So you have to admire him. YOU. (That's the thing about writers. We always tell YOU the reader what to do.) But, I admire him, too. Not everyone would link to a swear-filled screed pocked with insult jokes. I guess the guy developed a sense of humor long ago, in dealing with the vaginal challenge of his last name.
You develop a thick skin or you even work on the imagination to spin it into a positive: "Kuntzman? It implies an expert! Not every gynecologist is a Kuntzman!" [PS, anyone remember Gershon Legman? I didn't think so.]
Piers Morgan has a sense of humor, too. He (and this guy) realize they get paid for riling people up. The more annoying they are, the more money they can make. To paraphrase Liberace, "laughing all the way to the bank" isn't a bad life at all. If you can do it by writing, and not being a fucking teller, so much the better.
Gersh Kuntzman was blowing his own horn today, over how much he's disliked, and how much this amuses him. Best of all, he was amused by this blog, which tries (and usually fails) to be amusing in its disgust at the world of amusement. Thanks to Google giving preferential treatment to blogs it owns, it was easy for him to find my piece. (I think this is the only time I've complimented Google in 10 years).
Yes, The Snooze actually LINKED to this blog. It was "favorited," in fact. This as a great compliment. Kuntzman, after all, is a staffer on the Snooze, and I'm simply a has-been hanging on to a blog, and waiting to join Glenn Frey in "dying from complications." (I'm told that ulcerative colitis doesn't cause death, but Glenn may have broken new ground).
But I'm getting ahead of myself. Before showing you his line about his "favorite" example of rage at his Eagles opinion, Gersh proudly headlines that his article was a blockbuster that apparently led to jeers not only on blogs, but via e-mails and on-site comments from readers. He stopped short in blaming the near 3 feet of blizzard-snow on an adverse reation from Mother Nature. She understood he was putting down The Eagles, not her eagles.
Not everyone is proud of being hated. But if you're not in the business of being an "infante terrible" or a provocateur, you might not want it at all. Some writers (Truman Capote, Norman Mailer etc.) and columnists (Andrea Peyser, Piers Morgan etc.) have found that being opinionated offers extra fame and money, and at times, a good laugh.
Without chewing old grain (which isn't good for ulcerative colitis), I have to reiterate, The Eagles were just a rock band at a time when most music was what it always is: bland.
In 1972, no less a genius than Bud Scoppa, writing in the ultra-hip Rolling Stone, declared "Take it Easy is simply the best sounding rock single to come out so far this year."
1972 was the year that the cocksuckin' genius David Geffen released their album on his Asylum label. Geffen is now so revered, his gay clique kicked Alice Tully in the cunt and took her name off a building in Lincoln Center. HE is now the big name over there. And why? Before he started his own label and won the rights to Lennon's comeback album, and to burying Joni Mitchell, Geffen was best known for bringing us The Eagles!
If you can stand it, come back with me to 1972, when Gersh Kuntzman was complaining that The Eagles were dragging down a music world bubbling with the ch-ch-ch-changes of David Bowie and other cutting edge prog-rockers.
1972 was the year that gave us "Candy Man" by Sammy Davis Jr., "Daddy Don't You Walk So Fast" by Wayne Newton, the sappy "Heart of Gold" by Neil Young, "A Horse with No Name" by America, "Nights in White Satin" from The Moody Blues, "Morning Has Broken" by Cat Stevens, "Sylvia's Mother" by Dr. Hook, "Anticipation" from Carly Simon, "Doctor My Eyes" from Jackson Browne, and "Vincent" by Don McLean. Oh yeah: "Where is the Love" by Donny Hathaway and Roberta Flack and "I Can See Clearly Now" by Johnny Nash, which showed that black artists were pretty wimpy, too. Is that a radical bunch of songs? Does "Take It Easy" stand out glaringly from that list of what the public was enjoying? (Not ME, the public...but I confess to having liked and interviewed Dr. Hook).
Kuntzman mentioned the great Blowie. Well, David didn't do much in 1972 but his androgyne pal Marc Bolan had a hit with "(Bang a Gong) Get It On." It was slightly dirty but quite easy-listening, wasn't it?
So I don't quite buy Gersh's claim that the Eagles were "a bad rock band in an era of unparalleled innovation." What was innovation? Gilbert O'Sullivan's "Alone Again Naturally?"
As The Eagles became more and more popular, 70's music stayed safe, if not numbing. "Critics Darlings" (like Randy Newman or Karen Dalton) would provide some spice to what was generally a mild stew. As I recall it, The Eagles produced their masterpiece, "Hotel California" in 1976. The Sex Pistols were a year away, and "punk" was reacting to a lot worse than The Eagles. And who'd want nothing but "punk" music either? Sure, I thought "Love Comes in Spurts" by Richard Hell was hellarious. But I didn't listen to it every day. People who did, were people I didn't want to know. (Some years later I interviewed Jim Carroll and Nick Lowe, who both fused rock with impudence and punk).
But I digress, and I haven't reached the GOOD part, which is the following, where this humble, cranky, erratic, and obscure blog got a link.
It recalls for me the immortal words of Spike Milligan, who reacted to an outburst of applause with two words: "Any money?"
Nah. As usual with writers, I take the credit. And I give credit to Kuntzman for linking to my article.
Yes, that opening line: "here's my favorite" links to my previous piece. Put it this way, it's been a LONG time since I've had a mention in the Snooze. This is the kind of thing that keeps one going during the rough periods. Years. Decades. Anybody who interviewed Dr. Hook is pretty much old enough to be circling the drain, right?
The main point in the above chunk is that Kuntzman does clarify that he wasn't dancing on Glenn Frey's grave, and that it was indeed "tasteless" to use his death for a bash at The Eagles. As a veteran of tastelessness, I understand and accept his "I plead no contest."
And he's right on two more counts. First, that "in a fast paced news culture" one doesn't have the luxury of a cool-down period to polish the material or edit correctly. Second, that people don't allow people to have an opinion. "Opinions are like a--holes," he writes, "and to most of you, mine stinks. But I never said my opinion of the Eagles is the only valid one."
No, but when you write something, and especially when you're standing on the platform of a famous magazine or newspaper, it seems like a Sermon from the Mount. You can see a bunch of writers in the future saying, "The Daily News felt The Eagles were a bad band..." not mentioning Kuntzman by name, or that it was a blog or editorial piece.
This point pisses me off, too. I've reviewed many books, films, records and even stage productions for a variety of publications (some actually well known). If somebody doesn't like my opinion, they instantly scream that I've got some nerve, presenting OPINION as FACT. But I didn't do that. I just stated my OPINION and it seems like a fact. Like Gersh's remark, "The Eagles were a bad rock band." Does he really have to say, every fucking time, "In my opinion..." OF COURSE it's his opinion.
Which reminds me of something Jackie Mason once said: "You're entitled to your opinion. And I'm entitled to tell you your opinion stinks."
Which explains the previous column.
The last line from Gersh above IS a good point, too. Popularity doesn't mean something is good. It just means it's popular. The Eagles sold millions of copies. So did Liberace. Does that make Liberace a better pianist than Alfred Brendel? So the Gersh critics who justified their positions by claiming The Eagles were popular...well, you CAN be popular AND bad. Just ask Rupert Murdoch or Kim Kardashian.
I just don't think The Eagles were a bad rock band, for reasons already stated in the previous piece. I just watched their DVD of the "Farewell" show in Australia. Aside from the absolutely moronic and cringeworthy faces Joe Walsh kept making, they were a GOOD ROCK band. They entertained well, they played well, and if you don't mind the irritating strain in Henley's voice, they sang well. A bad rock band might be Herman's Hermits, or some other bunch that could hardly play their own instruments.
Which brings us to the final part of Kuntzman's delight in writing something people hate (which really is pretty easy; Piers Morgan does it almost every day).
No question, a "The Eagles Were a Bad Rock Group" piece written in response to a DVD or box set release would've gotten some grimaces but no death threats. It was the timing. You write it the day after a man dies, and you invite death threats. Especially when a man dies ugly. Ulcerative colitis can be a torment that leads to thoughts of self-destruction, as does some paralyzing form of arthritis and a bout of pneumonia. So Frey had all three, and unlike Bowie or Zevon, he didn't seem to have much of a chance to come up with some final opus.
Finally, Kuntzman is right, it's a very cheap joke to use his last name against him. "Those of you who just made fun of my surname, I think you could do better." I agree, which is why MY piece didn't stop at calling him a cunt, but raged on and on. Some of it was too schoolyard, but that's what happens "in a fast paced news culture." You're too busy writing to be editing. Especially when you write out of a kneejerk reaction and there's no money involved.
I did re-read my piece. There were a few too many cunt references, and I was channeling Al Goldstein a little too much (I count his overboard "editorials" as an influence on me. There was a somewhat emotional line or two about how truly gruesome Frey's end was, but I wouldn't go back and polish it or soften it at this point. I thought it was surprisingly coherent for a virtual ad-lib rant. As usual, all I did was proofread it once for typos; I didn't hold onto it for any length of time, or consider that a few lines were not Oscar Wilde wry as much as Goldstein in-the-eye.
But, as Wilde could've said, editorials are a dish best served piping hot. Then, when you dump it in someone's lap, you're guaranteed that they notice and stand up. If Kuntzman had waited a few days till Frey's death was no longer raw, outrage about his article might've been far less, which would've prevented him from writing a follow-up congratulating himself for getting such a big reaction.
And if there wasn't such a big reaction, I wouldn't have gotten a link, and another two or three people over the usual small circle of fiends reading my blog. So, thanks, Lantzman. "I hope I wasn't out of line with that vonce crack." And you're picking up a weekly paycheck, I'm not, The Eagles get royalties and it's rare when I see anything on my past work, and Glenn Frey is still dead, which is a lesson to us all.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.