the new york times, now with salt
Jun. 29th, 2003 05:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jfbLiz Phair responds to last week's negative review with the longest letter I've ever seen the Times print, in which she tells the story of "a writer named Chicken Little". Not sure what's going on there.
Arthur Freed, the great producer of movie musicals, and subject of a three-week, 19-film retrospective at Film Forum. Also features some sideswipes at Chicago.
An unusually interesting installment of Playlist, the Times's weekly collection of short blurbs from their music critics. I now want to hear the latest from Café Tacuba, Aretha Franklin, Gemma Hayes, Ui, and Kenna. Also features more Liz Phair dissing.
Danny Boyle, of Trainspotting and 28 Days Later, "takes people who seem repellent on paper and reveals their humanity". That's pretty much the opposite of how I felt by the end of the latest movie.
The accordionist Daniel Handler has an article on the new musical based on Gregory Maguire's novel Wicked. Quoting Maguire:
Here's what I find interesting about Maureen Dowd's review of Living History: It's the third time this week I've seen the word "tact" used where "tack" is meant. (Ms. Clinton can be tactful, but I can't make much sense of "Rashomon tact" in context.) The first time was from some random, but the second was from a friend who is generally a stickler about English, and this one was from a putative journalist writing in the newspaper of record. What's going on?
Remember a few years ago when prescription drug makers were suddenly allowed to advertise on TV, but had to go on at length about all their horrific side effects? Funny stuff. I am shocked, shocked, that "industry critics say they continue to see promotions that illegally market unapproved uses of a drug, understate risks, overstate benefits or make claims not backed up by studies, in an industry that is spending more than ever to promote its products."
Seven executives reflect on affirmative action.
Arthur Freed, the great producer of movie musicals, and subject of a three-week, 19-film retrospective at Film Forum. Also features some sideswipes at Chicago.
An unusually interesting installment of Playlist, the Times's weekly collection of short blurbs from their music critics. I now want to hear the latest from Café Tacuba, Aretha Franklin, Gemma Hayes, Ui, and Kenna. Also features more Liz Phair dissing.
Danny Boyle, of Trainspotting and 28 Days Later, "takes people who seem repellent on paper and reveals their humanity". That's pretty much the opposite of how I felt by the end of the latest movie.
The accordionist Daniel Handler has an article on the new musical based on Gregory Maguire's novel Wicked. Quoting Maguire:
"And Glinda! She steps out in this prom gown from some era that we never lived in, and with that helium voice, lies to her, when she knows all along the ruby slippers will take her home instantly and that Dorothy doesn't have to suffer anything. That lie, on top of the Wizard's lies, made me furious as a kid. And of course I grew up in the shadow of Vietnam, when boys I knew were being sent to kill the Wicked Witch of the Vietcong, by Nixon, who wouldn't come out of the White House and who wouldn't answer questions."
Here's what I find interesting about Maureen Dowd's review of Living History: It's the third time this week I've seen the word "tact" used where "tack" is meant. (Ms. Clinton can be tactful, but I can't make much sense of "Rashomon tact" in context.) The first time was from some random, but the second was from a friend who is generally a stickler about English, and this one was from a putative journalist writing in the newspaper of record. What's going on?
Remember a few years ago when prescription drug makers were suddenly allowed to advertise on TV, but had to go on at length about all their horrific side effects? Funny stuff. I am shocked, shocked, that "industry critics say they continue to see promotions that illegally market unapproved uses of a drug, understate risks, overstate benefits or make claims not backed up by studies, in an industry that is spending more than ever to promote its products."
Seven executives reflect on affirmative action.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-06-29 05:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-06-29 07:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-06-30 03:46 pm (UTC)but then i'm reminded that she's 36 and i start to feel sorry for her. i mean, even the remade sheryl crow still managed to keep her dignity intact. liz phair, not so much.
no subject
Date: 2003-06-30 04:16 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-06-30 05:28 pm (UTC)but from what i can tell, she was once regarded as a fresh new voice in the world of indie rock and with PJ harvey, they opened quite a few doors to females looking to empower themselves in song. she was once indie royalty and now she's stumbled many steps to something considerably more mainstream and avril-esque. the fact that she can go from making a universally lauded album to concocting something so lightweight, so frothy and devoid of substance is what has everyone in an uproar. the word "sellout" springs to mind and golly gee, there's nothing worse than someone with supposed "indie" roots who sells out.
but what it really comes down to are the tunes, and, apparently, they're just bad.
a similar example would be the "new" jewel--she's traded in her folk/pop ways for a new, more considerably updated techno-pop sound, but the critics for the most part haven't been panning her. (her fans are another story) the best that i can tell, it's because jewel's new album is actually, gasp! fun to listen to, and, some have said her best album to date. [then again, jewel probably had fewer "roots" to betray since she's always been pretty mainstream and pop to begin with.]
it always comes down to the tunes. i agree that this seems to be the album she wanted to make, but apparently it isn't the album that people wanted to hear.