Main
Archive/Search
Tour
Forums
Gallery
Calendar
Links
Shoplifters Union
Site Sponsors
About
FAQ

* * *

topics
journals
past polls
hall of fame
recent comments
submit story

create acct./
log in

Stereophile magazine, complaints to the Anti-Smiths editor
posted by davidt on Wednesday January 29 2003, @09:45AM

 Anonymous-shnonymous writes:

I don't know if anyone reads this music magazine called Stereophile or not, but they had an issue about two months ago featuring an article titled "40 Essential Albums." Anyway, the list contained many clichéd, overrated albums and recordings by artists like the Doors, Joni Mitchell, and Mariah Carey, of all people. In this month's issue, a Smiths fan wrote this letter to the editor:



"Editor:

What's this? No Smiths? I was glad to see one of my favorite bands listed in the 'Honorable Mention' section of last November's '40 Essential Albums,' but then I noticed the editor's interjection where Louder Than Bombs should have been: 'No Smiths.'

What? What??? No Smiths? You included Beethoven, didn't you? You included The Beatles, you included Bob Dylan, John Coltrane, and Jimi Hendrix. So where's The Smiths? Not only did you exclude the Smiths, you pointed out your opposition to ever including one of their albums! Have you ever listened to The Queen is Dead or Meat is Murder? Every teenage guy who spent hour after lonely hour on a Saturday night wondering about that beautiful girl he met last weekend could take solace in their music. Listening to 'The Boy with the Thorn in His Side' or 'Heaven Knows I'm Miserable Now,' you knew Morrissey had been there too.

Let's try this again next year, Stereophile. And you better add Depeche Mode's Black Celebration or Music for the Masses.

-Steven J. Wilder, Irving TX"

---

And this is what the editor wrote in response:

"'What? What??? No Smiths?' asks reader Steven J. Wilder in this issue's 'Letters,' regarding my interjection in the 'Honorable Mentions' sidebar of last November's '40 Essential Albums.' Hey, I think the Smiths suck -- ok, Mr. Wilder? Morrissey's self-absorbed adolescent whining had no place on a list that included music from such grownups as Morrison, Mitchell, and Mingus. I'm not alone in this sentiment. Jon Iverson, www.stereophile.com's webmaster, stapled together the pages of Mojo magazine's April 2001 retrospective of Morrissey's and Marr's music so he could skip over it without running the risk of the veins on his forehead exploding...[sic]"

Then he goes on by saying that Mariah Carey had more number one hits than the Beatles and Elvis, blah blah blah, and how that compared to Morrissey, blah blah blah. Then he talks about classical music and how bad everyone's taste is and how Radiohead and Morrissey are dreadful, etc.

This just goes to show you that statistics and conformity matter more to some music listeners. It isn't about relevance anymore, and it hasn't been in a long time.

 
Morrissey-solo Login
Nickname:

Password:

Public Terminal

[ Create a new account ]

Related Links
  • Anonymous-shnonymous
  • Stereophile
  • More on News/Media
  • Also by davidt
    •

    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Stereophile magazine, complaints to the Anti-Smiths editor | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 24 comments | Search Discussion
    Threshold:
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    what a...... (Score:0)
    complete dickhead.grown ups like morrison etc...????what the??!ugh!
    Anonymous -- Wednesday January 29 2003, @10:01AM (#53502)
      he's correct you know.... (Score:1)
      how anyone can rate moz over mariah carey is beyond me. no one has given more to music than maria-- what? this aint mariah-solo.com?

      oopsssss
      mrbleepbleep -- Wednesday January 29 2003, @10:19AM (#53503)
      (User #4268 Info)
        cancel my subscription to sterophile! (Score:1)
        oh wait...never had one to begin with. thank goodness!!!

        the world IS full of crashing bores indeed...
        nowmyheartisok -- Wednesday January 29 2003, @10:40AM (#53507)
        (User #4875 Info)
          let me get this straight (Score:1)
          just because mariah carey has had a ton of number one singles, that somehow means she's good? so i guess britney spears is a real artist too. because you know both mariah and britney explore such mature themes in their music. mmmhmm, yeah.

          methinks this dude needs to get his head out of his ass.
          joans_walkman -- Wednesday January 29 2003, @11:12AM (#53510)
          (User #6238 Info)
            heres the article and their email address . . . (Score:2, Informative)

            http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?710:5
            (link to the "no smiths" mention.)

            john_atkinson@primediamags.com
            (editor and author of the no smiths comment)

            Jon.Iverson@primedia.com
            (webmaster who hates morrissey)
            Anonymous -- Wednesday January 29 2003, @12:57PM (#53527)
              You know what I think... (Score:1)
              Steven J Wilder rules! Thanks man if you read this! You are dead right and DM should be on there as well.
              MOZ IS GOD -- Wednesday January 29 2003, @03:06PM (#53540)
              (User #3249 Info | http://www.myspace.com/coldwarspies )
              Grown Ups (Score:1, Interesting)
              Grown-ups didn't invent rock'n'roll, when they finally conceded defeat they opted for "cool and trendy" bores such as ELP, Genesis, Yes and Pink Floyd (post Syd)

              Gawd!
              Give me strength!!

