Hardbopjazz

Really bizarre, embarrassing shit from The New Yorker (merged)

199 posts in this topic

:blink:

This qualifies as the strangest thread ever!

...EVER?....surely not!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether you feel he's good at it or not, Mr Gold was merely doing his job. The New Yorker deserves the blame for not clearly identifying the piece as satire.

An on-line interview with Gold (see post #158) makes it clear that the piece was all his bright idea, not something that the New Yorker asked/assigned him to write. So he wasn't "merely doing his job" in the sense you seem to mean.

Sonicare versus gingivitis (gum disease)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9487840

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether you feel he's good at it or not, Mr Gold was merely doing his job. The New Yorker deserves the blame for not clearly identifying the piece as satire.

An on-line interview with Gold (see post #158) makes it clear that the piece was all his bright idea, not something that the New Yorker asked/assigned him to write. So he wasn't "merely doing his job" in the sense you seem to mean.

That strikes me as a rather weak argument, Larry. His job IS to come up with pieces to write. It's the editors jobs to review/vet pieces submitted to them.

Do they tell Borowitz what to write?

Though, I do disagree with Captain Howdy that The New Yorker is at some kind of fault for not identifying the piece as satire. They've never identified The Borowitz Report as satire, as far as I know. And like any of his material, the Gold piece was so outrageous that anyone with two brain cells to rub together would have figured it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether you feel he's good at it or not, Mr Gold was merely doing his job. The New Yorker deserves the blame for not clearly identifying the piece as satire.

An on-line interview with Gold (see post #158) makes it clear that the piece was all his bright idea, not something that the New Yorker asked/assigned him to write. So he wasn't "merely doing his job" in the sense you seem to mean.

That strikes me as a rather weak argument, Larry. His job IS to come up with pieces to write. It's the editors jobs to review/vet pieces submitted to them.

Do they tell Borowitz what to write?

Though, I do disagree with Captain Howdy that The New Yorker is at some kind of fault for not identifying the piece as satire. They've never identified The Borowitz Report as satire, as far as I know. And like any of his material, the Gold piece was so outrageous that anyone with two brain cells to rub together would have figured it out.

Of course that's Gold's job in the larger sense, Scott, but Captain Howdy's post implied to me that he thought Gold was assigned to write the piece, as a member of the New Yorker staff would/might be, when in fact Gold is a freelancer who sold the piece to the New Yorker. Maybe I'm being tedious but just wanted to make that clear.

As for Borowitz, or anyone like him at the New Yorker, I would assume that longtime mutual familiarity between him and his editors would effectively shape what he wanted to write and what they thought he could get away with. Roz Chast doesn't (at least so far) draw cartoons about the state of her vaginal secretions, though I'm sure she has them and might have some thoughts about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Works for me, Larry.

You're not being tedious, but perhaps reading something into Capt. Howdy's statement that wasn't really there. Or maybe it was, and I'm not seeing it...

Just my two cents...

Edited by Scott Dolan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether you feel he's good at it or not, Mr Gold was merely doing his job. The New Yorker deserves the blame for not clearly identifying the piece as satire.

An on-line interview with Gold (see post #158) makes it clear that the piece was all his bright idea, not something that the New Yorker asked/assigned him to write. So he wasn't "merely doing his job" in the sense you seem to mean.

That strikes me as a rather weak argument, Larry. His job IS to come up with pieces to write. It's the editors jobs to review/vet pieces submitted to them.

Do they tell Borowitz what to write?

Though, I do disagree with Captain Howdy that The New Yorker is at some kind of fault for not identifying the piece as satire. They've never identified The Borowitz Report as satire, as far as I know. And like any of his material, the Gold piece was so outrageous that anyone with two brain cells to rub together would have figured it out.

Of course that's Gold's job in the larger sense, Scott, but Captain Howdy's post implied to me that he thought Gold was assigned to write the piece, as a member of the New Yorker staff would/might be, when in fact Gold is a freelancer who sold the piece to the New Yorker. Maybe I'm being tedious but just wanted to make that clear.

