why
cops take both parties involved in a street fight to jail; both are
guilty of choosing the wrong venue and method to solve an dispute.
> > But still, I'm left with the feeling that it was all just sort of
> > petty.
>
> Sorry, Mike, as a woman I have to disagree.
I didn't mean to suggest that misogyny was a petty issue. It positively
is not. However, if shedding valuable light on misogyny specific to the
ska scene was the intended goal of the article, then it failed. I don't
think anybody thinks for a second that was the intent. As far as
inter-band squabbling, the S6! article was juicy; as far as being a fair
treatment of women's issues, it was far from nutritious.
For more on this, come on over to my post to JB in the other half of
this thread-scism.
Later, toots.
I'M KIDDING!!
HA Ha ha ha--ahh ha. <CRICKET CHIRPS>
Peace Leigh,
Mike.
>
> And to anyone who's thinking that this was a long time ago and it's
all
> over so forget it: it's not over. I have a long memory and I'm not
going
> to forget exactly who it was who came out and defended the Pietaste
Satans Plumber
>
>I still disagree with you; but that's what I love about you.
>
>*SMACK*
>
>Mike
>
>P.S. That was a kiss, by the way.
>
Heh! thanks! disagreement is fine by me just so long as it don't go back down
to the name calling level, you know?
mad nutty respect! (cuz the articles RULE!)
Bob Timm
mt...@aol.com (Mtska) wrote:
>
> I think myself, and others feel you tossed gas on the fire with your
headline,
> being that an arguably more suitable title would have been "brian keyo
slams
> moon" or "tommy mccook slams moon".
Thanks for the editorial input, but Brian Keyo is not exactly a
household name, even in the ska world. He was speaking as a
representative/spokesman for the Skatalites, a position which, like it
or not, he has come to acquire through his work as their webmaster,
biographer, and publicist.
>
> No one is trying to shoot the messenger, but there are a few wondering
if he
> has a gas can behind his back.
What exactly are you suggesting? That I *coaxed* Keyo into making that
statement? That I wrote it for him? I think you're somehow under the
impression that I favored his comments simply by transmitting them. If
that's what you're implying, then you're wrong.
>
> >I have my own opinions on this whole ordeal, but I'll do them better
> >justice in an upcoming article.
>
> If that's the case, don't try to come off like an unbiased journalist.
Who here is getting a paycheck from Moon, exactly? What bias?! I gave
Brian and Buck each a chance to speak their mind. Let's go easy on the
paranoia here, shall we? Publishing these views was *not* a personal
attack by me on Moon. Speaking of which, your accusations on the front
page of mtska that I am responsible for "penning rumors" about Moon are
equally unfounded. I reported that they had "cut back on promotions."
That's not a rumor, but information passed on from Buck and Brett and
clearly evident to anyone involved in ska radio or media. Go back and
read what Buck had to say about downsizing in the interview.
I will continue to keep unbiased tabs on what's going on with Moon,
meaning I won't make editorial decisions based on whether it's negative
or positive.
--
**********************
Bob Timm
About.com Guide
to Ska and Reggae
http://ska.about.com
Satans Plumber
statement? That I wrote it for him? I think you're somehow under the
impression that I favored his comments simply by transmitting them. If
that's what you're implying, then you're wrong. >>
heh. no, not at all. just that your choice in title was bad. I think enough
people know who brian keyo is that it should have been worded in such a manner,
and from what i've seen around here, i wouldn't consider him the spokesman for
the skatalites. They can probably speak for themselves or let their manager,
shay, do the speaking.
As for my statement of you 'spreading rumors', get over it. You made it sound
like moon is going down the tube (just a bit), when you don't have the hard
facts. Sure buck said (when, 4, 5 months ago) that they've had to cut back BUT
if they were still cutting back, how would i have gotten work there? here's one
for the rumor mill out there (not saying you - just people in general) "moon is
hiring new people? does that mean they're not going out of business?".
relax bob, tons of people each day spread information that isn't quite on th
ball. i've done it before, you've done it, it happen.
noah...@smtplink.mssm.edu
Bob Timm <ska....@about.com> wrote:
> In article <19991101104247...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,
> mt...@aol.com (Mtska) wrote:
> > If that's the case, don't try to come off like an unbiased
> > journalist.
> Who here is getting a paycheck from Moon, exactly? What bias?! I gave
> Brian and Buck each a chance to speak their mind. Let's go easy on the
> paranoia here, shall we?
I think you're cruisin for a remindin of how many death threats Joe has
received in the last 2 months, Bob.
N-Roy
Bob Timm
sirj...@aol.commander (Satans Plumber) wrote:
>
> As for my statement of you 'spreading rumors', get over it. You made
it sound
> like moon is going down the tube (just a bit), when you don't have the
hard
> facts.
Please quote me where I said Moon was "going down the tube." Where? I
just reported what Buck told me. The hard facts I was working from were
those given to me by Buck.
Sure buck said (when, 4, 5 months ago) that they've had to cut
back BUT
> if they were still cutting back, how would i have gotten work there?
Hiring one guy freelance to do the website doesn't negate all the other
downsizing. Again, I never said they were out for the count, just in a
time of re-organization.
>
> relax bob, tons of people each day spread information that isn't quite
on th
> ball. i've done it before, you've done it, it happen.
I'm not ragin', Joe. I'm confident that 99% of the information I've
passed on every week for the past three years is thoroughly on the ball.
But I'll correct anything on my site when someone offers evidence to the
contrary. So far, all you've done is offer denials of information which
came from people who actually work for Moon full-time.
--
**********************
Bob Timm
About.com Guide to Ska
Guava Baby
> Thanks for the editorial input, but Brian Keyo is not exactly a
> household name, even in the ska world.
Perhaps not, but you could've said "Skatalites' biographer." Whatever.
It's water under the bridge.
> He was speaking as a
> representative/spokesman for the Skatalites, a position which, like it
> or not, he has come to acquire through his work as their webmaster,
> biographer, and publicist.
Whoa! I wouldn't buy that at all. I very much doubt the Skatalites would
sanction his bridge burning and the way I read the letter it was from
his perspective and his perspective alone. That's why I kind of wondered
why it rated "news item" status instead of just getting put up on the
message board. What it boils down to, imho, is "Brian Keyo thinks Moon
is a badly-run business, quotes Tommy McCook to support proposition that
some Moon bands lack talent." I wouldn't read either Brian's opinion or
Tommy's opinion as being representative of the entire band.
Leigh
Satans Plumber
>> > journalist.
>> Who here is getting a paycheck from Moon, exactly? What bias?! I gave
>> Brian and Buck each a chance to speak their mind. Let's go easy on the
>> paranoia here, shall we?
>
>I think you're cruisin for a remindin of how many death threats Joe has
>received in the last 2 months, Bob.
>
>N-Roy
That would make no sense mr. roy.
for the record, I've never claimed to be an unbiased journalist. I'm a somewhat
biased commentator. I think everyone knows that.
Satans Plumber
>just reported what Buck told me. The hard facts I was working from were
>those given to me by Buck.
"Moon has clearly been in downsize mode all year, with promotions and tours
suddenly cut back and the closing of their Jersey warehouse and offices. All
operations are now run out of their Greenwhich Village storefront, with a bare
minimum staff."
Bob, how does that sound? honestly? It sounds like your trying to say moon is
going down the tube... From what i can tell, this hasn't been the kindest year
in moon land, but things are definately now on the upswing now.
When was your interview with buck done? june? july? (I don't recall myself...).
Your info source is a bit dated.
>Hiring one guy freelance to do the website doesn't negate all the other
>downsizing. Again, I never said they were out for the count, just in a
>time of re-organization.
Heh, don't try to discount my importance! it ain't workin! LOL! But to your
credit, no , you never said specifically that they were down for the count.
That would have been silly. read on, and you'll see that my being hired is not
the only thing negating the downsizing of earlier this year.
>I'm not ragin', Joe. I'm confident that 99% of the information I've
>passed on every week for the past three years is thoroughly on the ball.
>But I'll correct anything on my site when someone offers evidence to the
>contrary. So far, all you've done is offer denials of information which
>came from people who actually work for Moon full-time.
>--
>**********************
>Bob Timm
Now Now, I'm not saying that 99% of the stuff you offer as news is not good
information - don't go getting toooooo defensive here. i happen to think you do
a fine job 95% of the time, (which is about as good as you can get int he
journalism world in my eyes).
In this case though, your information is out of date. Consider that moon is
going to hire some more staff soon. (and as i said last time, everyone can put
that in their pipe and smoke it). Furthermore I find your attempts to minimize
my statements by saying I only work their part time humorous. what's THAT all
about? It smells like defense to me kaptain! =)
Now that you have the goods - updated info - feel free to update any stories
you may...
On another not, I think it's up to some of us info source people to say enough
of the "ska is in decline" stuff. I think the ska world has gone as low as it
will - the golddigging trendy bands have either broken up (and unfortuantely
some good ones with them) or moved on to rock or punk (goldfinger/no doubt/that
crowd...) and real fans that love the music and not the trend are re-emerging.
THIS is a story that is worth covering,and i can only hope more people start
paying attention to it...
Bob Timm
sirj...@aol.commander (Satans Plumber) wrote:
>
> Bob, how does that sound? honestly? It sounds like your trying to say
moon is
> going down the tube... From what i can tell, this hasn't been the
kindest year
> in moon land, but things are definately now on the upswing now.
All I was doing was relaying facts. You may not like how it "sounds,"
but that doesn't change the accuracy of the statement.
>
> When was your interview with buck done? june? july? (I don't recall
myself...).
> Your info source is a bit dated.
Nobody official from Moon has questioned it, so why should you? In fact,
I've had specific word from Brett that Moon feels I've been more than
fair in my articles.
>(and as i said last time, everyone
can put
> that in their pipe and smoke it).
>
> Now that you have the goods - updated info - feel free to update any
stories
> you may...
Sorry, Joe. I've been informed by Moon Ska that you do not speak for
them. When Brett or Buck point out any inaccuracies, then I'll consider
it.
>
> On another not, I think it's up to some of us info source people to
say enough
> of the "ska is in decline" stuff.
Bullshit. *That's* bias. You want to publish a zine and be the world's
biggest cheerleader for ska, that's fine. Great. But if you want to be
an "info source" person and that info suggests that such decline is
taking place in one way or another, objectivity dictates that you not
ignore such info just because you don't like it.
--
**********************
Bob Timm
About.com
Guide to Ska and Reggae
Mike Rehfus
> >just reported what Buck told me. The hard facts I was working from
> >were those given to me by Buck.
>
> "Moon has clearly been in downsize mode all year, with promotions and
> tours suddenly cut back and the closing of their Jersey warehouse and
> offices. All operations are now run out of their Greenwhich Village
> storefront, with a bare minimum staff."
>
> moon is going down the tube... From what i can tell, this hasn't been
> the kindest year in moon land, but things are definately now on the
> upswing now.
Point for point everything Bob wrote in that quotation above is 100%
true. You're taking the quote out of context and making a judgment
call. Put back in context, this passage was an element of subtext for
the controversy about Moon, specifically the embezzlement issue. In
fact, that passage, and the rest of the paragraph you left off, is a
tacit acknowledgment of all of the unchecked rumors that had been making
the rounds on the internet for months via such sources as MTSKA. Moon
deserves a helping of the blame though; they went for a long time
without ever officially going on record regarding said rumors. Not that
Moon has an obligation to answer every insinuation, but a consistent
official presence can prevent a lot of harm.
> When was your interview with buck done? june? july? (I don't recall
> myself...). Your info source is a bit dated.
As clearly stated in the article from which you excerpted, the interview
ran in June.
>
> > Hiring one guy freelance to do the website doesn't negate all the
> > other downsizing. Again, I never said they were out for the count, >
> > just in a time of re-organization.
Ouch! Bob plays the "Temp Card"!
> Heh, don't try to discount my importance! it ain't workin! LOL! But to
> your credit, no , you never said specifically that they were down for
> the count. That would have been silly. read on, and you'll see that my
> being hired is not the only thing negating the downsizing of earlier
> this year.
>
> >I'm not ragin', Joe. I'm confident that 99% of the information I've
> >passed on every week for the past three years is thoroughly on the
> >ball. But I'll correct anything on my site when someone offers
> >evidence to the contrary. So far, all you've done is offer denials of
> >information which came from people who actually work for Moon
> >-- full-time.
> >**********************
> >Bob Timm
>
> Now Now, I'm not saying that 99% of the stuff you offer as news is not
> good information - don't go getting toooooo defensive here. i happen
> to think you do a fine job 95% of the time, (which is about as good as
> you can get int he journalism world in my eyes).
Students of journalism are taught to pursue 100% accuracy, but then
again, let's not confuse what goes on around here with journalism.
>
> In this case though, your information is out of date. Consider that
> moon is going to hire some more staff soon.
<SNIP>
> Now that you have the goods - updated info - feel free to update any
> stories you may...
So Bob is supposed to go and "update" past articles based on this? Aside
from being a direct violation of some pretty hard and fast rules of
journalism--which Bob follows more closely than he really needs to, it
seems--you're suggesting something called "revisionism." I'm sure you
know what it means, and it's pretty far outside the range of
journalistic ethics. Damn. There goes that "J" word again.
To fairly address your suggestion, Bob can only be expected to do one of
three things. 1) Print a retraction. 2) Print an apology. 3) Write a
story about Moon's new growth and hiring push.
I wouldn't be surprised though if he did none of these things. A
retraction is unnecessary because there were no factual inaccuracies in
the original story. An apology? He didn't libel anybody. As for a new
story? As it stands now (story: Moon expects to hire more people), there
is no hard news value.
>
> On another not, I think it's up to some of us info source people to
> say enough of the "ska is in decline" stuff. I think the ska world has
> gone as low as it will - the golddigging trendy bands have either
> broken up (and unfortuantely some good ones with them) or moved on to
> rock or punk (goldfinger/no doubt/that crowd...) and real fans that
> love the music and not the trend are re-emerging. THIS is a story that
> is worth covering,and i can only hope more people start paying
> attention to it...
Ahh, there's the old demagogue-with-a-heart-of-gold we know and love.
