Posts
[This morning's op ed in the Portland Press Herald by Dexter J. Kamilewicz was far superior to anything that I could write on the subject. I post it for others to ruminate on.-JB]
MAINE VOICES:
by, Dexter J. Kamilewicz
How dare some say, 'Support our troops'?
© 2005 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
Someone recently informed me that they didn't know that my son was being deployed to Iraq and asked why I hadn't told them. I really didn't have an answer.
That is when I began to be annoyed by those ever-present, good-intentioned but mindless ribbons stuck on the back of cars and SUVs exhorting, "Support Our Troops."
I find those magnetic messages to be offensive when I think of parents and friends of National Guard soldiers who purchased expensive Kevlar armor for their soldiers while Donald Rumsfeld said they didn't have any in stock.
Those marketing messages seem so empty when soldiers are told to "up-armor" their Humvees because the Department of Defense had not asked the manufacturers if more could be done.
I am saddened when veterans wait over a year for appointments at veterans' hospitals and soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and places like Walter Reed Hospital are required to pay for phone calls and emails home. I bet Rumsfeld doesn't have to pay for calls and e-mails back home, and I find it unbelievable and unacceptable that Rumsfeld has not been fired while the troops have been treated so poorly. Support our troops?
I accept that there are justifications for going to war. However, I cannot find anyone who can give me a solid reason to justify our going to and continuing the war in Iraq.
SEEKING REASONS
There seems to be no question in America more avoided, particularly by elected officials, than a discussion of the war in Iraq. I asked Maine's members of Congress those questions.
U.S. Rep. Tom Allen said the war was not justified, but to abandon Iraq and its people now would be a mistake. Sen. Susan Collins said that going to war in Iraq was a problem of faulty intelligence, but the chaos in Iraq required us to stay.
Sen. Olympia Snowe blamed Saddam Hussein as the revised apparent rationale for invading Iraq, and she focused on the need for global support for the U.S efforts in Iraq. U.S. Rep. Michael Michaud agreed with Snowe.
Those answers translate that we got there by mistake, and we are staying there by mistake. There is no plan, there is no discussion and there is no leadership. Didn't we go into Iraq to protect ourselves from weapons of mass destruction and because of Iraq's connections with the terrorists, reasons that have been found to be utterly in error? Support our troops?
The pointless death and maiming of this war is pure insanity and probably even criminal. In this war, many times those who died in the World Trade Center have been wounded or killed. Over 1,400 American soldiers are dead, over 10,000 soldiers are physically wounded while uncounted others are psychologically wounded, and, by some estimates, over 100,000 Iraqis have been killed and maimed.
How can the killing be justified? Are we going to destroy a nation and kill its people to save it? We tried that once before. Support our troops?
I am afraid for my son. I certainly worry about his being killed, but I am also worried about his being placed in the position of killing, too. Most of all, I am angry that we are sending our soldiers to a war that nobody can justify.
Most Americans, especially members of Congress, do not have to worry about a loved one in the middle of this war, and they duck the tough questions.
Why do we permit a defacto back-door draft of the National Guard and recycle them, too? We were lied to once before, and we must avoid being lied to again. Will President Bush be this generation's Robert McNamara? I hope not. Will the Congress have the courage to ask the relevant questions? I hope so. Support our troops?
PLEASE DON'T ASK
Now you know why I didn't go out of my way to tell people that my son is being deployed to Iraq, and please don't ask about him if you really don't want to know.
Instead, please know that you will be in my shoes or his shoes unless you ask questions and demand answers of those in power. In the meantime, please excuse me if I have a painful lump in my throat or tears brimming in my eyes and that I am so angry with this damned war and the people who declared it.
Support our troops. Ask tough questions. Bring them home now.
- Special to the Press Herald
[Dexter J. Kamilewicz (e-mail: dexkam@aol.com) is a resident of Orr's Island. ]
Monday, February 14, 2005
More O'Reilly fabrications
For a man who holds everyone else to such lofty standards, poor Bill O'Reilly has a difficult time coming clean when it comes to his own achievements, or lack thereof.
