Sad sack says so little
Melissa Ruggieri continues her editing-free reign as the T-D's pop critic with a review of last night's Elton John concert only marginally more dreary than the prospect of hearing Peachtree Road in its entirety.
Note, for example, her continued reliance on the word "chestnuts," followed by an incorrect use of a comma and a favor to Rocket/Universal's publicity department:
For the first 40 minutes, there were no well-worn chestnuts, but a string of material from last year's underrated "Peachtree Road" album (not-so-coincidentally being rereleased Nov. 22).
Or that she says the show had only a "few missteps" but the overall tone is one of crushing boredom. Or that she thinks "Philadelphia Freedom" reflects "cheesy patriotism" rather than, oh I don't know, gay pride?
"Few things are as reliable as an Elton John concert," she says in the gripping lede (swiping from the Daniel Neman bore-'em-away-before-the-second-graf school of criticism), but the only thing reliable about a Melissa Ruggieri review is how little she has to say about any type of music.
posted by Andrew Beaujon at 10:01
22 Comments:
Dude, I think your election afterglow is mellowing you. Otherwise, in your usual due diligence, you would have recorded the full majesty of the sentence in question:
"Even the cheesy patriotism of 'Philadelphia Freedom' was easy to embrace with Clay Aiken-lookalike John Mahon filling in the gaps on percussion and flaxen-haired guitarist Davey Johnstone scratching out the song's chiming riff."
This is so bad in so many ways -- "cheesy patriotism?" It's a fight song for a tennis team, for God's sake, that manages to play on the name of the team and reference the Philly soul sound and be a hit single at the same time.
"Filling in the gaps on percussion?" It's always fun to see critics struggle to write about drummers.
And how do you "scratch out" a "chiming riff" -- and if you do, does it still chime?
what makes you qualified to trash someone who is writing her opinion?
i'm an engineer and i write lots of documents and i couldn't BEGIN to write a review of an album or a concert. if you're so superior, why is it that you're not writing for the washington post or the ny times?? oh, that's right, you're running a freakin' blog in richmond, va.
i think melissa's reviews are entertaining and well written and i look forward to reading them. that's my opinion. and yes, you have yours. but when you voice yours, you're just downright nasty. good luck with your journalism career. you'll go far being a nasty f*ck.
maybe you should check your grammar and spelling before posting, because you look like an ignorant a**hole.
thanks for listening.
Dear mike_in_va,
If you knew anything about the guy whose blog you're reading, you'd know what makes him "qualified to trash someone who is writing her opinion," as if the strength of his argument weren't evidence enough.
No, no, Mike's right. I just hope that someday I, too, will know the thrill of seeing my name in print.
I love it when people get mad that you've dissed someone, then proceed to call you a fuck, or an asshole--what a genius!
I also love people that don't do their homework. Heard of Google?
Suck my knockers, Mike!
Thanks for listening.
Well, based on his final comment, he could recognize you on sight . . .
Here's my two cents. I enjoy reading Andrew's blog and I enjoy reading Melissa's reviews...because they come from two different people with two completely different outlooks on things. Neither one is right or wrong. They are OPINIONS, both equally worthy of being voiced.
However, when you voice your thoughts in a logical, objective manner, you seem much more intelligent and worthy of being read than someone who attacks viciously for no reason other than starting controversy. Thus, when your readership is a city of 300,000, your writing requires the ability to consider a multitude of views rather than simply ranting to an small community of bloggers who most likely happen to be your best friends.
However, when you voice your thoughts in a logical, objective manner, you seem much more intelligent and worthy of being read than someone who attacks viciously for no reason other than starting controversy.
lots of shades of grey in between, sure ! starting controversy sans the Personal Attack, fer example (i.e., "the classic three fiddle line.up of the Skillet Lickers -- more important than the Beatles?").
Okay, I was hoping to avoid this. But: I am a senior contributing writer for Spin magazine. I contribute frequently to the Washington Post and the Washington City Paper. My first book is coming out in June.
I understand that one's voice has to be attenuated to the audience. As 10andsee notes correctly, I do things differently on the blog than I do for a publication with a wider audience.
My problem with Ruggieri isn't that she expresses her own opinions. My problem with her is that she doesn't have any. Not that I can discern from her reviews, anyway. You're not doing your audience a favor by simply describing what you saw without giving them a critical framework to understand it. Starting off a review talking about how predictable, even to the point of being boring, a performer is, and then raving about the show in the middle, and finally returning to the theme of how predictable he is--well, that doesn't tell anyone anything. It's not a review, it's a list of events.
Reading Ruggieri, I don't think the problem is that she has to make Elton John palatable to a large audience. That work's already been done by the artist (it's not like he's basing songs on Messiaen organ concerti!). I think the problem is either that she doesn't feel the need to work very hard (and certainly the light touch of her editors, who don't seem to mind her using the same phrases in review after review, seems to reflect that), or she doesn't have much to say about music in the first place.