If I may be candid Joe, you're in a tricky situation right now juggling
MTSKA and Moon. I know you know that. But you need to be extra careful
not to confuse what's good for the scene with what's good for Moon. The
two are not always the same. I'll go on record as saying there would be
no scene today without a very, very important catalyst called Moon. But
a catalyst is not the whole compound. I can't speak to what Keyo is
doing right now, but the original post-in-question has done a tremendous
amount of good for the scene, especially Moon.
Keep fighting for what you believe in, just be careful, that's all. How
about this. In times of crisis, ask yourself: What would Joe do?
It's easy to remember. You can use the initials WWJD.
Hey, I just got an idea for bracelets. And T-shirts! And Mugs!
Peace!
Mike Rehfus
> jOe
> ___________________________________________________________________
> http://WWW.MTSKA.COM
> The #1 source for ska News Interviews and Reviews!
> (and online home of the satanic pl
Satans Plumber
All I was doing was relaying facts. You may not like how it "sounds,"
but that doesn't change the accuracy of the statement. >>
when your info is out of date... that changes the accuracy of your statement.
<<
Nobody official from Moon has questioned it, so why should you? In fact,
I've had specific word from Brett that Moon feels I've been more than
fair in my articles. >>
why should I? perhaps from the standpoint of a concerned fan who feels that too
many people are still saying ska is in decline rather than the reality that the
decline is over?
<< Sorry, Joe. I've been informed by Moon Ska that you do not speak for
them. When Brett or Buck point out any inaccuracies, then I'll consider
it.
>>
Sorry bob, but I never claimed to be their spokesman, and never will. though
furhter down the line when your inaccuracies are pointed out you'll feel a tad
silly.
<< Bullshit. *That's* bias. You want to publish a zine and be the world's
biggest cheerleader for ska, that's fine. Great. But if you want to be
an "info source" person and that info suggests that such decline is
taking place in one way or another, objectivity dictates that you not
ignore such info just because you don't like it.
>>
First, get your facts straight boy. I don't run a zine, i run one hell of a
mackin' website that's growing all the time. (or do i need to hire a spokesman
before you believe that?)
I maintain that the decline in ska is just about done, if not done already, and
that it's going to make a healthy recover. it' gone downhill awhile, but guess
what? just about every damn label i've talked to in the last few weeks
(probably 90% of ska labels in the us) have told me personally their holding
their own.
if that's a story you don't want to cover, well, you might want to start
hunting for some other job right now. because it's happening even as i type
this.
jOe
___________________________________________________________________
http://WWW.MTSKA.COM
The #1 source for ska News Interviews and Reviews!
BrookSkaSki
-Mike C >>
Is this an attempt at immitating a mongoloid?
Merely Curious, for no good reasons whatsoever.
Brook.
BrookSkaSki
>them. When Brett or Buck point out any >>inaccuracies, then I'll consider
>it.
>Sorry bob, but I never claimed to be their spokesman,
Let me get this straight Bob (if I may call you by your first name)...
You take an email from Brian Keyo, who is NOT the spokesman for the Skatalites
(is that role not the job of Shay, their manager? (afterall, he is paid to
perform such work, whereas Mr. Brian Keyo seems to derive his income from
bartending)), and publish it in every possible corner of the internet.
Then, when jOe here refutes your information and corrects it, you smuggly dare
to suggest his information is invalid on the grounds that he is not the
spokesman for Moon Ska records.
At the very least Bob, you just proved yourself to be one oversized hypocrite.
If i were in your fancy little shoes Bob, I'd start praying this all goes away.
Sincerely, Brook.
Mike Rehfus
Satans Plumber
DDAAAAAMMMNNNNNNNNN!
As smokey might say "you got knocked the motherfuck out!"
jOe
PS: nice shot brook, i missed that point totally.
Satans Plumber
Point for point everything Bob wrote in that quotation above is 100%
true. >>
Point for point it WAS true... there is no question of that. However, we're
talking about 4 month old information here...
<< Moon
deserves a helping of the blame though; they went for a long time
without ever officially going on record regarding said rumors. Not that
Moon has an obligation to answer every insinuation, but a consistent
official presence can prevent a lot of harm.>>
'Their' view is who give a hoot? the rumor will dispell themselves when they're
still around 20 years from now. After reading all thi stuff, i'm appricating
that tactic more and more.
<<As clearly stated in the article from which you excerpted, the interview
ran in June.>>
June. hi. it's NOVEMBER. Times have been changing fast in the ska world...
<<Ouch! Bob plays the "Temp Card"!>>
Too bad i'm no temp eh?
I like Brooks point. Brain Keyo doesn't even get a check each week from the
skatalites so far as I know... Anyone with a functioning brain can take it from
there.
<<Students of journalism are taught to pursue 100% accuracy, but then
again, let's not confuse what goes on around here with journalism.>>
I don't believe there is such a thing as 100% accuracy, since someone else will
usually have another point of view. you can only hope to cover as much ground
as you can. but that's my opinion...