First it was his claim of winning a Peabody award while at Inside Edition (He won a Polk, which was considerably less prestigious) and the later revelation in Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, which got Franken sued, as well as screamed at during a joint appearance (O'Reilly tells Franken to "shut up" at the 48:53 mark) with the notoriously thin-skinned O'Reilly. Now, Keith Olbermann, the ascerbic former sportscaster, turned hard-hitting nightly talk show pundit for MSNBC reveals that Bill "No!! Not the Truth Serum" O'Reilly is at it again, this time exaggerating his skill and acumen for punting a football while at Marist College in New York.
From Obermann's Feb. 9 post at Bloggermann, we see him showing O'Reilly for the compulsive lying sociopath that he really is. If you read to the bottom of that day's blog, it gets truly weird when Olbermann talks about "the email".
You know what they say about throwing stones?
First it was his claim of winning a Peabody award while at Inside Edition (He won a Polk, which was considerably less prestigious) and the later revelation in Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, which got Franken sued, as well as screamed at during a joint appearance (O'Reilly tells Franken to "shut up" at the 48:53 mark) with the notoriously thin-skinned O'Reilly. Now, Keith Olbermann, the ascerbic former sportscaster, turned hard-hitting nightly talk show pundit for MSNBC reveals that Bill "No!! Not the Truth Serum" O'Reilly is at it again, this time exaggerating his skill and acumen for punting a football while at Marist College in New York.
From Obermann's Feb. 9 post at Bloggermann, we see him showing O'Reilly for the compulsive lying sociopath that he really is. If you read to the bottom of that day's blog, it gets truly weird when Olbermann talks about "the email".
You know what they say about throwing stones?
Juicing, baseball and Jose Canseco
I don’t know how many of you watched the 60 Minutes interview with former major league baseball player Jose Canseco. Canseco is the subject of a media flurry related to the release of his new book, Juiced : Wild Times, Rampant 'Roids, Smash Hits, and How Baseball Got Big delivered with aplomb by Regan Books, the publisher of other literary classics such as Jenna Jameson’s, How to Make Love Like a Porn Star.
First-of-all, it was no secret that Canseco used anabolic steroids. The interesting part to me, in his interview with Mike Wallace, was his revelation that he never would have been able to be a major league star without the banned substance.
Canseco hasn’t enamored himself to many former players since he left the game, as he has had a penchant for dropping names and other juicy tidbits to the press. It’s hard for me to have a lot of respect for a guy who violates the sacred trust of the clubhouse and writes a kiss-and-tell book, designed to make him some needed cake, while tearing down the reputations of other players, most notably Mark McGwire, as well as players like Rafael Palmeiro and Ivan Rodriguez, the latter two, teammates of Canseco’s in Texas. Interestingly, the owner of the Rangers at that time was none other than George W. Bush. Peter Vecsey, in his inimitable style, makes this little quip about that connection:
“According to Dr. Jose Canseco, then-Texas Rangers' owner George W. Bush had to know his team was a steroid factory in the early 1990's, sort of a "weapons of muscle-mass destruction." In his defense, the president said the documents may have crossed his desk, but were never authenticated by Dan Rather.”
I’m sure President Bush knew about the use of steroids, as well as much of the management and union brass that oversees the major league game. But like any corporate entity, it's easier to deny culpability, than to take the high road and admit that your overriding concern wasn’t the damage and potential affects that use of banned substances could have on the integrity of the national pastime, but the maximization of your profit from the product on the field, juiced, or not.
Former baseball writer, turned management consultant, Jeff Angus, has some interesting takes on the steroids flap at his blog, Management by Baseball. You can read one of them here.
Needless to say, Canseco’s revelations will be played down and major league baseball will try its damndest to continue to paint itself as purer than the driven snow.
Meanwhile, the use of sterioids will continue to be seen as ok by college players looking for a competititive edge, as well as high school players, seeking to emulate the major league players they see on their TV screens, making millions of dollars annually.
If you don’t think that’s a problem, then you probably haven’t been around the game very much in the capacity that I have. Steroid use is a problem even at the smaller college level and today’s 19, 20 and 21 year olds talk about them with a casual air of disregard. I know, because I coach college age players each summer and I’ve been around the game for the past 20 years, so I know a trend when I see one.
