Copyright © 2010
Stacy's Music Row Report All rights reserved
As
those of you who are regular readers of my book
and music reviews pages are aware,
BILL ANDERSON has favored his fans
with both a new book and a new CD.
One of the limitations of being a reviewing books and records- particularly the good ones- is often that of space. So, absent my review of Bill's book, are some rather thought-provoking comments I believe deserve the widest audience possible. (And, at the risk of biting the hand that feeds me, it doesn't hurt Anderson that I agree with him and have decided to include them here!)
Bill writes: "I wonder if the general public realizes the gamble an entertainer, a politician, or even a business person takes every time they grant an interview to a newspaper or a magazine. A writer, by what he or she writes, or doesn't write, can make the interviewee look smart or stupid, successful or unsucessful, and can help or hinder the reader's perception of that person and his or his career."
Anderson goes on to cite an example of a mythical singer whose album sells 90,000 copies in four weeks. One writer positively spins the fact by indicating the singer sold that many copies in only four weeks. Conversely, another writer suggests that the singer's "new album has been out for a month already and hasn't even sold 100,000 copies."
Bill points out that both writers are writing fact-based accounts, but that the mythical singer- or, in reality, his real-life counterpart-- will obviously be partial to the first writer's take even as he has no "control over what was written by either" scribe.
I would add only add that there are instances where a writer might submit copy worded as the hypothetical first writer Bill quoted chose to assess the hypothetical singer's record sales, while the writer's editor choses to edit the writer and publish her/his words so that they read as they did in the second account Anderson cited. (A good editor- magazine or book- makes her/his mark only when necessary, allowing good writers their own opinions- when relevant- and the right to shine. An editor, good or bad- as per the terms of the editorial contract between a publisher/editor and a writer- in the event of a dispute/difference of opinion- usually overrules a good, as well as a bad, writer.)
Bill (who can't be too happy, assuming his memory is as good as mine, at the memory of what BOB OERMANN once wrote- rather cruelly not to mention unfairly- in reviewing Anderson, in the course of ostensibly reviewing of Bill's music) adds: "The press, by and large, has been extemely good to me over the years, and I appreciate it.".
One of the limitations of being a reviewing books and records- particularly the good ones- is often that of space. So, absent my review of Bill's book, are some rather thought-provoking comments I believe deserve the widest audience possible. (And, at the risk of biting the hand that feeds me, it doesn't hurt Anderson that I agree with him and have decided to include them here!)
Bill writes: "I wonder if the general public realizes the gamble an entertainer, a politician, or even a business person takes every time they grant an interview to a newspaper or a magazine. A writer, by what he or she writes, or doesn't write, can make the interviewee look smart or stupid, successful or unsucessful, and can help or hinder the reader's perception of that person and his or his career."
Anderson goes on to cite an example of a mythical singer whose album sells 90,000 copies in four weeks. One writer positively spins the fact by indicating the singer sold that many copies in only four weeks. Conversely, another writer suggests that the singer's "new album has been out for a month already and hasn't even sold 100,000 copies."
Bill points out that both writers are writing fact-based accounts, but that the mythical singer- or, in reality, his real-life counterpart-- will obviously be partial to the first writer's take even as he has no "control over what was written by either" scribe.
I would add only add that there are instances where a writer might submit copy worded as the hypothetical first writer Bill quoted chose to assess the hypothetical singer's record sales, while the writer's editor choses to edit the writer and publish her/his words so that they read as they did in the second account Anderson cited. (A good editor- magazine or book- makes her/his mark only when necessary, allowing good writers their own opinions- when relevant- and the right to shine. An editor, good or bad- as per the terms of the editorial contract between a publisher/editor and a writer- in the event of a dispute/difference of opinion- usually overrules a good, as well as a bad, writer.)
Bill (who can't be too happy, assuming his memory is as good as mine, at the memory of what BOB OERMANN once wrote- rather cruelly not to mention unfairly- in reviewing Anderson, in the course of ostensibly reviewing of Bill's music) adds: "The press, by and large, has been extemely good to me over the years, and I appreciate it.".