Or maybe it's a combination of the two.
Oh, and "lede" and "graf" are publishing spellings. I don't know why things are done that way, but they are. A needless affectation on my part, perhaps, but at least it weeds out the amateurs. Thanks to everyone for reading.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Yes, I’ve heard of Google, probably before any of you did (I was on their technology advisory committee leading up to the IPO). And yes, I still don’t think that being in some 3rd rate rock band or being a ‘contributing writer to Spin’ or a freelancer for the Post gives anybody the write to trash everyone at the Times-Dispatch. I wouldn’t care if you were Jann Wenner; --- do you ever have anything nice to say? You see, you’ll never be Jann Wenner because every time you critique other people’s skills, you’re just downright nasty. But I guess nasty sells. Hey maybe you can ‘contribute’ to the Globe next.
And, Spin? Really? For those of you who didn’t Google Spin, it’s a Rolling Stone knock- off. And what exactly is a ‘contributing writer’? I assume that means you’re a freelancer not on their payroll, going to work everyday and writing stories every day. At least the Times-Dispatch writers are out there working everyday and not trashing other people in their spare time. But that’s the beauty of the Internet; you get to be high and mighty, being a ‘contributing writer’ and trashing hard working journalists. Keep up the good work. And good luck with the book. Somehow, I don't think you'll even be a Klosterman, never mind a Wenner. But I'll make sure to buy it on the first day and start a blog to trash it. Nah, wouldn't waste my time on either.
Thanks for listening.
By the way, don't bother responding.
I won't be back.
that "mike_in_va" stuff has t'be a hoax, some elaborate jape. i mean, "third rate rock band"? he can't be talking about Eggs or Scaley Andrew -- the former are, deservedly, highly-regarded (in my economy, Exploder is an East Coast Uncle Meat) and as for the latter, i would welcome re.releases, a retrospective, anything. and, sheesh, who died and made Jann Wenner some kinda "industry standard"? people can argue till they're blue in the face about when Rolling Stone "sold out," but it would be instructive to go back to the beginning. in a play for Warner advertising dollars, Wenner instructed his reviewers to pan Hendrix's yet unheard Band of Gypsies (released on Capitol and, hence, competing head-to-head with JH's Reprise catalogue).
I'm gonna miss Mike, if only because he came back to the blog to state he wouldn't be returning!
But seriously, Mike--fingers itching; should he just check back one more time? see what those carrotheads are saying about him now?--you're right about most things.
For example, the one long disappointment that is my career. Do you know that in all my years as a music journalist, I've never had one piece in the Times Dispatch? Not only that, since I don't work in the office, I've never been able to toss raw stew meat into Mark Holmberg's cubicle.
Moreover, Mike's correct that he heard about Google before anyone else. For a while I thought Jann Wenner was the first; sadly, I've never met him and can't verify this.
Finally, while I'd love to see whether Mike could critique a book as well as he researches his arguments, mine is only gonna be available on QVC--it's a collector's guide to animal figurines--and I'm sure he's doesn't like giving out his credit-card number over the phone.
dang, thanks, andrew! I can't believe I can save $5 on that precious chicken with the swinging legs! Your book is gonna rock!
Now that "mike_in_va" has explained Google to me, I have been able to possibly confirm my theory that he's so hostile cuz maybe he's just started dating said music critiquess.
dude, it does sorta read as a tacky slam rather than an intellectual criticism. So Heathers, Mean Girls of you. Meow!
Blah, blah, blah. Show me some problems with my arguments instead of calling me "mean."
(1) it's the relentless slams; the fact that you have to keep writing the same slam on her over and over reeks of obsession (in the bad way),
(2) It feels too personal, sorry, you can't be objective, believe me, it feels very personal,
(3) What you wrote is a review of Melissa Ruggerri, not a review of her review or a review of Elton John. That you feel you need to keep writing reviews of Melissa Ruggerri feels more about jealously than journalism.
Seriously folks, to say Andrew is jealous of Melissa R. is hilarious! For one thing, I seriously doubt he would covet having to watch Elton John (who should have been shot, er, retired 30 years ago). And his opinion of the Times-Dispatch is well documented within these pages, so I doubt he covets her job. In fact, Andrew's blog is (more or less) devoted to dissecting why the T-D is such a crappy newspaper. Any writer forced to read a crap local paper at breakfast (such as my ever-worsening Balto Sun) rants the same way over their Wheaties. If that doesn't appeal, this blog ain't for you. Meanwhile, rant on, baby, rant on.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Is Mike Woods blasting you again? Christ!
You shouldn't have even had to defend yourself there, Andrew. Mike is an ass!
Oh, and I think CosmicMojo is, in fact, Melissa.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home