What I’d love to see is an honest addressing of the issue by major league baseball, with cooperation from the players association and the union. Until then, the problem will continue and it will tarnish what was once a wonderful game, that I enjoyed following.
First-of-all, it was no secret that Canseco used anabolic steroids. The interesting part to me, in his interview with Mike Wallace, was his revelation that he never would have been able to be a major league star without the banned substance.
Canseco hasn’t enamored himself to many former players since he left the game, as he has had a penchant for dropping names and other juicy tidbits to the press. It’s hard for me to have a lot of respect for a guy who violates the sacred trust of the clubhouse and writes a kiss-and-tell book, designed to make him some needed cake, while tearing down the reputations of other players, most notably Mark McGwire, as well as players like Rafael Palmeiro and Ivan Rodriguez, the latter two, teammates of Canseco’s in Texas. Interestingly, the owner of the Rangers at that time was none other than George W. Bush. Peter Vecsey, in his inimitable style, makes this little quip about that connection:
“According to Dr. Jose Canseco, then-Texas Rangers' owner George W. Bush had to know his team was a steroid factory in the early 1990's, sort of a "weapons of muscle-mass destruction." In his defense, the president said the documents may have crossed his desk, but were never authenticated by Dan Rather.”
I’m sure President Bush knew about the use of steroids, as well as much of the management and union brass that oversees the major league game. But like any corporate entity, it's easier to deny culpability, than to take the high road and admit that your overriding concern wasn’t the damage and potential affects that use of banned substances could have on the integrity of the national pastime, but the maximization of your profit from the product on the field, juiced, or not.
Former baseball writer, turned management consultant, Jeff Angus, has some interesting takes on the steroids flap at his blog, Management by Baseball. You can read one of them here.
Needless to say, Canseco’s revelations will be played down and major league baseball will try its damndest to continue to paint itself as purer than the driven snow.
Meanwhile, the use of sterioids will continue to be seen as ok by college players looking for a competititive edge, as well as high school players, seeking to emulate the major league players they see on their TV screens, making millions of dollars annually.
If you don’t think that’s a problem, then you probably haven’t been around the game very much in the capacity that I have. Steroid use is a problem even at the smaller college level and today’s 19, 20 and 21 year olds talk about them with a casual air of disregard. I know, because I coach college age players each summer and I’ve been around the game for the past 20 years, so I know a trend when I see one.
What I’d love to see is an honest addressing of the issue by major league baseball, with cooperation from the players association and the union. Until then, the problem will continue and it will tarnish what was once a wonderful game, that I enjoyed following.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Leave it to the experts
It’s been my experience that most people defer to so-called “experts” in most areas of their lives. For medical issues, we defer to doctors and other professionals, whose track records are dubious at best. For our finances, we rely upon the expertise and professional prowess that at times appears more like a Ponzi scheme than actual investment guidance. For information about the important matters concerning politics, policy and foreign relations, our trust in the media in its various forms; the papers, pontificating talk show hosts and nightly Fox News broadcasts, is legendary and somewhat unnerving.
The current administration has relied on this cult of gullibility and trust in the experts, to push war, tax cuts, and a rush to privatize anything and everything, down the throats of the American populace.
Take Social Security. The experts in Washington, particularly those of a right-leaning political ideology, have been able to take misinformation about Social Security—the fund is in trouble and going broke, which makes it highly likely it won’t be there when I retire—to push a plan resting on a smoke and mirrors approach to center stage. Journalists, who I assume were trained at their highfalutin schools of higher learning to do a bit of research on the people and subjects they write about, have graciously turned into transcriptionists, warmly taking the Bush Administration's press releases and turning them into their daily posts, masquerading as investigative reporting.
The best that could be said about much of what passes for privatization coming from Washington, is that it is a vague plan, short on specifics and details. Rather than question the Bush track record of failure, the timidly doting press corps obediently bleat their obeisance, without a whimper of contrariness toward the ruling junta.
While the war in Iraq was waged with very little preparation and almost no long-term strategic plan for an exit, little scrutiny has been given to this ill-fated plan. Once again, the same lack of scrutiny was turned upon the Bush tax cuts and the long-term economic ramifications (record deficits and a dangerously depleted federal treasury). Now, we are looking at a Bush plan for Social Security dismantling, and once more, this is again going forth without any real across-the-board investigation by the co-opted American press.