****
****
More details about the
weekend as they become available. Buddy's participation
continues to enhance The Tribute's growing reputation as a fitting
memorial to the the Wilburns and, as Spicher and past Tribute
performers' imprimateurs have served to the sibling duo's
memory alive, there remains a constant reminder among a dedicated group
of fans pushing for induction into the Country Music Hall of Fame that
the absence of Teddy and Doyle among the group of those already honored
is long overdue.
****
Thanks to AMANDA VIRGILLITO SAAD, the Tennessee Performing Arts Center's director of public relations, for the invitation to attend the media night/opening night (Tuesday, March 2nd) performance of the ABBA repertoire-driven Broadway favorite, Mama Mia!
This marked the show's return to TPAC, such is the appeal for an evening the whole family can enjoy. The current cast is different from the one I saw during the play's last tour in Music City, and, while the plot is the one prior audiences will recall, there are several scenes in the current version that I saw for the first time. Fortunately, the music is as energetically performed as ever as it ties together this tale of a young woman, who on the eve of her wedding day on a Greek island, invites each of three of the men who might be her father (based on what she read, while snooping, in some passages from her mother's diary) to her big day in the hope that she'll solve the mystery of her paternity and realize a fantasy of having her father walk her down the aisle..
Performances run
through March
7th at TPAC's [ANDREW] JACKSON Hall.
****
The
March issue of Country
Music People includes a color photo
(left to right) of CARL PERKINS with JOHNNY CASH and CARL SMITH. According to the
caption, the three were photographed in October, 1969 "on the
first BCMA to Nashville."
Perkins, then a part of Cash's TV and touring show, is slightly smiling as is Johnny. Smith? Not so much.
The story behind Smith's stiff upper lip, as members of the British Country Music Association might put it, if there is a tale to be told, might be one of discomfort. Always the gentleman, Carl still probably wasn't crazy about being photographed with the man (in black) who had married Smith's ex-wife, JUNE CARTER, a year before the photograph was taken. (Then again, it could be that Smith was uncomfortable because he was the only one of the three in suit coats also sporting a necktie!)
Perhaps my reaction to the photo is what it is because I recall attending a Nashville Songwriters Association International (NSAI) party several year ago when, among the many photos taken, was one of MARIJOHN WILKIN and CLARENCE SELMAN. Marijohn despised her alcoholic ex-husband and indicated as much to her biographer, DARRYL HICKS. Indeed, the photographer who asked Clarence and Marijohn to pose with each other that evening may have a collectors' item, in that it might be futile to search for another photo of what, for appearances, looked to be a gracious "couple" taken at any other time since their bitter breakup!
Perkins, then a part of Cash's TV and touring show, is slightly smiling as is Johnny. Smith? Not so much.
The story behind Smith's stiff upper lip, as members of the British Country Music Association might put it, if there is a tale to be told, might be one of discomfort. Always the gentleman, Carl still probably wasn't crazy about being photographed with the man (in black) who had married Smith's ex-wife, JUNE CARTER, a year before the photograph was taken. (Then again, it could be that Smith was uncomfortable because he was the only one of the three in suit coats also sporting a necktie!)
Perhaps my reaction to the photo is what it is because I recall attending a Nashville Songwriters Association International (NSAI) party several year ago when, among the many photos taken, was one of MARIJOHN WILKIN and CLARENCE SELMAN. Marijohn despised her alcoholic ex-husband and indicated as much to her biographer, DARRYL HICKS. Indeed, the photographer who asked Clarence and Marijohn to pose with each other that evening may have a collectors' item, in that it might be futile to search for another photo of what, for appearances, looked to be a gracious "couple" taken at any other time since their bitter breakup!
Have a comment or
a questtion? Please check the FAQs page (where you
'll learn of Iceberg's
identity) linked to this Report. Then feel free to
respond to Stacy Harris by clicking here.
READ THE PUFF PIECES AND THE HATCHET JOBS, THEN COME TO THE SOURCE FOR THE REAL DEAL!!!
Home | Music Row Report | Music Reviews | Book Reviews | Paid Content | Contact