Panned ‘Music Maker’ Slams His Critic

Compiled by Jack Nichols

he following correspondence erupted last week when Rick Knight (whose CD, The Rainbow Room, I panned two years ago) read the unhappy review for the first time and now, rather colorfully, describes it as "bad ass joo joo".

Mr. Knight’s friend—who wrote simultaneously—lectured me thusly: "You sir, have set the ‘gay agenda’ back a few years with that one."

Mr. Knight agrees with his friend and says: "You have done me and the gay community a disservice."

The reportedly offensive review can be accessed at:
http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/entertain/081098en.htm

Trashed ‘Music Maker’ to Jack Nichols:

Dear Jack,

I traced the sudden spike of inquiry about my CD back to your review. Since I believe it to be probably one of the few reviews to so vehemently trash the effort, I thought I'd reply and give you some context about the person and the work you saw fit to discredit in your journalistic tirade.

The CD was an act of love and of transition in my own life, not unlike a decision to have a child, it was that intimate for me. (I like to say when straight men have a midlife crisis, they buy a sports car...when gay men have it, they write a musical).

Running on financial fumes, I was able to print 1000 copies, most of which were given away at the 1999 GLAMA awards, where "Needs of the Common Man" was nominated for a Best Show Tune. It lost to "Gratuitous Nudity" from Naked Boys Singing (which just goes to show that titillation works every time). I heard the song. To my mind, it was insipid. But hey, a nice round from a cast of naked choir boys can cause you to forgive nearly any artistic ineptitude (it would be ironic but not surprising if you heard and enjoyed that work). I lost, but then, so did
Sandra Bernhard, also nominated in that category. At least I was in good company.

Had I actually taken the time to surf your webpage and see that your logo depicts one dog sniffing another one's ass, I may have thought more about spending the time to mail you a promotional copy. I suck at marketing, but with little thanks to you, I may have an even greater challenge. They say any press is good press. Regardless, it's not that big a deal since the CD was barely a blip on the pop culture radar, my first attempt, and, as most low-budget self produced efforts go, was overtly personal.

I was awestruck at the tone of your review. There is no way you could possibly be a musician, lyricist or even have that broad a spectrum of musical tastes, so your qualification as a reviewer is as some guy with a website and a knack for acid-dish. I can only draw such a conclusion based upon the nastiness with which you berated (as opposed to critiqued) my work, from melody to song style to lyric to even the liner notes for chrissakes.

From a personal standpoint, it was relentlessly cruel, as if we used to date and I fucked you over so you were gonna publicly try to embarrass me. Even a negative review would present some decorum or professionalism but I may be inadvertently placing you in a journalistic class to which you have yet to aspire to.

To my mind, any gay journalist with a sense of integrity would recognize that there is precious little out there that makes the effort to be unapologetic or candid about how it feels to be gay. Unless you want to include the endless parade of "Pride" musical collections, with tunes as vacuous as the boys out there dancing to their repetitive beats. For the sake of survival, most gay men have had to shut down feeling, for risk of complete emotional meltdown. I wonder as I write if you fit that model?

I really loved (in an ironic sort of way) how you spent most of the article slashing my tires only to offer me a manual bicycle pump at the end. Wish you well too Jack. But even with the badass joo-joo you are hacking out into the world, somehow I doubt you'll end up rivaling the likes of Stern, Limbaugh or Dr. Laura with your diatribes. You'll have to work on your audacity quotient quite a bit more.

By the way, Robin Minnerly moved out of state during the artwork production and I couldn't get in touch with her until after we'd gone to press. I really wanted a picture of her in the book and it pissed me off that I had to keep a deadline without it being complete (if you are still in possession of the CD, you'll notice a lot of empty space on the last lyric page).

I suppose any artist willing to open the door and reveal their work to the world is going to get a tomato or two. Wasn't expecting a produce section and don't think I or my work deserved such a slam.

If you still have the CD, do me the courtesy of identifying some sappy acquaintance in your circle of friends and donating it to the hapless romantic fool. You owe me that much. I would also greatly appreciate you not lifting sentences from my response out of context and using them to further convey me to your readers as "sour grapes" from a wounded artist. I think the damage already done is sufficient defamation.

Rick Knight

Friend of ‘Music Maker’ Slams the Review:

Mr. Nichols:

My name is Maren Hogan. I am writing concerning your review of the CD, The Rainbow Room. As a musician and a gay rights advocate, I was appalled at the ease with which you tore down a gay man and a fellow artist.

The fact that The Rainbow Room contains sappy love songs is irrelevant. Many songs contain emotional wording and most of these are on the Top Forty right now. In saying that a gay man cannot write about or hope for the same things is discriminatory. You sir, have set the "gay agenda" back a few years with that one.

