Saturday. Means what? RadioNation with Laura Flanders, for one thing. Hopefully, it means many things for you but, no matter how bad things get, you can always look forward to the ray of light called Laura.
Saturday
Is a weak Congress, crumbling White House and ever-stronger Pentagon the current state of the nation? We talk to JAMES CAROLL, author of "House of War: The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power." Then CHARLES WILSON, co-author of "Chew On This: Everything You Don't Want To Know About Fast Food," on the food industry attack on the new movie "Fast Food Nation" based on the book wrote with Eric Schlosser. And Canada’s First Lady of Folk Music, PENNY LANG, who skipped a Phil Ochs tribute to be with us and her latest album Stone+Sand+Sea+Sky.
Phil Ochs makes me remember to say heads up to Polly's Brew tomorrow. Polly was at one of the two concerts Donovan gave in London and will be reviewing it, so check your inboxes for that tomorrow.
Also tomorrow, on Laura's show:
What does it mean to be a friend of America and citizen these days? Do good fences make good neighbors? Our Media Roundtable includes Nation contributor BRUCE SHAPIRO and blogger CHRISTY HARDIN SMITH of Firedoglake. And GREG PALAST on why Bush loves $3 a gallon gas, war-mongering with oil-producing nations and other sordid tales from his new book, "Armed Madhouse: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf? China Floats, Bush Sinks, The Scheme to Steal '08, No Child's Behind Left, and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War."
A female blogger! Gasp. Well, unlike some shows on that radio network, Laura's not suffering from "You mean a woman can do that? And does?" Greg Palast is always a wonderful guest and he was very funny yesterday on KPFA's The Morning Show -- even if he did forget what station he was on. I felt like Philip Maldari (co-host) had a point to make that he never got to, Palast was riffing all over the place. Andrea Lewis wisely decided to sit back and enjoy the ride.
(For news on Ruth check out Rebecca's "the ruth & elijah report" -- and I'm glad Ruth's taking another week off. She's more than earned it and it's a great sign that, unlike the trip she and Treva took after Ruth's husband passed away, she's able to enjoy this one.)
Wednesday on KPFA's Guns and Butter, Bonnie Faulkner broadcast a speech by Dr. William Pepper about the questions that still surround the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. This was pretty amazing and I hope you'll find time to listen to it if you missed it.
Pepper represented James Earl Ray (starting in the mid-seventies). Ray went to prison for the murder of MLK but Ray was never given a trial. He was still attempting to get a trial when he died (1998, I believe). Sam Donaldson had an interview, in the early 90s, with a man who stated he was part of the conspiracy to kill MLK. And the interview played on Prime Time Live and wasn't noted anywhere. The King family took civil action against the man, Pepper represented the family, and won. But the press wasn't interested in covering the story. (Why not?)
The court transcripts and other documents, which I believe establish the conspiracy to assassinate MLK, are at the King Center. I started thinking, as KPFA's Guns and Butter will make you think, and begun to wonder if that wasn't the reason why the government wants to purchase the King Center?
Other things to check out: "THIS JUST IN! NO BULLY BOY LEFT BEHIND! "
"And the war drags on (Indymedia Roundup)"
"Surprise interview"
"Democracy Now: Eduardo Galeano"
"rebecca winters has a warning"
"Dry Drunk Bully Boy"
"Hayden Defends Domestic Spy Program At Confirmation Hearing"
"The (Other) Story Judith Miller Didn't Write"
""
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Helen Reddy, Burger King, Music
I just walked in the door, booted up the computer, ran to the radio to turn on KPFA and hopefully note something on it.
Okay, La Raza Chronicles is playing a documentary, Abandoned: The Betrayal of American Immigrants. "There beds would not be filled were it not for the INS, these are serious moneymakers for them." That really is true. They're making quite a bit of bucks off scapegoating immigrants. It's not just about xenophobia and the "other," it's also about a huge profit motive going on.
