Offense taken (part 2 - long but interesting)

David Way ([email protected])
Sat, 21 Nov 1998 23:35:08 PST

This is a corrected version of an e-mail submitted two days ago. It was
suggested that I had possibly taken the the first and last sentences of
Mr. Condran's review "out of context". (Although, after re-reading them,
how could they possibly been quoted out of context when the meaning in
each sentence is clearly discernable and can stand as a complete and
whole thoughts in and of themselves? The context lends no additional
clarity to anything except the original reviewer's myopia.) I have,
thus, included the two intervening sentences out of a coerced courtesy
which the reviewer does not fully deserve. Enjoy the re-reading and
further commentary.

Loyal Wire Congregation,

    We have a clueless person unaware of his cluelessness in my
hometown! (No, it's not me - I know I'm clueless, thus, joining the
ranks of "Self-Aware Fools" like Socrates. :)
    The local record critic, Ed Condran (I think he's on loan from one
of the Philadelphia papers actually - thanks a lot, Philly), first says
that "U2 fans should be a little wary of the latest product the Irish
group is foisting on the masses. (OK, that's his opinion, and I (very
reluctantly) will forgive him for it.) 'U2 The Best Of 1980-1990,' is
obviously full of the band's most popular songs, such as "Sunday Bloody
Sunday," "New Year's Day" and "Pride." Aficionados most likely possess
those tunes." Here's the blasphemy: "Such tracks as the single "The
Sweetest Thing," "Bass Trap," and "Spanish Eyes" are forgettable
B-Sides." I could rant for a while here, but the stupidity of the
comment speaks for itself.
    I thought it would be wonderful if my local paper would get LOTS of
justly-deserved negative e-mails about him and his review. I have been
reading this guy's tripe for a while now and I would like him to find
readership elsewhere (e.g., The Hell Daily Spitfire). (I simply cannot
figure out if this guy likes ANY music! He slags virtually everything!
In his mind, negative review = objective criticism. Not so, O Myopic
One!)
    So, let's show him the "Power of Wire". I know many of you have
large spleens to vent (as witnessed by our hostilities towards one
another over the past few weeks); therefore, let's vent them on someone
who richly deserves it at:

[email protected]

Be sure to mention "Ed Condran" in your subject heading. If he responds
in the paper, I'll let you know.

In the name of love (and flames),

David Way

P.S. Not all record critics are clueless (e.g., Rashas Weber). But, why
do all the clueless ones get column-space?

OK, do you think this e-mail is unfair to the critic? Let's look at the
facts:
1) Even if every Wire reader were to flame Mr. Condran (deservedly), he
would still have his job.
2) He's a record critic, and, thus, is used to negative feedback of his
reviews (or, he would have quit long ago, as I wish he had).
3) The review is wrong. Using the titles of 3 of U2's best b-sides to
support the argument that the B-Sides disc is mediocre at best is
self-contradictory. It would be like saying the 1st disc sucked because
it included "Pride". (Actually, knowing Mr. Condran's "logic", I'm
surprised he didn't say it.)
4) The review is too short. Are four lousy sentences enough to
accurately summarize the quality of the first compliation of this
mega-group's career?

So, David, what's your point? Good question!

My point was to let Mr. Condran know that if he's going to review the
band's first retrospective, you need more than 4 sentences (point #4
above). The two sentences I originally quoted were more than enough to
point out the inadequacy/inaccuracy of the review. It looked like, and I
made a similar comment to my detractor in my private e-mail to him, that
he wrote down the review on the back of a napkin while commuting on his
bus-trip to work. It has no substance.

Since every Wire reader but one refrained from flaming me, in private
and/or in public, they got the humor that was intended by my original
post, and I thank you all for your awareness of my motivation. Mr.
Condran is not going to kill himself from receiving flames. Mr. Condran
is not going to lose his job over flames. Mr. Condran might think twice
about giving inadequate reviews about major releases from major groups.
That is what I'm hoping we can collectively accomplish. So, in the
future, despite my digital wrath witnessed today, I am a fair person.
I'm not hell-bent on misquoting poor, innocent record critics for the
sake of Schadenfreude. (That's a great German word that everyone should
learn, if you don't already know it. E-mail me privately if you want me
to come right out and tell you.) We are all U2 fans here. Therefore, I
think we should be given the benefit of the doubt when seeking support
to flame critics unfairly maligning our band. (It's the
"innocent-until-proven-guilty" principle we claim to observe in
America.) Thank you for the philosophical and literal bandwidth.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Sat Nov 21 1998 - 23:36:29 PST