|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
173.52.247.252
In Reply to: RE: Good Form? posted by Isaak J. Garvey on January 22, 2016 at 13:23:49
>Editors are supposed to be a buffer between writer and reader. That system
>broke down and the editor failed.
A buffer, yes, but not a censor. This confusion between these roles has
been expressed before on the Asylum. If what is expressed in Stereophile
or on its website is felt by some to be offensive, then I regret that but
I don't feel not giving offense to be a relevant goal for a publication.
Did Robert Baird's essay make a relevant point about the Eagles? Yes.
Was it inappropriate for it to have been published at this time? When
_would_ be the appropriate time? Next week? Next year? And if the
answer from the more passionate Eagles fans is "never," then we are
back to the fact that I don't regard avoiding giving offense as a
relevant goal for a publication.
A couple of points: Robert Baird's opinion piece was triggered by Glenn
Frey's death but was not _about_ Glenn Frey. Also, there was no implication
that the song "Fly Like an Eagle" was recorded by the Eagles. Robert had
referenced the Steve Miller Band as another example of a band, like the
Eagles, whose recordings had been over-played on the radio. I see that
you had acknowledged that in another posting, but this response is
addressed to all the inmates.
And to address the poster who declared that I would not publish a piece
on the death of a member of an English band like the Moody Blues, where
did _that_ come from? I routinely publish opinions that differ from my
own - again, I don't censor my writers' opinions, not on music and not
on the audio products they review.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Follow Ups:
I won't wade into the waters regarding an editor's responsibility to green light opinion pieces in his or her magazine, but I agree that the piece was not particularly well timed. The fact is the Eagle's catalog has been in existence and unchanged for many years, many of which Baird has been writing for Stereophile. My question is why Baird never got around to writing the piece, or at least it being published, until Frey died? Were the opinions expressed relevant before Frey died? Yes. Did Frey's death trigger the piece? Likely. I don't go to a man's funeral demanding the widow pay me the $10.00 the decedent owed me. I'll let it rest for a while.
Secondly, I don't understand the argument that the Eagles' catalog is played too much on radio. I am not an Eagles fan, but I am a fan of the free market, and I do believe radio stations generally play what their listeners like, much as audio magazines publish reviews which their readers like. The listeners of those stations don't seem to think the Eagles are overplayed anymore than most Stereophile readers did not think there were too many Musical Fidelity or Music Hall reviews when Sam Tellig was writing for the magazine.
My guess is that Baird does not like the Eagles, and so believes they are played too much on the radio. My guess is that if Baird was running a classic radio station to put food on the table, and had to answer to the stockholders, he too would be give the listeners a heavy does of the Eagles.
But; Do you routinely publish critical opinions of an artist/band so soon (a day or two) after that person has died?
It's piss poor behavior period. It also looks as if Stereo pile is trying "cash in" on the un-timely death of Mr. Frey by printing a controversial article.
Another thing; Who on your staff decides if a artist/band is over played on radio?
Note: They call it POP because it's P-O-P-U-L-A-R - That means people like it.......A lot. Judging from album sales, there are 100,000,000 people on the planet that disagree with you and Robert Baird.
Don't worry about it though, with a massive circulation of 75,000 copies, Stereophile sells just about as many copies as The Eagles sold albums in a day...........
Meat; It's the right thing to do. Romans 14:2
I'll have to disagree. I was brought up to understand that there was an appropriate time and place for certain types of statements. One of the social conventions was to not speak ill of people immediately following their death. (Sure, there are exceptions, but we're not talking about a murderer in this case.)The piece was negative and condescending. I'm not an Eagles fan -- it has probably been 15 or 20 years since I've spun one of their records -- but I recognize their place in life when I was younger. The piece should have been put off for a month or two.
I realize your natural instinct is to defend your writer, your magazine and your editing choice, but it is pretty obvious that a number of us out here thought "how rude".
Edits: 01/24/16
We will disagree on this. As in life, timing is everything.Secondly, it is NOT censorship to reject this piece. You are not running a news publication. You are under no obligation to publish every piece submitted. I am sure their are piles of reviews and columns in the scrap heap that never saw the light of day for some reason or another. So, let's not hide behind the higher calling of being anti censorship. I know plenty of writers in the entertainment industry and not every piece they submit runs. Not even close.
There is no confusion.
Also, where is the precedent in your magazine for pieces like this, published immediately after the death of a so called "over played" artist?
Edits: 01/24/16
> it is NOT censorship to reject this piece. You are not running a news
> publication. You are under no obligation to publish every piece
> submitted.
Thank you for explaining to me what my job entails. Please forgive me for
believing I know more about this subject than you do.
