Publications always want eloquent letters! Seriously, you sit around in the office for ages twiddling your thumbs, and you punch the air when someone finally gets it.
-
-
I thought letters to the editor had mostly died out in the age of the fucking online comments, which are rarely coherent, let alone eloquent. When they are eloquent, it's pearls before swine.
I once got a letter published in the Batman comic in the 80s. It wasn't all that eloquent. But I was right. I told them to bring back the top-tier colorful villains people liked - Joker, Penquin, etc. I didn't say "Stop trying to make Hugo Strange happen," but it was implied. I don't recall what else I had to say.Comment
-
I have appointed a couple of columnists on account of their letters (one is now a celebrated novelist). But these days I get the same five people writing letters to the editor, so, yeah, that art is dying out.Comment
-
Yeah, been going that way since advent of social media.Comment
-
Speak Yer Branes. Infact it might go all the way back to Radio 5 and Talk Sport, early 90s, and daytime TV (Kilroy etc) which started in 1986.Comment
-
Just to say, that on the CM live podcast, that was put out last week, contains discussions on I've Never Been To Me, and on Madness, that had me dissolving in laughter and joy. And it's all so poignant now.Comment
-
When I worked for theheart.org, we got comments under the articles. 99% were from actual cardiologists who used their real names, which was usually helpful on the scientific stories, but not always. There was one who insisted on using the handle "truthteller" which was exactly as obnoxious as you might imagine.
Needless to say, perhaps, any article that discussed how much cardiologists at teaching hospitals get paid was not received in the same spirit of open-minded scientific inquiry. And there is occasionally some sexism and racism comes up in discussions of how doctors are trained and mentored.
Comment
-
I usually don't feature music journalists or DJs in my monthly round-up of musicians who have passed away, but Neil gets featured in the January In Memoriam -- and he would have featured even if he had not been a musician as well.
https://halfhearteddude.com/2024/02/...-january-2024/Comment
-
Taylor's 2014 article on Britpop is always essential reading:
https://thequietus.com/articles/1509...versary-reviewComment
-
Do British pop culture critics ever like anything?Comment
-
I think they were pretty keen on New Model Army and The Wedding Present in the 80s.
But you can't be liking too many things if you want to be setting the scene.Comment
-
If you listen to Chart Music they are frequently incredibly positive about lots of records. Even (in fact especially) self-styled curmudgeon Taylor.Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View PostComment
-
They like things that are either current, obscure and not liked by many people or that were popular in the past but were deeply uncool at the time. The key is being somewhere between iconoclastic and contrarian.Comment
-
I dont think Taylor's stance has shifted at all between now and then. In fact compared to Kulkarni and Price he was a positive shill for Oasis at the time.Comment
-
Taylor likes early Oasis but not their imperial phase. Price has said that Britpop had some positives at the beginning but became worthless by the time of Supergrass, Shed Seven, Sleeper, etc. The Britpop label also embraces good stuff that wasn't really Britpop - Pulp, Manics.I think that's all in the article.Comment
-
He reviewed their third album and was told that it had to have a positive review. God that record was dull.Originally posted by Lang Spoon View PostComment
-
My unscientific hypothesis is that a lot of critics embraced Britpop and Blairism simply because they were tired of being angry all the time and were grasping for any reason to hope that the UK was getting better.
Comment
-
Comment