Susan e-mailed about two things. 1) She wondered about the next review? The earliest CD review would go up tomorrow night. I'll also do one Saturday. (These will go up at The Common Ills.) After that? It'll depend on what grabs me. (I am reading the suggestions.) I may not post a review again until June. I really never intended to do more than one or two a month. This month, I've done five and we'll do at least two more this week for a total of seven. 2) She wanted to know what the reaction to "Shame of the Week (Musical)" was? I asked Ty because he usually follows most of the e-mail at The Third Estate Sunday Review and he told me it had been very favorable but that it was actually being noted more this week. A lot of people are writing, this week, "I just saw the commercial!"
Susan can't get over that Helen Reddy, who for years refused to prostitute the song, has now done so in such a humilitating way. I was shocked (my jaw did drop) and I was angry. I'm not excusing what she did now. But now, my attitude is one of she's no one to me. I am cold towards Helen Reddy. I was not a huge fan of her music but that song did mean something. I even saw her in concert about ten years ago just for that song. A group of friends and I went just for that one song. She's a little too easy listening for my tastes but I could support her for that song.
I still support that song but, as the Mafia would say, now she's dead to me.
In fact, I think I still support the song but she's turned her back on it.
If she really, really needed the money, I'm not sure even that would excuse it. Couldn't she sell it to something else? Something that wouldn't use the song in a commercial mocking the women's movement?
Lucy said she was assuming I only blogged once last week due to the reviews. That's correct. I did four reviews and helped out with The Third Estate Sunday Review on both Sundays. I didn't have anything else in me to give. Lucy also noted that she watched Loose Change and keeps meaning to check out KPFA's Guns and Butter but always forgets the time. She's on the East Coast so it's four p.m. Wednesdays for her. I'm not sure whether it will air tomorrow or not because KPFA's doing fundraising but I'll listen just in case.
Guns and Butter is really a great show. Ted wrote that he's listened to three shows now. He's not sure what he believes, he wrote, but he likes that Bonnie Faulkner's not afraid to ask questions. She's not either. She's not going to stand in line with everyone else just because veering from the accepted might lead to slams or criticism.
Ted wondered which review I liked best of the five I've done so far? I think "Kat's Korner: Pink's not dead or silent." I'm not sure about "Kat's Korner: Pearl Jam does Pearl Jam." I knew some would be bothered by it. That's why I asked C.I. to read over it (after reading a huge portion of it to C.I. over the phone). I like Pearl Jam's Pearl Jam. I even listened to it yesterday. (Too busy to hear anything today -- very, very busy. I've been taking care of errands and lining up a new art project.) But a) I'm a Nirvana fan/freak (or was when Kurt Cobain was alive) and I'm not going to pretend like Pearl Jam was the great alternative band (they're a rock band -- often sounding like Soundgarden's farewell album) and b) Eddie Vedder's voice is frequently amazingly moving but those lyrics need to be worked on and that was always true. If you like Pearl Jam, I do, then you'll like the album, some amazing singing and vocals. But I'm not sure if you've avoided Pearl Jam all this time that this will be the CD for you. In fact, I doubt it will be.
Okay, we're all supposed to be on the phone in like two minutes so let me post this. I'll steal from Wally and grab some of his recommended links:
"NYT: Bell-South says, "No, we didn't!" and the Times runs with it"
"We hold the Iraqi government and the occupiers responsible for this brutal atrocity"
"things that make you go 'what the f---!'"
"Rally in DC, Professor Steve Almond stands up, and more"
"Other Items"
"Freedom of the Press Under Attack: Government Begins Tracking Phone Calls of Journalists"
"The joke is always Thomas Friedman. Always"
"Popcorn in the Kitchen"
Okay, La Raza Chronicles is playing a documentary, Abandoned: The Betrayal of American Immigrants. "There beds would not be filled were it not for the INS, these are serious moneymakers for them." That really is true. They're making quite a bit of bucks off scapegoating immigrants. It's not just about xenophobia and the "other," it's also about a huge profit motive going on.