              Barry Newman
              Anonymous -- Wednesday January 29 2003, @03:40PM (#53543)
                Mariah Carey should cover "He Cried" (Score:1)
                or perhaps "Lost"

                big hit potential - could do them both a lot of good.

                Or what about some big folk/rock outfit doing "Ammunition" ?
                Benton -- Wednesday January 29 2003, @05:29PM (#53552)
                (User #7241 Info)
                  Commercial Success = Relevance? (Score:2, Insightful)
                  The reason why I posted the article was because I thought that the editor's logic was crap. Steven Wilder obviously has deeper sentiments and feelings towards music, while the editor just kind of goes along with what's "popular" and what is accepted as good, well-written music. I have more admiration for people who have their own unique and individual taste. I have no respect for people who only like what's "in." What's "in" is usually unoriginal bullshit. (You run into a gem every once in a while, but not often.)

                  What I've found with some "music lovers" is that they confuse commercial success with the relevance of the actual material. Let me tell you, just because Marey Carey, or the like, sells 20 million albums doesn't mean she's any good. She doesn't put raw emotion into her work. She doesn't talk of life experiences, hoping to somehow better her listeners' lives with her songs. Morrissey does this. Morrissey may not be the million dollar man, but he has a strong following of devoted fans. So, comparing Mariah Carey to Morrissey is no comparison at all. She's a shitty singer with a shitty voice who just happens to have a legion of blind (and obviously deaf) fans.

                  And the people that I know who don't like Morrissey say that he's nothing but a whiner. Give me a break. They apparently can't see talent if he stood right in front of them and hit them with his enormous...wit and charm, of course (unless someone else knows otherwise. If so, please email me).

                  Thank you, and goodnight. ;)
                  Anonymous-shnonymous <eyes_painted_red@yahoo.com> -- Wednesday January 29 2003, @06:23PM (#53555)
                  (User #6230 Info | http://opendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A128747 )
                   Anything is hard to find when you will not open your eyes.
                    Who cares? (Score:1)
                    Who would buy this magazine anyway? The editor is obviously a jerk with no taste in music, but I don't really think that qualifies him for inclusion on this site - much less the lengthy debate that has followed...
                    Joemoz <jnso@hotmail.com> -- Thursday January 30 2003, @01:19AM (#53568)
                    (User #1342 Info)
                      DOORS are great! Jim Morrison was one of the best! (Score:0)
                      Editor may be an asshole, yet...

                      Hey, I like both Smiths and Doors.
                      They are different, yet I consider Doors one of the most deep and sublime of all musicians. I had a pleasure to see alive Paul Krieger (guitar) and Densmore (drums) at Santa Monica Pier at 2000! Even Jimless gray-haired Doors were a pleasure! I could only be jealous of peoples who saw Jim alive at 60s!!!

                      One could like both rock'n roll intellectuals (like Morrissey and Costello) and mystics (like Jim Morrison, Patti Smiths, Brian Hitchcock or Nick Cave).
                      Anonymous -- Thursday January 30 2003, @10:03PM (#53622)
                      Response! (Score:0)
                      >It amazes me that people like you get such important jobs...You should be ashamed at denouncing such a profilic figure who has been
                      important to many peoples lives.

                      I am not arguing with your like for Morrissey and his music Chris, merely
                      expressing my opinion about his music. You also seemed to have missed the
                      point of my As We See It, which was to state that in matters of taste there
                      can be no dispute.

                      Thanks for writing. I may well publish your comments in a forthcoming issue
                      of Stereophile.

                      Sincerely
                      John Atkinson
                      Editor, Stereophile
                      Anonymous -- Friday January 31 2003, @03:02AM (#53631)
                        music editor equals starf*ucker? (Score:1)
                        Jeeeeez! Why is it, that in most "Best Albums of Whatever" lists, such "grown ups" like Jim Morrison and Joni Mitchell are always to be found somewhere on them? Usually the answer is that they are/were both crack heads who punched out all soul of their music (if there ever WAS soul in it) with drugs. For one reason or another, editors on most music magazines LIKE that fact - maybe because they still believe in the most ridiculous myth ever - "Sex drugs & Rock n Roll". And let's face it, Morrissey has never been a product of that - that's what makes him worth listening to. That's why ordinary people like me can identify with him, I don't know the world of sex drugs & rock n roll, and really, I'm not interested in it. What I do know something about is everyday problems like the ones Mozzer talk about, and so do the editors on todays music magazine. However, it's not very macho to admit it, so it's much easier to exclude Morrissey from these stupid and indifferent lists - and put "REAL" ARTISTS like Morrison and Mitchell on them. Reason: music editors are people whose childhood dreams were to become "REAL" rock n roll stars, but because they lacked talent they ended up on a magazine instead....Hmm, their job is a way of getting close to these 'heroes' so actually they are nothing but a bunch of starf*ckers ;-) So...who cares what they think about the GREATEST and REALEST artist EVER to have been born on this planet? :-)
                        mozzergirl -- Friday January 31 2003, @03:46PM (#53674)
                        (User #2801 Info)
                         Will you put your arms around me, I won't tell anybody

                        [ home | submit story/news item | archive/search | past polls | faq | preferences | terms of service | rss ]