the works |
It's been a couple of weeks now and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we are being stiffed by the
LA Times and that Hochman guy.
None of the promises that were made to us have been fulfilled. To wit:
1. The only reason Donald and I agreed to talk to the guy was that he promised he would write an article about our research into the dangers of listening to CD's recorded at the standard 44.1 K sample rate. We provided him with full documentation for our alarming discoveries, including an interview with a Mr Les Weaver, who is one of the first victims of the syndrome to be discovered by us.
Our hope, Craig, our hope was to get the word out and hasten the switchover to higher-sample rate CD's and tapes as soon as possible, before too many other people suffer the dread effects of listening to 44.1. Our stuff has already been remastered in over a dozen different high sample rate formats, any one of which will save lives if adopted - we want to lead the way into the new era of safe digital sound. In our view, there are plenty enough zombies wandering around in the streets of our towns and cities as it is, we don't need hundreds of thousands more. But evidently Mssrs Hochman and Hilburn have decided to shine us on.
2. It was agreed that the LA Times would run ballots so that its readers could vote on who if anyone should be inducted with Donald and myself, if and when we are inducted into the Hall of Fame. So far this has not happened either.
3. I pointed out to Mr Hochman that his
less-than-favorable review of my album
appeared on the SD website, in conjunction with a much longer and much more laudatory review from Jon Pareles of the New York Times. I pointed out to Steve that Jon Pareles is a true visionary, the dean of contemporary pop music critics, and that he is seldom if ever wrong in his appraisal of the new music of the day. I suggested to Mr Hochman that it was by no means too late for him to rewrite his review, expanding it along the lines of Mr Pareles' review, which is splendid in every way. The improved review would be posted on the website for all to see. He agreed that this was an excellent idea and that he would see what he could do. So far I haven't heard dick about the rewrite.
4. Speaking of Hilburn, isn't he on the Hall of Fame Board of Directors? He's been the head of the Times music department forever, and he's never much liked us, I'm told. Isn't there some sort of conflict of interest here, what with the Times printing all these articles about the confusion over who is to be inducted, and Hilburn sitting up on the board? Perhaps we should demand that he recuse himself from consideration of who is inducted next year or say for the next five years. Or maybe we should ask that he resign permanently, in the interest of preserving the integrity of the Board?
Look, I know that the piece that Hochman wrote and that actually appeared was great. I know how much we all liked it when it came out. But the rest of the stuff we were hoping for just never happened and we can assume now that it's never going to happen. So I think it's time for us to demand a retraction of the original piece and an apology from Steve and Bob. That's what I think.
Header Graphic: Eric "Rudy" Schuttler
the works |