Susan e-mailed about two things. 1) She wondered about the next review? The earliest CD review would go up tomorrow night. I'll also do one Saturday. (These will go up at The Common Ills.) After that? It'll depend on what grabs me. (I am reading the suggestions.) I may not post a review again until June. I really never intended to do more than one or two a month. This month, I've done five and we'll do at least two more this week for a total of seven. 2) She wanted to know what the reaction to "Shame of the Week (Musical)" was? I asked Ty because he usually follows most of the e-mail at The Third Estate Sunday Review and he told me it had been very favorable but that it was actually being noted more this week. A lot of people are writing, this week, "I just saw the commercial!"
Susan can't get over that Helen Reddy, who for years refused to prostitute the song, has now done so in such a humilitating way. I was shocked (my jaw did drop) and I was angry. I'm not excusing what she did now. But now, my attitude is one of she's no one to me. I am cold towards Helen Reddy. I was not a huge fan of her music but that song did mean something. I even saw her in concert about ten years ago just for that song. A group of friends and I went just for that one song. She's a little too easy listening for my tastes but I could support her for that song.
I still support that song but, as the Mafia would say, now she's dead to me.
In fact, I think I still support the song but she's turned her back on it.
If she really, really needed the money, I'm not sure even that would excuse it. Couldn't she sell it to something else? Something that wouldn't use the song in a commercial mocking the women's movement?
Lucy said she was assuming I only blogged once last week due to the reviews. That's correct. I did four reviews and helped out with The Third Estate Sunday Review on both Sundays. I didn't have anything else in me to give. Lucy also noted that she watched Loose Change and keeps meaning to check out KPFA's Guns and Butter but always forgets the time. She's on the East Coast so it's four p.m. Wednesdays for her. I'm not sure whether it will air tomorrow or not because KPFA's doing fundraising but I'll listen just in case.
Guns and Butter is really a great show. Ted wrote that he's listened to three shows now. He's not sure what he believes, he wrote, but he likes that Bonnie Faulkner's not afraid to ask questions. She's not either. She's not going to stand in line with everyone else just because veering from the accepted might lead to slams or criticism.
Ted wondered which review I liked best of the five I've done so far? I think "Kat's Korner: Pink's not dead or silent." I'm not sure about "Kat's Korner: Pearl Jam does Pearl Jam." I knew some would be bothered by it. That's why I asked C.I. to read over it (after reading a huge portion of it to C.I. over the phone). I like Pearl Jam's Pearl Jam. I even listened to it yesterday. (Too busy to hear anything today -- very, very busy. I've been taking care of errands and lining up a new art project.) But a) I'm a Nirvana fan/freak (or was when Kurt Cobain was alive) and I'm not going to pretend like Pearl Jam was the great alternative band (they're a rock band -- often sounding like Soundgarden's farewell album) and b) Eddie Vedder's voice is frequently amazingly moving but those lyrics need to be worked on and that was always true. If you like Pearl Jam, I do, then you'll like the album, some amazing singing and vocals. But I'm not sure if you've avoided Pearl Jam all this time that this will be the CD for you. In fact, I doubt it will be.
Okay, we're all supposed to be on the phone in like two minutes so let me post this. I'll steal from Wally and grab some of his recommended links:
"NYT: Bell-South says, "No, we didn't!" and the Times runs with it"
"We hold the Iraqi government and the occupiers responsible for this brutal atrocity"
"things that make you go 'what the f---!'"
"Rally in DC, Professor Steve Almond stands up, and more"
"Other Items"
"Freedom of the Press Under Attack: Government Begins Tracking Phone Calls of Journalists"
"The joke is always Thomas Friedman. Always"
"Popcorn in the Kitchen"
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Guns & Butter and the crappy 1000th issue of Rolling Stone
If you've visited lately and wondered where the hell I've been, I've been writing reviews:
"Kat's Korner: Pink's not dead or silent"
"Kat's Korner: Need deeper? Check out Josh Ritter's The Animal Years."
