A new list to rip to shreds: Maxim's 30 Worst Albums of all Time.

(isn't shake your love just the chorus over and over and over or am i missing something? i mean granted i love the double-entendre but it only takes you so far. foolish beat was a bit better i recall)

(Actually, I compare & contrast them plenty in my second book, and it would take me thousands of words to go into here, but I'm going home.)

And I still don't get how "self-congratulatory let's-hyberbolically-enthuse-over-what-we-imagine-others-think-is-utterly-disposable shtick" is not questioning my integrity. But who gives a shit, y'know?

Actually, I'm a Company B guy.
(But NOT in a boogie-woogie bugle way, I swear.)

I'm also curious where exactly I do this:

>fail to extricate their like for the music from their desire to make a statement about the value of disposable/etc. Pop Music<<

Can you give me examples of where exactly I've made such statements, Amateurist? (Actually, I HATE most disposable pop, if you wanna know.)

As for Klosterman, I have not read anything apart from his books, but in the newest (forthcoming?) one, he relies very heavily on the naughty-scamp routine, going so far as to make heavy use of the whole 90s "only a weirdo like me would think this" routine.

As for the disposable pop thing, you're right that I don't necessarily have a leg to stand on Chuck (maybe 1/2 of a leg, which isn't of much use), and I think I've already granted that I might be mischaracterizing your overall outlook on the basis of a handful of ILM posts. (I also may be confusing your writing with that of the other Chuck, and perhaps a raft of other VV critics as well.)

To try and explain myself, it seems (from my perspective--which means the threads that I read) that you are most interested in defending stray albums from much-maligned subgenres and artists and although you mention Dylan as being a major focus of your book, I haven't noticed a lot of posts on ILM (again, this may be due to my own myopia) about such consensus figures or for that matter many artists/genres that don't have the potential to raise questions about your credulity. I accept your sincerity, in fact, but it's your seeming choice of focus on precisely that music which raises hackles that begins to annoy me. Your celebration of these things (again, on ILM) seem to employ a po-face quite occasionally, such as (made-up example) "Manowar is better than Motorhead," and it's then left to subsequent posters to fill in the reasons behind this. There's a contrarianism here that--again, on selected ILM posts--seems to overwhelm other impulses and emotions. Of course this is not uncommon in general on message boards. Some ILMers have made virtual careers of such contrarianism (some of them are on this thread).

I employ the device mentioned above (let's call it the "Manowar>Motorhead device") sometimes, although I'm not proud of it. This gets at what Sterling says, that I myself am guilty of that of which I accuse others. I've said so myself numerous times on ILM. My musical literacy is woefully inadequate to the task of writing the sort of music criticism (or music study) I like to read. If it's a truism that we single out others for faults that we find in ourselves, I'm a living illustration. But if I've singled you out for criticism (some of it founded, some of it clearly not) it's because you are a convenient representative of the rock criticism establishment (by which I simply mean a popular and well-read and -entrenched published critic) and as such I hold you to a higher standard--and probably hold you accountable for a whole state of affairs for which you far from wholly to blame. That probably sounds insufferably condescending itself.

The contradiction here is that I should judge you on the stuff you actually get paid for. Which I hope to read more of this weekend and hopefully I will be robbed of my misconceptions or at least more nuanced and sensible in my criticism.

[Put another way: When I write I'm simply one guy, with no professional connection to music, who is often bored at a job he's about to leave and prefers this ragged discourse to the endless dotting of i's and crossing of t's. When you write Chuck, from my POV at least, you're writing in your professional identity.]

I probably haven't addressed all the sundry criticisms I've received on this thread, least of all Sterling's which seem in their definitiveness ("you never say anything at all" etc.) an unfortunate echo of my initial statements (now regretted) about him and Chuck. I should add that I feel bad for personally offending you and impugning your sincerity, although I remain unconvinced of the virtues of your writing style and wary of--I'll say it again, just to see if Trife can get more mileage out of it--your insistent puckishness as I've perceived it on ILM.

As for the members of the peanut gallery, it's actually quite amusing to see you graft a whole host of attributes onto me that aren't evident from my posts (and would seem obv false if you bothered to recall my general contribution to ILX outside of these unfortunate lashings out on criticism threads): rockism, anti-hip hop, whatever. I think the protean nature of this thread (starting in one place, quickly moving to another) encourages this sort of thing so in a sense this is another mea culpa.

DESTROY ALL JOCKS NOW!

*cracks brewski*

*(wonders if "cracks brewski" means what he assumes it means)*

in poland, a widow is made.

ps isn't the poison 'dis' up top a sly allusion to the dish-washing scene at the outset of the 'nothing but a good time' video? AHA AHA AHA!!!

lots of live albums, yeah. also the worst single according to this book is "my ding-a-ling," but eh, who knows, maybe one day I WILL WIND UP ON THE REMAINDERED TABLE WITH MY BOOK ON WHY er well who knows what i'll be trying to argue

still it does have a lot of 'you put your peanut butter in my canon!!!!' sentiment throughout