The orchestration of the songs is brilliant and was done on a limited budget. One of the songs was nominated for a GLAMA award, so you can see that the rest of the gay community does not necessarily share your pompous attitude towards this work. In publishing your overly cynical views in a paper that thousands of gay people read you have insinuated that gay music should not be about love but what...sex? Drag shows? AIDS? Silly tunes that show how superficial they all are? That is not all there is to gay people!

They are more than just gay!!

The Rainbow Room is a fantastic play and the CD is brilliant. It presents a pictorial of a regular man whose sexuality is secondary. A picture of hope and love and deep emotional feeling between two people. This is the side that the rest of the world never gets to see because of people overclogging the pipes with pictures of nude men and inane reviews. This is a picture that straight people can see and identify with.

Finally, criticizing the man's inner notes was petty, childish and uncalled for. These were personal thoughts and acknowledgments which were not up for criticism. To so viciously make fun of an artist trying to promote awareness is jaded, rude and downright mean. The "gay agenda" will never prove anything to the rest of the world if you tear each other down like this. I challenge you to show this "second opinion" to your readers and let them choose for themselves. Review your own review. See that cynical old man?

That's you.

Hoping you will keep an open mind.....
Maren Hogan

PS. Slobbering over Mr. Knight's lover was just plain tacky.

Jack Nichols’ Reply to the Offended ‘Music Maker’:

Dear Rick,

Such a full-metal-jacket blast you've shot at this reviewer--exactly 2 years after his bad review of your CD was published! Indeed, it may have made you feel better to let him have it. So be it.

But may I suggest something that has proven to be practical and that everyone knows (or ought to know in your business) and that is when you get a bad review for ANYTHING, you'd be wise to send the reviewer a "hurt puppy" letter thanking him for his honesty and for time spent reviewing, even though he/she didn't like the material reviewed. It works just great. Ask anybody
in public relations.

At the very least, the reviewer is likely to keep silent on your future efforts. If, on the other hand, you've happened to catch the reviewer on a soft day, the "hurt puppy" letter could often produce a response which might very well be considerably less critical than the original review.

With gargantuan efforts at improving your work, this might even become the case in your relations with your very harshest critic.

The advantage of this might be that the reviewer's second review could possibly contain bare comments or phrases which then could be lifted out of context and included in your publicity releases to make them shine.

What you've done instead, however, is to reply in the manner of a
'pissing-farther' contest, seeing if you could be nastier-to-the-reviewer-than-he-to-thou.

Be sure, therefore, to send your very next album this way to let this reviewer examine your latest output while he recalls all of the ugly things with which you've tried to kick back.

The good part of your getting a bad review, as you noted, is that bad press is better than none at all. You say you've traced a flurry of interest to this review.

Perhaps because you're new at promoting your work, you've failed to realize that when you send a copy to any reviewer--blind to him or to his/her tastes--you take a chance and you must be prepared to live with the consequence of the review. In other words, you asked for it. And when you berate the reviewer--doubting he has any audacity, you should study him better first to know more history of the fellow to whom you speak.

One more thought:

When you come up against harsh criticisms you have a choice.
Gouging the reviewer "an eye for an eye"-- OR instead, learning from his criticisms so that you may possibly improve what you call your art. An evolving artist can learn from his detractors.

Of course, if you feel your art is already perfect, then this last bit of advice will be superfluous.

Your friend, Maren Hogan, wrote me an angry letter similar to yours, incidentally. I hope you'll share these thoughts with him because he's a musician too--and he needs to know a little more than he does about business etiquette.

I wish both of you much future success, happiness, and deep-felt satisfaction in your musical work and in your personal relationships.

Warmest regards,
Jack Nichols

‘Music Maker’s’ Last Words on the Subject:

I appreciate the sentiment of the benefits of kissing up but it would predicate me having respect for the reviewer in the first place which I adamantly do not. As I indicated before, if there was legitimate and professional criticism found in your rant, I would've been fine with it. "Hurt puppy" isn't my style and I'll save your e-mail as an example of what occurs as a thinly veiled threat, just further evidence that you prefer not to evaluate objectively.

It took me two years to discover that you'd even written the thing so I don't expect you are any more a viable commodity than I am. I stand by my chastisement of your reviewing style. You have done me and the gay community a disservice and all you have to say for it is "you asked for it." It is quite unattractive but so very typical of the rampant number of people in our sad community suffering from utter bitterness.

I can't say I wish you well professionally, considering your M.O. but I wish you well mental-health-wise because it is quite evident in all I've read so far that there are issues of inadequacy that you seem to think you'll raise by pummeling others. The professional version of the playground bully.

Maybe "this reviewer" needs to see a shrink.

Last words on the subject. Anything else is pointless.

Rick Knight