- I don't think Josh was trying to force the artist onto you or anyone, really. You mentioned something that required some factual revision, but Josh seems to have known what you meant anyway, so he made a recommendation from that artist that you might like more. For some folks, the fact that it's an older model is kind of irrelevant. Music is music - I don't listen to it just to fill my current journal. The assumption that an artist won't return to a sound they once had may be a bad one.
Look, it's not like making a mere recommendation is something that I took as a grave offense. I was honestly just a wee bit irked - here's one album by the guy that I've already got misgivings about checking out, and now we're piling another one on top of it that I have to listen to or else be told my opinions of the guy's music have no basis. No one could have known, or would be expected to know, that it'd make me feel that way, so I pointed it out to avoid future instances of being irked, not to make Josh feel bad for the fact I happened to have been irked the first time.
But then that one request got turned into me being an asshole somehow. Probably because I've pointed out to a few other folks how their overzealousness might be shooting their favorite band in the foot. Which wasn't done to rain on the person's parade or to express that I was pissed off at them or anything. Just more of a "Hey, you might want to know what effect this could have" type of thing. That advice can be taken or left as desired. I'm not trying to create a system of personal rules that make folks feel like they're walking on eggshells here.
- FACTS are important. If we aren't starting from the same place factually, it's hard to have any kind of discussion. The person who is playing sax or cornet (or coronet if they feel like banging on one of those), however, isn't terribly relevant to how well they are playing it, but it's good to know.
Facts are helpful. Someone or something being great, though, is generally an opinion and not a fact. Fine to state it, but a bit irksome when brought up in an attempt to force someone into a corner of admitting something's great.
- I think Josh was making a statement concerning the venue where he feels free to explore music with an audience that expects him to do so rather than one of elitism.
The implication was that he wasn't free here, that he was being told to keep his mouth shut and not share his opinion at all. Which is not at all what I was saying. What really ticked me off was that I made a reasonably small request - I'm still iffy about this artist, so please don't pile on more stuff that you expect me to listen to right now - and I basically got back, "Well, excuse me for living!", as if I was criticizing the sum total of his opinions, reviews, and recommendations in their entirety. He should know me better than that. Most of his writing - from his professional reviews to his fanboy gushing here - has been helpful to me, even when I've disagreed with it or when it's about something I'm not interested in.
- Paid critics ignore the comments section, at least in my experience. Perhaps their editors don't.
Just 'cause you choose not to hear doesn't mean people can't yell at you. My point is that you're never immune to criticism.
Also, you write reviews with a general audience in mind, not a specific person. They're not recommending a specific thing to me and saying "I bet this is the album most likely to get you into that artist", so I feel no sense of obligation when reading it. I'm not saying personal recommendations here are bad - I generally value them. But this was just one rare case of it being piled on too thick.
- If I was guessing, you would like but not love Henry's newest at a level somewhere between Tiny Voices and Civilians.
You're probably right. But I can't listen to it with this issue still hanging in the air. I won't be able to disassociate the music itself from the personal conflict. That's the sort of result that this overzealousness produces.
- You can see Josh's reaction to Ian wasn't that strong. Even you took issue with his characterizing AC's music as "constantly shifting". No need to see yourself as the victim in him, or in any other context. If you didn't want to discuss it, why post your thoughts on a message board on the internet for heaven's sake? (This applies to everyone)
It was a rather funny instance of strong fanboy opinions about completely different artists butting heads - one thinking his jazz/folk/soul/whatever artist was great because of A, B, and C, and another thinking his electronica act was clearly the better one because of X, Y, and Z, and me thinking "there's really no basis to even compare the two, oh and by the way, they both don't seem to be all that if instead you're a fan of Alpha, Beta, and Gamma." It just seemed funny for the response back to Ian to be: "Oh, believe me: It IS that good. It's BETTER! But it'll take several listens to pull it all together, I think, especially for a relatively new Joe Henry listener." Statements of absolutes, followed by the implication that Ian just doesn't get it because he's new to it. Like that was going to change an iota of his thoughts on the matter.
And then later, regarding both me and Ian: "But I don't think that has anything to do with the quality of the work so much as your individual tastes/preferences." Well, that's a wee bit irksome. Again, the implication is, "The problem obviously ain't Joe Henry's, so
you must be the one with the problem." I was gracious and even a bit agreeable about that at the time, but looking back at it now in light of the official-critic-pulling-rank antics, it strikes me as more than a bit pretentious.
Oh, and then there was my all-time favorite response that people love to give out to any bonehead who isn't hearing things the way they obviously should be: "Um... are we listening to the same album?" Well, that was a bit snotty. But I didn't comment at the time, 'cause I've already griped about the rhetorical "same album" question elsewhere.
But yeah, I was a bit on the defensive by this point, because it seemed like Josh was a man on a mission and I was thinking, "Would it kill you to let some folks around here just like the guy?" So that was why I got irked by
another album recommendation being given to me when I was
already trying to talk myself into listening to Henry's new one. It was like, "Dude, cut me a break here, I was already gonna check this out but now you're making it feel like there's no way I'm allowed to come out of this not liking him." I felt like the one whose freedom was being stifled, so I spoke up with what I thought was a reasonable request to back off a little. Just a little! Not "Your opinions are annoying; I don't ever want to hear them again" or "You're just a fanboy; shut up and let someone with a little objectivity talk" or however he took it.
So yeah, I'm still confused about how we got from A to Asshole here.