"Kat's Korner: Richie Havens: The Economical Collection"
"Kat's Korner: Neil Young's Living With War -- key word 'Living'"
I've got at least three more coming (next one on Saturday). This includes the one of the Free Design. That was a sixties group, by the way. What are the other two? One is Pearl Jam, I'll say that much. The other one? I actually have two in mind. I'll wait and see which one I can finish.
Let me do KPFA's Guns and Butter because that's the main reason I'm blogging tonight. Wednesday, Bonnie Faulkner played portions of the documentary Loose Change.
First off Yarrow Mahko does the show with Bonnie. And I don't think I've ever mentioned him.
He and Bonnie produce the show. Because it's fundraising time, there was more talking to listeners and when Yarrow's name was brought up, I thought, "I don't think I've ever even noted him here." Bonnie's the host and has a great radio voice so I'm usually just talking about what's on the show and mentioning her.
On the show with Bonnie was a woman who called out the 911 commissioners during their mock "hearings." I believe that she, Bonnie and Yarrow are working on the film Blowing the Whistle on the 911 Commissioners. When the woman called the commission what it was, all these guards come over and tell her that if she does that again, they'll have to kick her out and her reply is something like, "You mean I get to do it again?"
So let me add in Rolling Stone because C.I. asked me if I wanted to grab it? We both hate it.
It is the "Special Collector's Edition" 1000th issue. Let me start by noting that those of us who subscribe probably don't appreciate the huge address label on the cover. It's slightly larger than a pack of cigarettes. Since the whole point of the cover is 3-D artwork, I don't know who they thought they were helping with that huge address label?
Now let's talk about inside. And I'm basing this on a very long conversation C.I. and I had so consider this both of our thoughts. It's an embarrassing issue.
Start with the cover where they make Bart Simpson as prominent as Kurt Cobain -- what the hell? The 3-D doesn't really work, you have to keep looking at it from different angles to make out faces, otherwise you can see part of it but the rest is blurry. But one thing you may note is all the males. Males, males, males, males and more males. Why? Well that's what they're emphasizing.
That and photos. It's hard to tell there was any writing in the magazine, ever. The "politics" article leaves out so much. You'd think, one example, they'd want to trumpet the fact that Carl Bernstein wrote an article for Rolling Stone about the CIA paying off the press? But you'd be wrong. Surely, the attention getting story they had on Patty Hearst, a two-part attention getting exclusive that really helped the magazine stand out, is discussed? Nope.
4 page story on "politics." 4 pages on the "early years" (that tells you nothing). Jann S. Wenner (publisher) writes a one page note. And then the crap begins. For 14 pages (not counting ads), you go from 1971 to 1976. And? Well first off, Rolling Stone started in 1967. So you've lost out on four years right there.
Second? Not one woman is noted. You see the back of Linda McCartney's head in one photo and that's it. Finally, page 15 a woman is the focus, Linda Ronstadt. Apparently because Jann Wenner's pissed at Carly Simon?
Carly was the cover. The one they needed, as Harriet (who goes unmentioned as do most of the people who were in charge during any of Jann's forays into politics or movies) and others pointed out, to sell the issue. Carly's nowhere. They have a large photo of James Taylor (who didn't sell in his last years as a cover subject) and a write up on him. Who cares?
Seriously. The prick won't speak of Carly and doesn't like it when she speaks of him. They were together, they were married, they wrote together ("Words Of Love," etc.), they recorded together (having hits with the duets "Mockingbird" and "Devoted To You" but they also did background vocals on album after album), they have two kids together, they toured together. He can't talk about his career and not mention Carly if he's being honest.
But he can't be honest. Which is why he whines about the damage of an interview (painting him as a drug addict and more for the next ten years -- as though his own actions didn't paint him as that because he was a drug addict for more than the next ten years). But he gets to talk. Page 16 (skipping ads) contains women . . . in the photo. It's Fleetwood Mac. So there's a photo with Stevie Nicks and Christine McVie. But do you hear from either of them?