<<So Bob is supposed to go and "update" past articles based on this? Aside
from being a direct violation of some pretty hard and fast rules of
journalism--which Bob follows more closely than he really needs to, it
seems--you're suggesting something called "revisionism." I'm sure you
know what it means, and it's pretty far outside the range of
journalistic ethics. Damn. There goes that "J" word again.>>
Hey, he said he'd revise any story f other facts came in... don't go hooting at
me over what he said! =)
<<To fairly address your suggestion, Bob can only be expected to do one of
three things. 1) Print a retraction. 2) Print an apology. 3) Write a
story about Moon's new growth and hiring push.>>
I agree completely. or ignore the whole thing. it's all up to him, and I trust
he'll handle it appropriately. i don't think any apology is in order - i mean,
people say worse stuff all the time... that would be silly!
<<I wouldn't be surprised though if he did none of these things. A
retraction is unnecessary because there were no factual inaccuracies in
the original story.>>
but the facts he based that paragraph on are out of date. that's all i'm
saying.
<< An apology? He didn't libel anybody. >>
Exactly. Yeesh. he commited no crime here! that would be waaay overboard.
<<As for a new
story? As it stands now (story: Moon expects to hire more people), there
is no hard news value.>>
I disagree. it's just one of the signs that the ska recession of 1999 is coming
to a close. in and of itself it is not a story, but combined with other
items... oh fuck it, I'll just cover this story myself and post it on mtska
later today...
<<Ahh, there's the old demagogue-with-a-heart-of-gold we know and love.>>
HAHAHAHA!
<<If I may be candid Joe, you're in a tricky situation right now juggling
MTSKA and Moon. I know you know that. But you need to be extra careful
not to confuse what's good for the scene with what's good for Moon. The
two are not always the same. I'll go on record as saying there would be
no scene today without a very, very important catalyst called Moon. But
a catalyst is not the whole compound. I can't speak to what Keyo is
doing right now, but the original post-in-question has done a tremendous
amount of good for the scene, especially Moon.>>
*sigh* I know. it's not easy, and I question once in awhile if i shoulda taken
the job with moon since it puts me in this wierd position, but the opputunity
to A)beef up my resume considerably and B)at the same time do a service to the
ska world (making it more user friendly, saving moon a ton of cash by snipping
costs associated with the way it was...) was too good to pass (thanks buck!).
<<Keep fighting for what you believe in, just be careful, that's all. How
about this. In times of crisis, ask yourself: What would Joe do?>>
Kill them all and let Zahd sort them out? HAHAHA! Funny thing here is i don't
really feel like there is any real crisis going on, you know? Just a lot of
people upset over a lot of little thigns. big whoop. Cooler heads will probably
prevail in the longer run (or so i hope..). i mean look at us - we don't agree
on half of this crap, but does that mean we can't get along? If only it worked
like this with everyone...
<<It's easy to remember. You can use the initials WWJD.
Hey, I just got an idea for bracelets. And T-shirts! And Mugs!
Peace!
Mike Rehfus>>
heh. then i'd be selling out! or something! HA!
> jOe
> ___________________________________________________________________
> http://WWW.MTSKA.COM
> The #1 source for ska News Interviews and Reviews!
> (and online home of the satanic pl
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
>>
___________________________________________________________________
http://WWW.MTSKA.COM
The #1 source for ska News Interviews and Reviews!
Netweasel
Brook,
Bob happens to be a very honest guy, with no bias to any one party. The
quotes were publised by the respective parties on a feedback forum he
runs.
--Ryan
Mike Rehfus
sirj...@aol.commander (Satans Plumber) wrote:
> <<
> Point for point everything Bob wrote in that quotation above is 100%
> true. >>
>
> Point for point it WAS true... there is no question of that. However,
> we're talking about 4 month old information here...
Was the information presented as late-breaking info? No. It was
presented as information accepted as historical fact, because it IS
historical fact that helps us understand present events. Like I said,
and you snipped out, these events--Moon cutting back promotions, closing
the NJ warehouse, trimming staff, etc.--are subtext. Just because these
events are disturbing to your sensibilities doesn't mean they are
wantonly negative, and because they occured in the past doesn't make
them irrelevant. Quite the contrary. If you want to tell people that
Moon and ska are storming back, it helps to know back from where.
>
> << Moon deserves a helping of the blame though; they went for a long
> time without ever officially going on record regarding said rumors.
> Not that Moon has an obligation to answer every insinuation, but a
> consistent official presence can prevent a lot of harm.>>
>
> 'Their' view is who give a hoot? the rumor will dispell themselves
> when they're still around 20 years from now. After reading all thi
> stuff, i'm appricating that tactic more and more.
