|
IN DEFENSE OF LIMP BIZKIT I am writing in response to your one-sided article on Limp Bizkit and "pay-to-play" ["Radio Racket," WW, April 15, 1998]. How can there be an "unwritten rule that radio stations play what listeners want to hear, not something that a record company was desperate enough to pay for," when it is the station manager who picks what is played as you reported? Up until your story, I was unaware that Limp Bizkit had made the radio. I was exposed to them by a friend (thanks, Mike) back in January when no one had heard of them, but I do not see anything wrong with how they got on. Just look at it as an advertisement. It's virtually the same thing. They are both paying to advertise their product, except they aren't using the conventional means. In a way, Nike is advertising the Verve, so there's nothing wrong with Interscope. Second, you guys fell hook, line and sinker. Don't you think that Numme knew that this would cause a stir? Face it, he manipulated you and the New Yorker and the Rolling Stone among others and I applaud him. He got some good coverage for his station, Interscope got some, and Limp Bizkit got some well-deserved coverage, which will hopefully help them break out. The actual coverage was negative, but it won't hurt them at all. It's not fair for Richard Martin to criticize Limp Bizkit because it's not his forte. They are very talented. "Faith" is far from horrendous and would be a hit if it was played, and I haven't heard anyone encompass thanks to people in an enjoyable song as they do in "Indigo Flow." It's bizarre their lyrics are criticized when a pointless "Sex and Candy" song is on the radio 43 times a week. It was that damned song that made me quit listening to the radio. For a band who had had their song on the radio less than 25 times and on one station only, I think 750 tickets sold for a show is pretty good, heavy promotion or not. Especially when tickets were $17.50 each--not many people would pay just to check them out. I was unable to get a response, but I doubt Marcy Playground sold out and we all know how many times that song has been played. Somebody was going to do it anyway, and Numme took advantage of the opportunity. Stations may complain now, but when it becomes the standard, what will they say then? Tim Browning, Southeast Stephens Street
HA HA HA HA HA! Thanks for the good laugh I had reading Richard Martin as he mustered enough mock outrage to "expose" KUFO for playing a song over the airwaves for cash. "Radio Racket" (April 15, 1998) was a delayed April Fool's Day joke, right? You don't seriously mean to imply that there hasn't always been a neat little system of de facto payola in existence where bands are pimped into heavy rotation based on something other than artistic merit? Come on! What's next, "The Truth About the Easter Bunny"? In the scratch-my-back-I'll-suck-you-off world of huge record companies and "families" of radio corporations, handing over cash to play yet another lousy song ought to be something KUFO program director Dave Numme should be congratulated for doing. At least the guy's admitting the essential corruption of the 'biz to his target demographic focus, er, listenership up front. Furthermore, is Music Millennium owner Terry Currier (whom the article quotes) really some kind of independent ethical arbitrator we can all agree on? Why are all the Music Millennium ads in the 4/15 issue of WW pushing product from big record labels (mostly Time/Warner it seems, including the very exciting chance to "hang with" Zep vets Page and Plant)? Does Music Millennium ad copy ever hock Tim/Kerr, Cavity Search, hell, any indie label releases? House of cards, anyone? The miserable state of music that's led to the wholesale sale of radio air is sure as hell not from lack of trying on the conglomerates' part. Squeezing anyone and everyone else out of the picture is simply manifest destiny (as well as easy, considering most listeners could care less about this stuff). Money greases the skids gets the likes of Bush, Third Eye Blind and No Doubt on the radio, always has, just look at the fact that Herman's Hermits, Milli Vanilli and the Starland Vocal Band scored hits in previous decades. I wish a so-called "independent" newspaper would call the kettle black every once in a while. As it is, fronted exposé journalism smacks of nothing more than a hypocritical gloss-over of your own collusion in the ongoing sellout of nonconglomerate media. I just hope the pay is good. Jon Sarre, Northwest 18th Avenue
STEPPING IN IT? I don't know what Josh Feit's favorite shoes are, but he should check the soles. His obvious love for the watchdog in the April 22 "Earth Shoes" article overshadowed the crap he was stepping in. How could the article's teaser state that Nike's Air-to-Earth program met with educator skepticism when Feit never spoke with a teacher? The only attempt to site teachers' opinions came with their comments from the Air-to-Earth training program. Reportedly, these comments were "fun" and "hands-on." Where is the touted skepticism? Instead of asking teachers, Feit thought it more important to quote those who claim to speak on their behalf. The Air-to-Earth program brings environmental lessons to students by using a product that fifth- and sixth-graders know well. Blame schools. Blame television. Blame parents and professional sports. All the blaming won't change the fact that 10-year-olds know exactly what the Swoosh is and how they feel about it. Does the Air-to-Earth program effectively use that Swoosh to teach kids about product lifecycles and environmental responsibility? Who knows. Josh Feit didn't deem it important enough to ask them. He instead quoted those who compare American students to those working in overseas factories. Corporate-designed curriculum may indeed be a dangerous educational trend, but it can't be as dangerous as a reporter who fails to write a balanced story. The only way to fairly assess any classroom curriculum is to talk to those who teach it and those who learn from it. Josh Feit had no interest in presenting those opinions. This story was irresponsible, lazy and embarrassing. It seems that Willamette Week scrambled to catch the latest "I hate Nike" bandwagon to roll by. If that bandwagon had a logo, chances are, Feit wouldn't have any trouble endorsing its presence in the classroom. Katie Miller, North Willamette Boulevard |