Needless to say, the slumbering masses hear rumblings coming from some quarters (namely the internet and the tireless work of policy wonks, think tanks and other bloggers, plus a handful of writers, like Paul Krugman and others who still practice journalism in its traditional definition), but its easier and less unsettling to heed any bad news—much easier to repeat the mantra; "war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength." We’ll just let the “experts” take care of us, trusting them to, like they always have.
The current administration has relied on this cult of gullibility and trust in the experts, to push war, tax cuts, and a rush to privatize anything and everything, down the throats of the American populace.
Take Social Security. The experts in Washington, particularly those of a right-leaning political ideology, have been able to take misinformation about Social Security—the fund is in trouble and going broke, which makes it highly likely it won’t be there when I retire—to push a plan resting on a smoke and mirrors approach to center stage. Journalists, who I assume were trained at their highfalutin schools of higher learning to do a bit of research on the people and subjects they write about, have graciously turned into transcriptionists, warmly taking the Bush Administration's press releases and turning them into their daily posts, masquerading as investigative reporting.
The best that could be said about much of what passes for privatization coming from Washington, is that it is a vague plan, short on specifics and details. Rather than question the Bush track record of failure, the timidly doting press corps obediently bleat their obeisance, without a whimper of contrariness toward the ruling junta.
While the war in Iraq was waged with very little preparation and almost no long-term strategic plan for an exit, little scrutiny has been given to this ill-fated plan. Once again, the same lack of scrutiny was turned upon the Bush tax cuts and the long-term economic ramifications (record deficits and a dangerously depleted federal treasury). Now, we are looking at a Bush plan for Social Security dismantling, and once more, this is again going forth without any real across-the-board investigation by the co-opted American press.
Needless to say, the slumbering masses hear rumblings coming from some quarters (namely the internet and the tireless work of policy wonks, think tanks and other bloggers, plus a handful of writers, like Paul Krugman and others who still practice journalism in its traditional definition), but its easier and less unsettling to heed any bad news—much easier to repeat the mantra; "war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength." We’ll just let the “experts” take care of us, trusting them to, like they always have.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Losing FACE
[For those of you from “away”, this rant won’t make a lot of sense. It may not make sense, even if you are from Maine. Feel free to follow along, however, if you like.]
I grew up reading great rock journalists. When I was coming of age and learning the cred and lingo of rock and roll, the legendary Lester Bangs, of Creem fame, was a constant read. Bangs, a freelancer after my own heart, went on to write for the Village Voice, Playboy, and New Musical Express, always writing about rock and roll in his inimitable, gonzo style.
Later, I would check out Dave Marsh and other stalwarts at Rolling Stone (Marsh, interestingly, also got his start at Creem). In later years, I gravitated to Spin, APress back before these became the trendy publications (filled with advertisements) they now are.
The Maine rock scene has always had a rock and roll publication, because Maine, despite being a rural state with a lack of population density, has produced some kick-ass rock over the last 30 years. When I was in high school, it was Sweet Potato, a free publication that spawned Jim Sullivan, who went on to bigger and better things at the Boston Globe, before falling off my radar screen.
Sweet Potato was a sought out publication for teens, as well as other fans of music, like myself, wanting to know what was new and who the up-and-coming bands were in and around Portland (the state’s rock and roll mecca then, as it is now).
With the demise of Sweet Potato, came FACE. I don’t know the exact date, but I do remember the years when FACE was Benny Green’s baby. Green was one of those guys, like a Lester Bangs and Dave Marsh, who truly never lost his love and fascination with the juvenilia of rock.
As happens so often with free publications, the hours are long and the pay (if there is any) is never sufficient. Green burnt out and he left. Other writers like Steve Curtis (Dr. Rock n’ Roll), S.D. Feeney and others, continued the FACE tradition of always respecting the music enough, not to become bigger than the bands or artists they were writing about. Now one could argue that my reference to Bangs, who did achieve a certain celebrity for his upbraiding and insulting of his subjects, invalidates my point of adulation for the reputation of FACE and its predecessor, Sweet Potato. I’d argue that despite Bangs’ ability to grandstand, he never lost sight of the basic essence of rock and roll.
