i was just pointing out that Ghostly doesn't have some magical super-expensive pr company.
as for the debate as to 'why matt dear?', i wanna believe derricks notion that its because its that good. I certainly think its that good. but obviously that's a hard pill to swallow. As is the whole racism suspicions. My best guess is that ther's some new assistant editor (or even intern) at rolling stone who just happens to have some good taste in music. You'd be amazed how arbitrary a lot of magazine selections are. Sure- picking the cover of RS has issues of popularity and mass cultural appeal...but when it comes to the tiny electronic reviews secion of a iant magazine that comes out every week, i can pretty much garauntee that there were no meets. jus oneperson who got handed their little corner of one page and ran with it. On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Phonopsia wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Kent williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "313 list" <313@hyperreal.org> > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10:28 PM > Subject: Re: (313) Matthew Dear and STFU > > > > Point of fact... > > > > Matthew's album was worked by Backspin Media. The same folks who do all of > > the Compost stuff, as well as Vikter Duplaix, Louie Vega and folks like > > that. > > > > I'll be honest, I'm not sure why the Matt Dear album has gotten picked-up > > with such a fury. Except maybe to prepose that he is actually a new young > > artists and its just that time. > > > The obvious difference to me (if we're not looking at color), is that > Compost, Vega and Duplaix are house, downtempo or broken beat artists, and > Matthew Dear would more easilly be grouped with the clicky stuff, so I think > that drawing a comparison between them because Backspin Media does the press > is not terribly informative. Press companies will cover a fairly wide range > of acts so I'm not persuaded that this has any significance to the > discussion at hand. Presumably you'd mention those other labels because of > the accolades they get as well? If it's not clear why Ghostly is receiving > more attention from the US journalists, I would think that feeds Tom's > arguments more than anything else. > > Tristan > ======= > http://www.phonopsia.co.uk > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >
