Me:
>
> The reflex to say so and so
> >"sucks" is always so much more tempting than settling for saying, "that's
> >not my cup of tea." -- Terry Smith
>
Jeff Wall:>
> I don't see the difference. If I am reviewing a disc, and I can find
> absolutely no redeeming value, and I say that it sucks, is that not just my
> humble, or in my case, not so fucking humble opinion? I think most (but not
> all) rap sucks. Instead should I be saying that most rap is just not my cup
> of tea?
>
Me again: OK, I'll rephrase it. If all you say is that something sucks,
and then you don't give any worthwhile reasons, then what you've just said
ain't worth a plug nickle. But if you admit that you don't like it mainly
just because, um, you just don't like it, then that at least acknowledges
that your judgment may have more to do with your own biases than any flaw
on the side of the music. The fact that you probably wouldn't go to the
trouble to review a rap record, because you're already aware of your
biases, suggests that you're all too aware that rap ain't your "cup of
tea." But country is, and if you reviewed a country record that you
thought sucked, you'd be able to find plenty of reasons for why it's not
so hot. Does that make any damn sense?
The short explanation: Sometimes a performer or band really does suck
majorly, and it's easy to explain why. Sometimes, though, you just don't
like that sort of music. There is a difference. Queen apparently was a
great bunch of musicians, but that sort of pretentious, orchestrated, glam
crap just gives me a stomach ache. That, however, is more a comment on my
own biases than anything particularly wrong with the music. Maybe that's
not the short explanation after all.
oh yeah. Jeff, take care in the Med (or Adriatic?) -- Terry Smith