That brings me back to FACE, or at least the last issue that was produced and distributed by the departed editor, Paul Woodfin. Woodfin, like Green, reached a point where he wanted to do something else.
My brief experience with Paul consisted of making an inquiry and then writing a couple of articles over the last few months of his editorship. From my perspective as a freelance writer, he respected writers and was a pleasure to deal with. I was sad to see him go, but never did I imagine that his departure would leave the FACE masthead in such a sorry state as its current manifestation.
FACE has been published under the auspices of The Portland Phoenix for some time. I don’t know the exact relationship, but if I had to use a business analogy, I’d liken the role of FACE to being a subsidiary of The Phoenix. That meant with Woodfin’s departure, the ship was left in the hands of The Phoenix’ editor, Sam Pfeifle.
I don’t know Pfeifle. I have my opinions of him based from my place of pitching occasional ideas to an editor. For whatever reason, he doesn’t think my writing measures up to The Phoenix’ post-modernistic, pregnant with the irony-style, so popular with their 20-something audience. Hey, it’s no biggy. I’ve figured it out with The Phoenix and I’m cool with that.
What has become a big deal, is that after writing a couple of well-recieved profiles on both Jose Ayerve and Spouse and Matt Newberg and the Hurricane, I had hoped that with the new situation at FACE, there would still be the occasional opportunity to write some music pieces, which I enjoyed and thought that my professionalism and knowledge of music made me a good fit to write. I also looked forward to writing about musicians who were more than just talented performers--they were also unique and interesting people, doing something beyond the usual self-indulgent and narcissistic gig that rock can become for some.
Pfiefle did inform me that the “new” FACE was going to be different and I should check it out to see what he meant. Well, I couldn’t find the new paper at all for January and I looked in all the usual places. I have always found it at Bullmoose locations, even in outlying towns like Lewiston. I don’t know if it went to press or not.
This past week, when I came into town on Monday night, lo and behold, I had the good fortune of finding the “new and improved” FACE and boy, was I in for a fucking surprise!
The cover had a couple of trendy rock-wannabes gracing the cover, kissing, with the caption, “In Love With Rock and Roll”. The guy, of the leather jacket and flannel shirt look, and the girl, the indie rock, “I’m so hip it hurts” type of chick, cigarette in hand.
When I opened it up, I realized what Pfiefle had meant about changes. Apparently, the inmates are now running the asylum because the style, reeking of amateurism, is vintage zine, as in, the kind you run off on copiers at the local library. Replete with hand written info and oh-so-clever masthead, the creators outdid themselves with this one.
While former FACE columnist Shane Kinney keeps a column (regular readers already know about his writing and possibly why he stayed on board), the other "new" writers thought it important to list helpful, descriptive info in their bios like, "A high-school slut, she's the only known person to have slept with all four members of New Kids on the Block", and another one writes, "She was fired from Disney World for sexual harassment". I am so impressed with your tongue-in-cheek cleverness. How about you tell us what you've done, or who you've written for that might be germane to why you're qualified to be a writer of a publication that others read? Oh, right, I didn't think so.
Needless to say, from the gang that are now running the show, to the writing style and article selection, Portland no longer has a representative music magazine any longer.
Personally, when I pick up a music paper, I want to read about bands with talent, written by writers who know their music, not articles about tampons and proper care of one’s vagina (I kid you not!). I’m no prude, but my music publication is about music, not lifestyle anarchism and DIY culture. Hey, I’m down with DIY, but of the musical variety, not the culture of slack and the posers who have co-opted the original concept. Other well-written and very informative features were the one where three folks, pictures and all, are asked "What's The Best CD To Listen To While Having Sex" and the "Identify the Urinal" contest was a hoot. There were actually a couple of music-related articles, one on Bright Eyes (written by Boston Phoenix staffer, Camille Dodero), Pfiefle recycles some stuff for another Ray LaMontagne article (the guy's good, but aren't there other singer/songwriters to profile in Maine?), and an all-too-brief piece on books about Johnny Cash. Sadly, I'm not able to link to the newest version of FACE, so you could see the damage firsthand, because since Woodfin's departure, no one's bothered to update the website.