> I am sure their are piles of reviews and columns in the scrap heap that
> never saw the light of day for some reason or another.
Actually, no. If I commission a piece, it runs.
> where is the precedent in your magazine for pieces like this, published
> immediately after the death of a so called "over played" artist?
See Fred Kaplan's obituary of Dave Brubeck, linked below.
> We will disagree on this.
Indeed we shall.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
And those two things put together might make people think the plan was "we will get more pub if we write something shocking so as to not be in with the 2500 other posts/pieces written on this artists passing"
Fairly classless act by a mag that worked so hard to be classy over the years.
One of a growing number of items that will make the closing of Stereophile's doors less sad for many of us when that day comes.
Wrong. People die every day and all of them are flawed. No musician deserves the kind of unqualified hosannas that nearly all of them get when they die, and the machine-gunned praise gets tiresome and rings false.
I love David Bowie and he was a game-changer in many regards, but in the wake of his death you'd think he never recorded a bad song. He actually recorded a lot of poor albums, in my opinion, just like any other musician. No one has a perfect catalog.
And when McCartney dies, his endless slog of crap solo records will also be ignored. But why? He made them. They're part of his legacy, just as Frey's sub-par work was part of a legacy that also included some outstanding work.
It's dishonest to pretend someone was an unqualified genius just because they die. Baird had some nice things to say about Frey and the Eagles, and he had some critical things to say. That's it. End of story.
> > Wrong. People die every day and all of them are flawed. No musician
> > deserves the kind of unqualified hosannas that nearly all of them get
> > when they die, and the machine-gunned praise gets tiresome and rings false.
> > It's dishonest to pretend someone was an unqualified genius just because they die.
I didn't see anyone suggest that Frey was an "unqualified genius" or advocate only that should have been said about him. However, there is a difference between giving someone "unqualified hosannas" and the snarky article Stereophile posted one day after the report of his death.
A story immediately on someone's passing doesn't need to be a gossamer fairy tale, but it also should not be taking swipes at them. There is plenty of time later on to publish the autopsy report of their life.
However, given that so many of the social conventions that used to make things a bit more civil are now out of fashion, the article wasn't a surprise in many ways. However, without doing an exact count, in looking at the comments posted at the Stereophile web site, I'd estimate that about three-quarters of them thought it was in poor taste. Obviously JA and some think otherwise, but I suspect they have taken note of the reaction of many of their readers..
On a scale of 1 to 10. how much less?
Never realized how much I tend to agree with Rick W.
I guess the third failure was the cover, they needed a strong cover along the lines of our supermarket tabloids to stir up interest in the shocking thing, but they didn't do that.Daniel
Edits: 01/26/16 01/26/16
> I guess the third failure was the cover...
What cover? The Eagles piece that has gotten everyone's panties in a wad
was published on the Stereophile website.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
To even mention the Late Glen Frey in an article that had NO COVER?
Poor form.
Yet another "One of a growing number of items that will make the closing of Stereophile's
doors less sad for many of us when that day comes."
Plus, can you do something about that font you use online; it's annoying.
Makes me sad...
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
> To even mention the Late Glen Frey in an article that had NO COVER?
> Poor form.
Perhaps it's time for the mob to lay down their pitchforks and torches?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
and it has a million faces.
All Things Must Pass.
So too shall this.
But don't drain the fire buckets just yet.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Perhaps now you will think twice before you publish. It is not censorship. It is about class.
Or it could be about the missed opportunity for a cover along the lines of the more classy supermarket tabloids and scandal sheets.
Daniel
What difference does it make? This isn't a real subject, it can be embellished.
Daniel
> One of a growing number of items that will make the closing of
> Stereophile's doors less sad for many of us when that day comes.
Thank you for your comment.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
but you got this all wrong. Just admit it. I guess the Eagle's didn't pay for enough advertising in your fast becoming rag. BTW, I've subscribed for many years...maybe not much longer. When was the last thing written that anybody under 60 years old would care about? Bring on some new blood and get rid of the old...sometimes that includes those at the top.
> I guess the Eagle's [sic] didn't pay for enough advertising in your fast
> becoming rag.
Please give this tired old canard a rest.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
So you commissioned a slam piece to run as an obit?
And part of your defense is that you've done it before?
I doubt that's what you meant, but that's how it's coming across.
I think we're just looking for some common sense discretion.
You can dig in and cling in to your position, and hide your head in the sand, but based on the comments section of the column, and this thread, you are absolutely wrong.And if very piece you commission runs, you are in a majority of one, and a saint.
Thank you for the the Dave Brubeck link.
Edits: 01/24/16
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: