Brenda Ayers Hajec April 27 at 1:36pm Report Bill,
You know my affection for you and your love of music – so I hope you’ll take this “observation” which has been expressed to me by several people (and I agree) – when you love everyone you review and give glowing accolades to everything, it all becomes less meaningful. Good reviews are always received better than critical ones and the recipients and their friends are going to love that and repost, etc. And that is a good way to become more known. But I would think you want to be known for being a good critic and not just a reviewer whose every review is dripping with compliments. It’s hard to tell who’s really good and who’s not-so-good from your reviews. I’ve heard a lot of the people you’ve written about, as my friends have, and they’re not all great nor even of equal quality. Some are adequate, competent, etc. but the words you choose are sometime drippy with praise. This makes your reviews less credible and less powerful. I think (in my humble opinion) you could use your forum to make distinctions between adequate, good and great because you have a good audience and a credible music background. Please take my comment with the fondness it was intended 🙂 Brenda
ALL I CAN SAY IS WOW,MUSIC IS HARD TO REVIEW,WHATS GOOD WHATS NOT.ITS ALL UP TO A LISTENER.YOU CAN GIVE A SUBJECTIVE VIEW WITH OUT TRASHING SOME ONE GOOD LUCK BILL KEEP ON KEEPING ON
I think what brenda is trying to say is you listen to shitty music….
Bill Copeland here. A person who calls himself/herself “Jesus Christ” is attacking my taste in music and the musicians too. When will these attackers ever reveal themselves?
Secondly, I focus on the finest talent in greater-Boston/New England, regardless of whatever genre a band plays in. Finally, Brenda wrote me a very opinionated letter. She didn’t must disagree with a review. She wrote me to tell me I’m not doing my job right, and that was based on her opinion and the opinions of some clique who agrees with her. Her comments about not being able to tell, from my reviews, which bands are good and which are not shows she isn’t “getting it” that I only focus on quality bands. Her comments that not all of the bands I review are equally good is only her opinion. Many of the bands and singer-songwriters I choose to focus on have been nominated for Boston Music Awards, won their local blues challenge, and are highly respected within the music community. To tell me that she knows these bands and that they’re not all good only proves she is basing her letter on very personal, subjective opinion. To tell a writer how to do his job based on her perception of what is good writing and what is good music is very self-centered, self-important, and arrogant and egotistical.
I felt I had to share that letter with my readers so they can see what kind of personalities I have to deal with. It was also my way of meeting the critique head on. I noticed that none of the several people who Brenda claims agrees with her came out of the woodwork to identify themselves and to share their views.
Bill
I know neither you nor Brenda, Bill, so I consider myself neutral. I came here to read a few critiques, which (I thought) were well-written. Then I stumbled on this foolishness. After spending 10 minutes reading Brenda’s note (which seems fairly benign, and also seems to have been conveyed to you in private), as well as your commentary on this whole issue, I must say: You’re quite the drama queen. Man up, for Christ’s sake. My guess is that anyone who makes this big a deal out of such tepid privately-offered criticism is suffering from something deeper. Your revelation of her private info also tells me that the issue is “personal” with you… and not really about journalistic freedom, blah blah blah. It’s really about your petty and compulsive need to do a character assassination on someone in public. So, what’s the reason? Did she turn you down for the prom back in 1980? Sheesh. Ultimately, your credibility will suffer most, not from the overuse of hyperbole, but because of your immature negotiation of a delicate personal issue in the public eye.
Ned, Shut up. You’re obviously a friend of Brenda’s. Brenda talked about credibility and of giving people positive reviews in order to get them posted. I had to meet that head on, and Brenda should have expected a response to such a cheeky move. She criticized the articles and reviews, which are public documents, so I felt her letter should be made public. I’ve been in journalism for 20 years and I do not take feedback personally, positive or negative. I also didn’t make a big deal out of it. It became a topic of discussion because most of my readers had a problem with Brenda’s views. She clearly wrote me a letter telling me I’m over estimating certain artists simply because SHE doesn’t perceive them as high quality as I do. I think that was where my readers faulted her. Again, I will publicize any feedback on the writing, as the writing is public. Brenda didn’t say it was off the record and when you talk to a reporter you’re also talking to a publication and or zine. As for taking things personal Ned, calling someone “drama queen” “Man Up” “Something deeper” “personal” “Petty” “compulsive” “character assination” and “immature” about something you claim you have no personal interest in is way too far-fetched.