No. You hear from Lindsey who no one needs to hear from. I'll never forget the article where he was promoting Go Insane and they let him shave years of his already made public age. Rolling Stone really pushed the nonsense of Lindsey was the "talent" and in "charge." If he was in charge, they'd never have had hits. What did he write? Two? ("Go Your Own Way" and the hideous "Big Love." -- oh almost forgot the marching nonsense that was "Tusk.") Christine wrote "Don't Stop," "Say You Love Me," "You Make Loving Fun," "Think About Me," "Hold Me," "Little Lies," "Everywhere" and more. Stevie? "Rhiannon," "Landslide," "Dreams" (the only number one hit the group ever had), "Sara," "Silver Springs," "Gypsy" . . .
But by all means, bore us all with the guy who ripped off the Mamas and the Papas anytime he penned one of his bad songs. You have to wait until Page 20 when Patti Smith becomes the next woman pictured (only the second one that they write a little jot about and, unlike the boys, she has to share a page with the great rock star Muhammed Ali). Page 22 is the next woman, Bette Midler because Bette's friends with Jann. There's no other reason for her to be representing 1979 -- The Rose was a bad film. Page 24 has a photo of Dolly Parton that's slightly larger than a postage stamp. Main photo and story goes to that great rock star Rodney Dangerfield. It's total crap.
You get Bob Marley in 1976 as the first musician of color and then have to wait until 1984 for the next (Prince and Tina Turner). As though they didn't cover Stevie Wonder? Do we need Robin Williams? Do we need Ahnuld?
It's not about music, it's not even about culture in the lowest sense because Michael Douglas, et al, were never about culture (high or low), they were cover subjects because they were friends of Jann's. One full page in the supposed music, supposed cultural magazine represents 2002. Want to know what the photos are of and the text about? The Simpsons. Who graced the cover in 1990 when they were still fresh. For 2002, that's about as "trendy" as a Yes, Dear cover today.
It's such crap. It's all male, it's all white. That's a criticism that's often made of the magazine. But it can be made more so when they choose to omit the things they actually did cover beyond the White Penis.
It's also strange what they pick as sexy covers. Where, for instance, is the best selling cover of Mark McGrath of Sugar Ray? I wouldn't pay a buck for a Sugar Ray CD but Mark shirtless in low slung pants was sexy. And that issue sold. But they don't show it. They show very little beefcake. There's no Eminem with the sick of dynamite (and nothing else).
It's just really disappointing. I remember the 25th anniversary issue -- they actually did articles and interviews for that, not an embarrassing version of US Magazine. You could grab the magazine, sit down and read it. But this won't take you more than a half-hour to go through.
It's a waste of paper and an embarrassing way to celebrate 1000 issues. Makes you think that they should probably stop the magazine at the 1001st issue.
It's a piece of trash witha 3D cover. It doesn't honor the magazine, it doesn't recap the magazine.
And I'll go ahead and say it because I doubt anyone else will: Annie Leibovitz, if you're gay, come out of the damn closet. She's supposed to have been Susan Sontag's partner. This nonsense about the Linda Rondstadt photo session is nonsense if she's gay. It would be the perfect time for her, as she's talking about the sexy photos, to say, "By the way, I'm gay." Instead, she talks about it as "two girls playing dress-up." She's photographed women in various states of dress. If there's been passion for those photos, she should have talked about that. (Maybe she will in a Vanity Fair article when her Demi Moore nude cover comes up?)
Something's made her one of the finest photographers and it goes beyond little kids playing dress up. What informed her point of view?
Jann S. Wenner is gay and out of the closet now. The only way you can tell that is because there are very few beefcake photos noted in this issue. There have been plenty on the cover. Plenty of half-naked and naked men. But you don't know that to flip through the garbage issue. Someone will say, "There's David Cassidy and Justin Timberlake!" Yes, there is. And the scratch-in-sniff photo of Prince's armpit. Don't kid yourself that this was what they did. They did a lot of half-naked men, especially in the last few years.
So it's disappointing and that's putting it mildly.
"Kat's Korner: Pink's not dead or silent"
"Kat's Korner: Need deeper? Check out Josh Ritter's The Animal Years."