I'll take this to mean "Moon ignores rumors because rumors come and go,
and Moon will be here 20 years from now." Which is preferrable Joe, and
be honest (for simplicity I'll use "story" and "rumor" interchangeably):
1) MTSKA publishing the embezzlement story with no comment from Moon.
2) MTSKA publishing the embezzlement story with comment from Moon.
If your answer is 1), then why did you remove the embezzlement story
after you broke it two months ago?
If your answer is 2), then I think you agree that it's in Moon's best
interest to answer *some* rumors.
But forget all that. If somebody posted something spurious about you
(imagine), would you not feel obligated to answer the charge? It's human
nature, and nobody's words speak truer of you than your own (in both
good ways and bad). But to your point, it's sometimes hard to see where
it gets you around here.
>
> <<As clearly stated in the article from which you excerpted, the
interview ran in June.>>
>
> June. hi. it's NOVEMBER. Times have been changing fast in the ska
> world...
Again, it wasn't presented as late-breaking news (see above).
> <<Ouch! Bob plays the "Temp Card"!>>
>
> Too bad i'm no temp eh?
>
It was a play on words, of course (Trump Card), but unless Moon is your
sole employer, it's at least partially true. If they are,
congratulations! At least one of us has health care.
> I like Brooks point. Brain Keyo doesn't even get a check each week
> from the skatalites so far as I know... Anyone with a functioning
> brain can take it from there.
My brain just went offline. Could you please take it from there?
>
> <<Students of journalism are taught to pursue 100% accuracy, but then
> again, let's not confuse what goes on around here with journalism.>>
>
> I don't believe there is such a thing as 100% accuracy, since someone
> usually have another point of view. you can only hope to cover as much
> ground as you can. but that's my opinion...
This is why newspapers have seperate and distinct News Sections and an
Opinion/Editorial sections.
> <<So Bob is supposed to go and "update" past articles based on this?
> Aside from being a direct violation of some pretty hard and fast rules
> of journalism--which Bob follows more closely than he really needs to,
> it seems--you're suggesting something called "revisionism." I'm sure
> you know what it means, and it's pretty far outside the range of
> journalistic ethics. Damn. There goes that "J" word again.>>
>
> Hey, he said he'd revise any story f other facts came in... don't go
> hooting at me over what he said! =)
>
I can all but guarantee you Bob's not going to go back and change the
story in question. Quite frankly I'd be ashamed of him if he did. Like
it or not there ARE rules to journalism. Sorry if I'm hootin', but I was
not the one to introduce the word "journalism" to this thread. It Also
doesn't help that somebody screwed up and made me an Editor-in-Chief of
the high school newspaper way back when. Shit like that scars you for
life.
> <<To fairly address your suggestion, Bob can only be expected to do
> one of three things. 1) Print a retraction. 2) Print an apology. 3)
> Write a story about Moon's new growth and hiring push.>>
> I agree completely. or ignore the whole thing. it's all up to him, and
> I trust he'll handle it appropriately. i don't think any apology is in
> order - i mean, people say worse stuff all the time... that would be
> silly!
Sho' would.
> <<I wouldn't be surprised though if he did none of these things. A
> retraction is unnecessary because there were no factual inaccuracies
> in the original story.>>
>
> but the facts he based that paragraph on are out of date. that's all
> i'm saying.
Again, see above. Keyword: subtext.
> << An apology? He didn't libel anybody. >>
>
> Exactly. Yeesh. he commited no crime here! that would be waaay
> overboard.
Yup.
> <<As for a new
> story? As it stands now (story: Moon expects to hire more people),
> there is no hard news value.>>
>
> I disagree. it's just one of the signs that the ska recession of 1999
> is coming to a close. in and of itself it is not a story, but combined
> with other items...
So you DO agree.
> Oh fuck it, I'll just cover this story myself and post it on mtska
> later today...
If you feel it's meaningful and productive, then go for it.
> <<Ahh, there's the old demagogue-with-a-heart-of-gold we know and
> love.>>
>
> HAHAHAHA!
>
...and he still hasn't lost his gift of laughter.
> <<If I may be candid Joe, you're in a tricky situation right now
> juggling MTSKA and Moon. I know you know that. But you need to be
> extra careful not to confuse what's good for the scene with what's
> good for Moon. The two are not always the same. I'll go on record as
> saying there would no scene today without a very, very important \
> catalyst called Moon. But a catalyst is not the whole compound. I
> can't speak to what Keyo is doing right now, but the original
> post-in-question has done a tremendous amount of good for the scene,
> especially Moon.>>
>
> *sigh* I know. it's not easy, and I question once in awhile if i
> shoulda taken the job with moon since it puts me in this wierd
> position, but the opputunity to A)beef up my resume considerably and
> B)at the same time do a service to the ska world (making it more user
> friendly, saving moon a ton of cash by snipping costs associated with
> the way it was...) was too good to pass (thanks buck!).