I don’t have a problem with changing the focus of a paper or magazine. If Pfeifle, as editor, wanted to gradually segue over to a new look and editorial slant, possibly explaining himself as he went, that could have worked. Possibly, he could have kept on regular columnists like the Wisdom Weasel, who's wit and and historical grounding in the rock world made his columns a regular read for many. Of course, that would have required some effort on Pfeifle's part, so he basically has given it over to a couple of writers who aren't very talented.
If Pfeifle and the others have such a low opinion of the previous style of journalism and music writing that FACE represented, then do the honorable thing and change the name, since the current rag has no connection to its predecessor. Do everyone a favor who actually cared about the old paper and change the name to something else (I could think of a couple of more descriptive names, but I'll refrain from foisting them on my readers), just don’t call it FACE!
Oh, and just a wee bit more advice, advice that comes from personal experience. One of the keys to the success of free publications is getting it distributed, which means that sometimes, you have to load up the car and take a day and slog it around the state (just like Paul and others used to). Yeah, and have a bit more content worth reading, also.
I grew up reading great rock journalists. When I was coming of age and learning the cred and lingo of rock and roll, the legendary Lester Bangs, of Creem fame, was a constant read. Bangs, a freelancer after my own heart, went on to write for the Village Voice, Playboy, and New Musical Express, always writing about rock and roll in his inimitable, gonzo style.
Later, I would check out Dave Marsh and other stalwarts at Rolling Stone (Marsh, interestingly, also got his start at Creem). In later years, I gravitated to Spin, APress back before these became the trendy publications (filled with advertisements) they now are.
The Maine rock scene has always had a rock and roll publication, because Maine, despite being a rural state with a lack of population density, has produced some kick-ass rock over the last 30 years. When I was in high school, it was Sweet Potato, a free publication that spawned Jim Sullivan, who went on to bigger and better things at the Boston Globe, before falling off my radar screen.
Sweet Potato was a sought out publication for teens, as well as other fans of music, like myself, wanting to know what was new and who the up-and-coming bands were in and around Portland (the state’s rock and roll mecca then, as it is now).
With the demise of Sweet Potato, came FACE. I don’t know the exact date, but I do remember the years when FACE was Benny Green’s baby. Green was one of those guys, like a Lester Bangs and Dave Marsh, who truly never lost his love and fascination with the juvenilia of rock.
As happens so often with free publications, the hours are long and the pay (if there is any) is never sufficient. Green burnt out and he left. Other writers like Steve Curtis (Dr. Rock n’ Roll), S.D. Feeney and others, continued the FACE tradition of always respecting the music enough, not to become bigger than the bands or artists they were writing about. Now one could argue that my reference to Bangs, who did achieve a certain celebrity for his upbraiding and insulting of his subjects, invalidates my point of adulation for the reputation of FACE and its predecessor, Sweet Potato. I’d argue that despite Bangs’ ability to grandstand, he never lost sight of the basic essence of rock and roll.
That brings me back to FACE, or at least the last issue that was produced and distributed by the departed editor, Paul Woodfin. Woodfin, like Green, reached a point where he wanted to do something else.
My brief experience with Paul consisted of making an inquiry and then writing a couple of articles over the last few months of his editorship. From my perspective as a freelance writer, he respected writers and was a pleasure to deal with. I was sad to see him go, but never did I imagine that his departure would leave the FACE masthead in such a sorry state as its current manifestation.
FACE has been published under the auspices of The Portland Phoenix for some time. I don’t know the exact relationship, but if I had to use a business analogy, I’d liken the role of FACE to being a subsidiary of The Phoenix. That meant with Woodfin’s departure, the ship was left in the hands of The Phoenix’ editor, Sam Pfeifle.
I don’t know Pfeifle. I have my opinions of him based from my place of pitching occasional ideas to an editor. For whatever reason, he doesn’t think my writing measures up to The Phoenix’ post-modernistic, pregnant with the irony-style, so popular with their 20-something audience. Hey, it’s no biggy. I’ve figured it out with The Phoenix and I’m cool with that.