"Kat's Korner: Richie Havens: The Economical Collection"
"Kat's Korner: Neil Young's Living With War -- key word 'Living'"
I've got at least three more coming (next one on Saturday). This includes the one of the Free Design. That was a sixties group, by the way. What are the other two? One is Pearl Jam, I'll say that much. The other one? I actually have two in mind. I'll wait and see which one I can finish.
Let me do KPFA's Guns and Butter because that's the main reason I'm blogging tonight. Wednesday, Bonnie Faulkner played portions of the documentary Loose Change.
First off Yarrow Mahko does the show with Bonnie. And I don't think I've ever mentioned him.
He and Bonnie produce the show. Because it's fundraising time, there was more talking to listeners and when Yarrow's name was brought up, I thought, "I don't think I've ever even noted him here." Bonnie's the host and has a great radio voice so I'm usually just talking about what's on the show and mentioning her.
On the show with Bonnie was a woman who called out the 911 commissioners during their mock "hearings." I believe that she, Bonnie and Yarrow are working on the film Blowing the Whistle on the 911 Commissioners. When the woman called the commission what it was, all these guards come over and tell her that if she does that again, they'll have to kick her out and her reply is something like, "You mean I get to do it again?"
So let me add in Rolling Stone because C.I. asked me if I wanted to grab it? We both hate it.
It is the "Special Collector's Edition" 1000th issue. Let me start by noting that those of us who subscribe probably don't appreciate the huge address label on the cover. It's slightly larger than a pack of cigarettes. Since the whole point of the cover is 3-D artwork, I don't know who they thought they were helping with that huge address label?
Now let's talk about inside. And I'm basing this on a very long conversation C.I. and I had so consider this both of our thoughts. It's an embarrassing issue.
Start with the cover where they make Bart Simpson as prominent as Kurt Cobain -- what the hell? The 3-D doesn't really work, you have to keep looking at it from different angles to make out faces, otherwise you can see part of it but the rest is blurry. But one thing you may note is all the males. Males, males, males, males and more males. Why? Well that's what they're emphasizing.
That and photos. It's hard to tell there was any writing in the magazine, ever. The "politics" article leaves out so much. You'd think, one example, they'd want to trumpet the fact that Carl Bernstein wrote an article for Rolling Stone about the CIA paying off the press? But you'd be wrong. Surely, the attention getting story they had on Patty Hearst, a two-part attention getting exclusive that really helped the magazine stand out, is discussed? Nope.
4 page story on "politics." 4 pages on the "early years" (that tells you nothing). Jann S. Wenner (publisher) writes a one page note. And then the crap begins. For 14 pages (not counting ads), you go from 1971 to 1976. And? Well first off, Rolling Stone started in 1967. So you've lost out on four years right there.
Second? Not one woman is noted. You see the back of Linda McCartney's head in one photo and that's it. Finally, page 15 a woman is the focus, Linda Ronstadt. Apparently because Jann Wenner's pissed at Carly Simon?
Carly was the cover. The one they needed, as Harriet (who goes unmentioned as do most of the people who were in charge during any of Jann's forays into politics or movies) and others pointed out, to sell the issue. Carly's nowhere. They have a large photo of James Taylor (who didn't sell in his last years as a cover subject) and a write up on him. Who cares?
Seriously. The prick won't speak of Carly and doesn't like it when she speaks of him. They were together, they were married, they wrote together ("Words Of Love," etc.), they recorded together (having hits with the duets "Mockingbird" and "Devoted To You" but they also did background vocals on album after album), they have two kids together, they toured together. He can't talk about his career and not mention Carly if he's being honest.
But he can't be honest. Which is why he whines about the damage of an interview (painting him as a drug addict and more for the next ten years -- as though his own actions didn't paint him as that because he was a drug addict for more than the next ten years). But he gets to talk. Page 16 (skipping ads) contains women . . . in the photo. It's Fleetwood Mac. So there's a photo with Stevie Nicks and Christine McVie. But do you hear from either of them?