As for Borowitz, or anyone like him at the New Yorker, I would assume that longtime mutual familiarity between him and his editors would effectively shape what he wanted to write and what they thought he could get away with. Roz Chast doesn't (at least so far) draw cartoons about the state of her vaginal secretions, though I'm sure she has them and might have some thoughts about them.

Larry: By "doing his job" I meant writing humor. Whether or not the piece was commissioned is irrelevant, as I doubt it was conceived as an attack on Sonny Rollins or jazz either way. The piece was out of Gold's hands after he delivered it to TNY, and TNY bears the responsibility for how and where it was published thereafter.
Scott: If this piece had been published in The Onion we probably wouldn't be having this discussion, because most people know that all of The Onion's content is satirical. Then again, this article caused a stir a few years back when some folks took it seriously: Congress Takes Group Of Schoolchildren Hostage. The problem is that the internet allows for near-context-free access to content. You might never have heard of The Onion, but someone sends you a link to what looks like a legit news story and bam! -- Orson Wells' War of the Worlds.
I haven't read The New Yorker for many years, so I can't remember if "In His Own Words" is a regular feature, if it's usually done seriously, or if "Daily Shouts" is a humor section. If I thought to look at the URL, I would see newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/sonny-rollins-words but it probably won't occur to me to do that until well after the confusion and consternation has set in. If I were reading the print magazine this problem of context would be less of an issue, but on the internet you have to be aware that readers are not all going to come in through the front door, and take measures to meet them appropriately. TNY is not known as an exclusively satirical publication, so the editors should have had the foresight to identify a piece purporting to be written by a living person as humor.
That's why I say TNY is to blame for the flap, which arose from confusion about the author's identity: people thought that Sonny Rollins actually wrote it; it was only after they learned they had been duped that they started complaining it wasn't funny. Gold seems to have become the target for a lot of unwarranted personal vitriol simply for writing humor. I doubt that anyone would be calling him a "conceited d-bag" if the piece had appeared in The Onion instead of The New Yorker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I still don't buy any of that.

I don't care which door they came in through, if they were dumb enough to fall for such a blatantly obvious piece of satire, the blame lies with the reader. Not the publication.

Then again, I'm a very, VERY hardcore personal responsibility type.

You have to ask yourself the most important question after reading that piece: do you honestly think Sonny Rollins feels that way about an art form he's dedicated 60 years of his life to?

If the answer is, "fuck no!", then there you have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott: I'm not passionate about this issue one way or the other, but I'll argue with you just for practice.

Gold's piece may have been a "blatantly obvious piece of satire" to you and everyone on this board, but you seem to think the only people who read it were hardcore Sonny Rollins fans. What about those who knew nothing of Rollins except that he's a jazz icon? They're much less qualified than you to answer that "most important question." After a casual reading they could go away believing that a jazz icon had renounced jazz. Are they to blame because they "were dumb enough to fall for such a blatantly obvious piece of satire"? It's extremely easy to fool people and call it satire.

Regarding "personal responsibility", although in the USA that phrase is usually a euphemism for "Fuck you, Jack, I got mine." I can agree with you at least this far: believing something you read is one thing, acting upon it is another. I think we can both agree that someone who throws out all of his Sonny Rollins recordings after reading the piece in The New Yorker is a fool, and has a responsibility to verify before acting upon what he reads. That said, we are all dependent upon what we read and hear, and if we tried to verify all of it before accepting it as true, we would never get anything done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the takeaway from all this is that it's probably best for to not read about something you don't already know about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best to not read at all. The time is better spent listening to music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, reading, that's the dumbest thing ever invented. All you do is look at these line-y shape-y thingies on a bunch of paper for a while and then you're like, ok, time to do something else. But do you? No, you don't.

I spent a whole summer of my youth doing that to one of those, uh...books, yeah (nooks?), that's what they call them. Something by a husband-wife team, James & Joyce I think they were called, some book about President Grant. At least I think that's what it was about, who knows for sure? All I know was that I was 16 years old, and there was more sex in that book than there was in my summer.

That should have served as a precautionary table, but no. God gave us eyes for sunglasses and ears for headphones, not the other way around. Only recently has this point become clear to me.

I have wasted my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Euuuhhhh .. Captain Howdy:

About that "believing that a jazz icon had renounced jazz" ...

It CAN happen, you know ... (and NO satire)

Heard of legendary jazz scribe, critic, promoter Joachim Ernst Berendt (a major name in jazz and in the crusade for getting jazz on the map this side of the pond, and never mind if he does not rate in the US, though his "Jazz Book" was acclaimed even there, so I've heard, not to mention his groundbreaking "Jazz Life" with William Claxton)?

In many of his latter-day publications he threw out jazz (and what it stood for) lock stock and barrel (getting the impression that he disowned his former works would not have been an exceedingly far stretch), said that (my paraphrase) "swing is irrelevant and immaterial", world music is what it's all about and just "tones and sounds" are what now counts. Pretty far removed from even a WIDE definition of the understanding of jazz.

And yet ... the world kept turning and jazz kept on being played.

So ...??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So one of the people who read that that renunciation of jazz by "Sonny Rollins" was the next Louis Armstrong, who subsequently sold his cornet and became a process server.

Or not. More likely not. And the world kept turning and jazz kept on being played.

Hell, I think it would be funny if Sonny Rollins did renounce jazz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said, we are all dependent upon what we read and hear, and if we tried to verify all of it before accepting it as true, we would never get anything done.

Wow, I have no idea how to even respond to this statement.

If you believe something simply because you read it somewhere, that's going to lead to a horribly misinformed life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peolple interpret things in any way they want, if they want to see good in it they'll manage a way to do so and the other way around. As far as understanding the meaning of a text, well before the internets gimmick came to be mainstream, a lot of people got still easily confused. Just have to remember that Spingsteen's Born in the USA was used as a patrotic anthem !!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, reading, that's the dumbest thing ever invented. All you do is look at these line-y shape-y thingies on a bunch of paper for a while and then you're like, ok, time to do something else. But do you? No, you don't.

I spent a whole summer of my youth doing that to one of those, uh...books, yeah (nooks?), that's what they call them. Something by a husband-wife team, James & Joyce I think they were called, some book about President Grant. At least I think that's what it was about, who knows for sure? All I know was that I was 16 years old, and there was more sex in that book than there was in my summer.

That should have served as a precautionary table, but no. God gave us eyes for sunglasses and ears for headphones, not the other way around. Only recently has this point become clear to me.

Now that's funny (unlike the New Yorker piece).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO the best part of this thread was about electric toothbrushes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said, we are all dependent upon what we read and hear, and if we tried to verify all of it before accepting it as true, we would never get anything done.

Wow, I have no idea how to even respond to this statement.

If you believe something simply because you read it somewhere, that's going to lead to a horribly misinformed life.

If you don't believe anything you read, then what are you doing here?

Yeah, reading, that's the dumbest thing ever invented. All you do is look at these line-y shape-y thingies on a bunch of paper for a while and then you're like, ok, time to do something else. But do you? No, you don't.

I spent a whole summer of my youth doing that to one of those, uh...books, yeah (nooks?), that's what they call them. Something by a husband-wife team, James & Joyce I think they were called, some book about President Grant. At least I think that's what it was about, who knows for sure? All I know was that I was 16 years old, and there was more sex in that book than there was in my summer.

That should have served as a precautionary table, but no. God gave us eyes for sunglasses and ears for headphones, not the other way around. Only recently has this point become clear to me.

I have wasted my life.

I think it only works if you claim that you are James Joyce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a difference between an aggregation of opinions, and facts. I assumed that was clear to anyone with an educated mind. Opinions are considered, facts are either verified or dismissed.

You can choose to believe anything you wish, but without verifying it, you're leaving yourself in a compromised state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in other news german jazzthing chose not to put a recent photo of sonny rollins on the cover for it's photo-homestory, but a 7-year old picture. while a recent photo would have been more "authentic", according to the editor, axel stinshof, in order to compete with other magazines on the newsstands one chose a more forceful looking image of rollins.

http://www.jazzthing.de/heft/104/editorial-104/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.