What has become a big deal, is that after writing a couple of well-recieved profiles on both Jose Ayerve and Spouse and Matt Newberg and the Hurricane, I had hoped that with the new situation at FACE, there would still be the occasional opportunity to write some music pieces, which I enjoyed and thought that my professionalism and knowledge of music made me a good fit to write. I also looked forward to writing about musicians who were more than just talented performers--they were also unique and interesting people, doing something beyond the usual self-indulgent and narcissistic gig that rock can become for some.
Pfiefle did inform me that the “new” FACE was going to be different and I should check it out to see what he meant. Well, I couldn’t find the new paper at all for January and I looked in all the usual places. I have always found it at Bullmoose locations, even in outlying towns like Lewiston. I don’t know if it went to press or not.
This past week, when I came into town on Monday night, lo and behold, I had the good fortune of finding the “new and improved” FACE and boy, was I in for a fucking surprise!
The cover had a couple of trendy rock-wannabes gracing the cover, kissing, with the caption, “In Love With Rock and Roll”. The guy, of the leather jacket and flannel shirt look, and the girl, the indie rock, “I’m so hip it hurts” type of chick, cigarette in hand.
When I opened it up, I realized what Pfiefle had meant about changes. Apparently, the inmates are now running the asylum because the style, reeking of amateurism, is vintage zine, as in, the kind you run off on copiers at the local library. Replete with hand written info and oh-so-clever masthead, the creators outdid themselves with this one.
While former FACE columnist Shane Kinney keeps a column (regular readers already know about his writing and possibly why he stayed on board), the other "new" writers thought it important to list helpful, descriptive info in their bios like, "A high-school slut, she's the only known person to have slept with all four members of New Kids on the Block", and another one writes, "She was fired from Disney World for sexual harassment". I am so impressed with your tongue-in-cheek cleverness. How about you tell us what you've done, or who you've written for that might be germane to why you're qualified to be a writer of a publication that others read? Oh, right, I didn't think so.
Needless to say, from the gang that are now running the show, to the writing style and article selection, Portland no longer has a representative music magazine any longer.
Personally, when I pick up a music paper, I want to read about bands with talent, written by writers who know their music, not articles about tampons and proper care of one’s vagina (I kid you not!). I’m no prude, but my music publication is about music, not lifestyle anarchism and DIY culture. Hey, I’m down with DIY, but of the musical variety, not the culture of slack and the posers who have co-opted the original concept. Other well-written and very informative features were the one where three folks, pictures and all, are asked "What's The Best CD To Listen To While Having Sex" and the "Identify the Urinal" contest was a hoot. There were actually a couple of music-related articles, one on Bright Eyes (written by Boston Phoenix staffer, Camille Dodero), Pfiefle recycles some stuff for another Ray LaMontagne article (the guy's good, but aren't there other singer/songwriters to profile in Maine?), and an all-too-brief piece on books about Johnny Cash. Sadly, I'm not able to link to the newest version of FACE, so you could see the damage firsthand, because since Woodfin's departure, no one's bothered to update the website.
I don’t have a problem with changing the focus of a paper or magazine. If Pfeifle, as editor, wanted to gradually segue over to a new look and editorial slant, possibly explaining himself as he went, that could have worked. Possibly, he could have kept on regular columnists like the Wisdom Weasel, who's wit and and historical grounding in the rock world made his columns a regular read for many. Of course, that would have required some effort on Pfeifle's part, so he basically has given it over to a couple of writers who aren't very talented.
If Pfeifle and the others have such a low opinion of the previous style of journalism and music writing that FACE represented, then do the honorable thing and change the name, since the current rag has no connection to its predecessor. Do everyone a favor who actually cared about the old paper and change the name to something else (I could think of a couple of more descriptive names, but I'll refrain from foisting them on my readers), just don’t call it FACE!
Oh, and just a wee bit more advice, advice that comes from personal experience. One of the keys to the success of free publications is getting it distributed, which means that sometimes, you have to load up the car and take a day and slog it around the state (just like Paul and others used to). Yeah, and have a bit more content worth reading, also.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)