No. You hear from Lindsey who no one needs to hear from. I'll never forget the article where he was promoting Go Insane and they let him shave years of his already made public age. Rolling Stone really pushed the nonsense of Lindsey was the "talent" and in "charge." If he was in charge, they'd never have had hits. What did he write? Two? ("Go Your Own Way" and the hideous "Big Love." -- oh almost forgot the marching nonsense that was "Tusk.") Christine wrote "Don't Stop," "Say You Love Me," "You Make Loving Fun," "Think About Me," "Hold Me," "Little Lies," "Everywhere" and more. Stevie? "Rhiannon," "Landslide," "Dreams" (the only number one hit the group ever had), "Sara," "Silver Springs," "Gypsy" . . .
But by all means, bore us all with the guy who ripped off the Mamas and the Papas anytime he penned one of his bad songs. You have to wait until Page 20 when Patti Smith becomes the next woman pictured (only the second one that they write a little jot about and, unlike the boys, she has to share a page with the great rock star Muhammed Ali). Page 22 is the next woman, Bette Midler because Bette's friends with Jann. There's no other reason for her to be representing 1979 -- The Rose was a bad film. Page 24 has a photo of Dolly Parton that's slightly larger than a postage stamp. Main photo and story goes to that great rock star Rodney Dangerfield. It's total crap.
You get Bob Marley in 1976 as the first musician of color and then have to wait until 1984 for the next (Prince and Tina Turner). As though they didn't cover Stevie Wonder? Do we need Robin Williams? Do we need Ahnuld?
It's not about music, it's not even about culture in the lowest sense because Michael Douglas, et al, were never about culture (high or low), they were cover subjects because they were friends of Jann's. One full page in the supposed music, supposed cultural magazine represents 2002. Want to know what the photos are of and the text about? The Simpsons. Who graced the cover in 1990 when they were still fresh. For 2002, that's about as "trendy" as a Yes, Dear cover today.
It's such crap. It's all male, it's all white. That's a criticism that's often made of the magazine. But it can be made more so when they choose to omit the things they actually did cover beyond the White Penis.
It's also strange what they pick as sexy covers. Where, for instance, is the best selling cover of Mark McGrath of Sugar Ray? I wouldn't pay a buck for a Sugar Ray CD but Mark shirtless in low slung pants was sexy. And that issue sold. But they don't show it. They show very little beefcake. There's no Eminem with the sick of dynamite (and nothing else).
It's just really disappointing. I remember the 25th anniversary issue -- they actually did articles and interviews for that, not an embarrassing version of US Magazine. You could grab the magazine, sit down and read it. But this won't take you more than a half-hour to go through.
It's a waste of paper and an embarrassing way to celebrate 1000 issues. Makes you think that they should probably stop the magazine at the 1001st issue.
It's a piece of trash witha 3D cover. It doesn't honor the magazine, it doesn't recap the magazine.
And I'll go ahead and say it because I doubt anyone else will: Annie Leibovitz, if you're gay, come out of the damn closet. She's supposed to have been Susan Sontag's partner. This nonsense about the Linda Rondstadt photo session is nonsense if she's gay. It would be the perfect time for her, as she's talking about the sexy photos, to say, "By the way, I'm gay." Instead, she talks about it as "two girls playing dress-up." She's photographed women in various states of dress. If there's been passion for those photos, she should have talked about that. (Maybe she will in a Vanity Fair article when her Demi Moore nude cover comes up?)
Something's made her one of the finest photographers and it goes beyond little kids playing dress up. What informed her point of view?
Jann S. Wenner is gay and out of the closet now. The only way you can tell that is because there are very few beefcake photos noted in this issue. There have been plenty on the cover. Plenty of half-naked and naked men. But you don't know that to flip through the garbage issue. Someone will say, "There's David Cassidy and Justin Timberlake!" Yes, there is. And the scratch-in-sniff photo of Prince's armpit. Don't kid yourself that this was what they did. They did a lot of half-naked men, especially in the last few years.
So it's disappointing and that's putting it mildly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)