It was a tough and complicated decision. Just remember: you took Moon on
as a client; they didn't take you on as an employee. It's a big
distinction and the one that keeps a freelancer sane. I know it's how I
keep going.
> <<Keep fighting for what you believe in, just be careful, that's all.
> Think about this. In times of crisis, ask yourself: What would Joe
> do?>>
>
> Kill them all and let Zahd sort them out? HAHAHA! Funny thing here is
> i don't really feel like there is any real crisis going on, you know?
> Just a lot of people upset over a lot of little thigns. big whoop.
> Cooler heads will probably prevail in the longer run (or so i hope..).
> i mean look at us - we don't agree on half of this crap, but does that
> mean we can't get along? If only it worked like this with everyone...
True 'nuff.
> <<It's easy to remember. You can use the initials WWJD.
>
> Hey, I just got an idea for bracelets. And T-shirts! And Mugs!
>
> Peace!
>
> Mike Rehfus>>
>
> heh. then i'd be selling out! or something! HA!
Though, with a little tweaking it can be all yours.
How about: WWjD?
Cut me in.
Mike.
Satans Plumber
presented as information accepted as historical fact, >>
It sounds current enough to me...
<<because it IS
historical fact that helps us understand present events.>>
Too true...
<< Like I said,
and you snipped out, these events--Moon cutting back promotions, closing
the NJ warehouse, trimming staff, etc.--are subtext. Just because these
events are disturbing to your sensibilities doesn't mean they are
wantonly negative,>>
hey now, they're not disturbing to me at all... one can call it cutbacks,
others can call it consolidating to make for a more efficant operation. it all
depends on your spin baby.
<< and because they occured in the past doesn't make
them irrelevant. Quite the contrary. If you want to tell people that
Moon and ska are storming back, it helps to know back from where.>>
But of course. You can't storm back if you've been on top all along eh?
<<I'll take this to mean "Moon ignores rumors because rumors come and go,
and Moon will be here 20 years from now." Which is preferrable Joe, and
be honest (for simplicity I'll use "story" and "rumor" interchangeably):
1) MTSKA publishing the embezzlement story with no comment from Moon.
2) MTSKA publishing the embezzlement story with comment from Moon.
If your answer is 1), then why did you remove the embezzlement story
after you broke it two months ago?>>
Ah, if only oi could answer that. maybe in a private conversation, but i doubt
even then i would... ask buck. 9not that you'll get an answer i bet!!)
<<If your answer is 2), then I think you agree that it's in Moon's best
interest to answer *some* rumors.>>
Some... but if this whole thing has taught me anything, it' to state your view
and leave it at that. i think by tomorrow afternoon i'll be making my last post
on all this (moving thi good discussion to email i hope) and going back to my
hardly posting thing.
<<But forget all that. If somebody posted something spurious about you
(imagine), would you not feel obligated to answer the charge? It's human
nature, and nobody's words speak truer of you than your own (in both
good ways and bad). >>
but of course.
<<But to your point, it's sometimes hard to see where
it gets you around here.>>
it gets you into be arguements, that's where! LOL! stuff that' probably not
worth the trouble.
<<It was a play on words, of course (Trump Card), but unless Moon is your
sole employer, it's at least partially true. If they are,
congratulations! At least one of us has health care.>>
HA! Health care! HAHAHA! Right now they are, except other freelance stuff here
and there. right now I'm just investing time in learning all i need to know so
come febuary i'll have a nice full time gig... and moon on the side... and
mt... and... oi... uhmm.. when can i clone myself again?
<<My brain just went offline. Could you please take it from there?>>
heh, i would, but we'd be here all day!
<<This is why newspapers have seperate and distinct News Sections and an
Opinion/Editorial sections.>>
But of course, don't forget the sex advice columns though... they RULE!
<<I can all but guarantee you Bob's not going to go back and change the
story in question. Quite frankly I'd be ashamed of him if he did. Like
it or not there ARE rules to journalism. Sorry if I'm hootin', but I was
not the one to introduce the word "journalism" to this thread. >>
i don't rememebr - was that me? whatever. i don't/didn't expect him to anyway.
he just said he would, so i ran wih it. it's like a fumble in football...
<<It Also
doesn't help that somebody screwed up and made me an Editor-in-Chief of
the high school newspaper way back when. Shit like that scars you for
life.>>
Ouch. i'm sorry. i hd no idea. did you need a 12 step program or...??? =) LOL!
<<So you DO agree.>>
nope. It's a newworth item, just not on it's own. you got to throw it in with
other stuff... I wrote the newstory, it'll be online tomorrow,,,
<<If you feel it's meaningful and productive, then go for it.>>
Of course. it's better than it being reproductive i must say! LOL! (wow it'
getting late!)
