Fun Stuff > BAND

Our Band Could Be Your Life

<< < (9/12) > >>

Johnny C:
Woah woah woah. Are you trying to equate a major publishing house with a major label here? Those are two really different things.

Besides, not liking something because it's somehow related to a money-making enterprise is and always has been a tremendous cop-out.

Jackie Blue:
I don't like it because it is poorly written.  As I have stated many times.

I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the author's tactics.  Tommy said he was quoted as saying he "couldn't" get it published without tying it to Nirvana and other commercial interests.  That's bullshit.  I'm sure if he had written a great book without all that, Rollins' publishing house would have published it, or numerous other small publishers.

What I think he meant was that no major publishing house which would generate him a lot of fame/money would publish it without said connection.

That is the very opposite of the ethic he is writing about.

The ethic he is writing about is "Do what you want, publish it yourself if you have to, fuck the corporate appropriation of artistic movements".  He then goes on to kowtow to corporate ideals in order to discuss an artistic ethos which rejects the notion of kowtowing to corporate ideals.

Like I said, this has nothing to do with whether you like the book or not.  Sonic Youth's Dirty is an obvious bid for more mainstream appeal.  It also happens to be one of their best albums, if not the most "experimental" or "groundbreaking".

Johnny C:
Once again, I see no hypocrisy because a major record label is a different entity in almost all ways from a major publishing house. They are two different fields with two different approaches.

If you wanted him to roll out his own Guttenberg press I guess it's conceivable but he wanted to print a book that he knew people would want to read and he found a method that would let that book reach the interested parties. It's ridiculous to hold that against him.

There's a great thread over in the Movies, TV Shows and Books forum where people are basically just taking huge shits on books like The Great Gatsby, The Catcher In The Rye, Of Mice And Men, Jane Eyre and a number of others. I bring this up because each of those books has at least one person in that thread calling it poorly written. I happen to disagree. I don't think The Great Gatsby is poorly written. Sticking to your guns and repeating it over and over again will not convince me that it's poorly written.

Your argument isn't that it's poorly written anyways. It's that it doesn't stick to the ethos, it doesn't cover the bands that you want to cover and that it is enamoured with SST. The first two have no bearing on the actual quality of the book and the last one is at best questionable, as a couple of people in this thread has pointed out.

I'm really left wondering what your grudge really is against the book. If you didn't like the writing, that's fine, but I really don't buy that as your only complaint.

Jackie Blue:
My only complaint about the book as far as people liking it en masse is that it's poorly written.

My secondary complaints about why the book should be considered important are a different matter.

Hope that clears things up.

I agree that The Great Gatsby is a wonderful novel.

I don't want to convince anyone that this book is poorly written, I just couldn't understand liking a book because of its subject matter and ignoring the style and tone of it.

It seems like everyone likes this book because of the information - band quotes and facts - but that makes no sense.  That's like saying that an encyclopedia is a great book.  I'm not saying this book is not at least fairly informative, I'm asking why people like it so much when frankly basically everything in it could be more easily discovered by reading articles online without all the obnoxious drivel of the author's personal asides which read like a paper a music major would get a C- on.

Johnny C:
This has actually cleared up quite a bit!

It doesn't seem like the bulk of people in favour of this book are arguing exclusively in favour of its information, though they are suggesting that the breadth of it is worth noting. An encyclopedia may not be the best written book but it likely covers a broad range of topics to enough of a depth that it has at least some value. They are suggesting mainly that the tone and style are really not so bad, and certainly not bad enough to completely discredit the entire book.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page