<<It was a tough and complicated decision. Just remember: you took Moon on
as a client; they didn't take you on as an employee. >>
Unfortunately not LOL! Nopers. i'm on the books. even paying taxes. wow.
though the toasters website, at least creating it, it a client thing...
maintain of it after will be an employee thing.
Confused yet?
<<It's a big
distinction and the one that keeps a freelancer sane. I know it's how I
keep going.>>
me sane? I lost that ages ago. i think on some lonely highway on the way to
beltaine in the burbs of boston in 1995... i gues it was worth it though since
i got the nookie... (incoherent joe babbling)
just what do you do for your 9 to 5?
<<Though, with a little tweaking it can be all yours.
How about: WWjD?
Cut me in.
Mike.>>
Damn you satan. ok, I'm selling out damn it. I'd like one of them big ugly
durango SUV's, and a cell phone with that, to go.
jOe
___________________________________________________________________
http://WWW.MTSKA.COM
The #1 source for ska News Interviews and Reviews!
Mike Rehfus
are the only ones really participating in this thread, we might as well
continue via e-mail, but if I may make a closing statement:
Bob Timm is a dedicated and responsible participant in the ska scene,
and as such, must occasionally convey troubling news. I honestly believe
he has no axe to grind, and if he does, he's grinding it a hell of a lot
more quietly than most.
Was the original "Skatalites Camp Slams Moon Records" post reckless?
Considering he gave the head of Moon Records opportunity for rebuttal
before even publishing the "slam", then absolutely not. I doubt the NY
Times would've afforded such courtesy. In fact, as we've seen Brian
demonstrate since, he's quite capable of bringing the noise on his own.
If anything, we should thank Bob Timm for bringing a blessed amount of
civility to the matter.
Has the original "Skatalites Camp Slams Moon Records" post damaged the
scene? Absolutely not. It has triggered the greatest bout of meaningful
self-examination in quite a while. It's inspired its own nasty little
side battles, but on the whole it has been a positively galvanizing
event in a scene long overdue for a good galvanize.
Has the original "Skatalites Camp Slams Moon Records" post damaged Moon
records' reputation/business? The ultimate irony: no, it helped Moon in
ways unimaginable.
In fact, if I were a conspiracy theorist, I would suggest that Buck and
Brian are sitting at a bar clinking mugs right now.
Hmm...
I digress.
And I'm done.
Peace, all!
Mike Rehfus
...........
Satans Plumber
are the only ones really participating in this thread, we might as well
continue via e-mail, but if I may make a closing statement:
Bob Timm is a dedicated and responsible participant in the ska scene,
and as such, must occasionally convey troubling news. I honestly believe
he has no axe to grind, and if he does, he's grinding it a hell of a lot
more quietly than most.
Was the original "Skatalites Camp Slams Moon Records" post reckless?
Considering he gave the head of Moon Records opportunity for rebuttal
before even publishing the "slam", then absolutely not. I doubt the NY
Times would've afforded such courtesy. In fact, as we've seen Brian
demonstrate since, he's quite capable of bringing the noise on his own.
If anything, we should thank Bob Timm for bringing a blessed amount of
civility to the matter.>>
The article itself is dandy, but the title? OI!
<<Has the original "Skatalites Camp Slams Moon Records" post damaged the
scene? Absolutely not. It has triggered the greatest bout of meaningful
self-examination in quite a while. It's inspired its own nasty little
side battles, but on the whole it has been a positively galvanizing
event in a scene long overdue for a good galvanize.
Has the original "Skatalites Camp Slams Moon Records" post damaged Moon
records' reputation/business? The ultimate irony: no, it helped Moon in
ways unimaginable.
In fact, if I were a conspiracy theorist, I would suggest that Buck and
Brian are sitting at a bar clinking mugs right now.
Hmm...
I digress.
And I'm done.
Peace, all!
Mike Rehfus>>
adn your on the money... enough oif this nuttynes- expect some email later!
jOe
...........
andrew
<19991104112654...@ng-bj1.aol.com>...
>>Sorry, Joe. I've been informed by Moon Ska >>that you do not speak for
>>them. When Brett or Buck point out any >>inaccuracies, then I'll consider
>>it.
Skatalites
>(is that role not the job of Shay, their manager? (afterall, he is paid to
>perform such work, whereas Mr. Brian Keyo seems to derive his income from
>bartending)), and publish it in every possible corner of the internet.
brian never purported to be a spokesman for the skatalites. he says
repeatedly that he made those statements _backed up_ by the words of single
member of the skatalites who happens to share his own views.
>Then, when jOe here refutes your information and corrects it, you smuggly
dare
>to suggest his information is invalid on the grounds that he is not the
>spokesman for Moon Ska records.
>
>At the very least Bob, you just proved yourself to be one oversized
hypocrite.
only if he had said "skatalites spokesman.....". the headline was a bit
misleading, but the text made it fairly clear, if you cared to notice, that
brian was never said to be the skatalites' spokesperson.
andrew