BOC: "Dick" Meltzer

[Andy Gilham]

John

Well, it's obvious you were upset by the Richard Meltzer piece, and
obviously I respect your feelings - but, maybe because I'm just a horrible
person, I don't share them, and indeed can barely understand them.  It's
curious to me that given Meltzer's historical importance to BOC - according
to the story, he's the guy that put the dots on the O! - you're immediately
prepared to diss him.  Is it through a sense that he's "broken ranks"; "let
the side down"?  It's uncharacteristic of you to insult someone, let alone
without explaining why.

Anyway, I'm not here to defend Meltzer - he doesn't need it and wouldn't
welcome it anyway.  But I'll try and explain how I saw the piece.

First off, it clearly wasn't a gig review.  It was a piece about Meltzer
confronting some demons from his past, and trying to come to terms with
them.  At which, as we see, he wasn't entirely successful.  It's also
written from a tradition of guerrilla journalism that includes such
luminaries as Hunter S Thompson, and I suppose to someone unfamiliar with
that school it might seem a bit too in-yer-face.  Me, I found it scurrilous,
and scurrilous makes me laugh.  Like I said, maybe I'm horrible.

As for these "allegations", like Allen in rehab - certainly plausible, but
I've no idea whether it's true, or simply his own jaundiced interpretation
of reports of Allen's illness.  Could be either, and I certainly wouldn't
take his word for it, given his clearly expressed rancour towards Allen.
But we're also getting into areas like, what's a legitimate topic for
journalism?  If it was some other group in question, like, let's say, the
generally-despised Boston, would you be upset?  Is being in rehab anything
to be ashamed of anyway?

I do think you're pushing it when you object to his ridicule of the guy in
the crowd, though!

Meltzer's observations of the show he saw are his own observations, take 'em
or leave 'em.  Surely what he was getting at with the "grin for fucking
grin" stuff was that it was pretty much unchanged from the shows he recalls.
(And he obviously doesn't regard "fucking" as a particularly strong word -
he's expressing amazement, not cursing or being insulting.)  He's not a fan,
of course, and he hasn't been following them for years, so you wouldn't
expect him to be sensitive to nuances.  I thought his line about "good-time
music" was spot-on, and summed up both what's good and what's frustrating
about BOC: they still can put on a bloody good show (as you'd hope from such
seasoned professionals), but it's an essentially static act that's not
pushing any boundaries.

And then, of course, the Roeser wedding incident.  I'm reading between the
lines a bit here, but I think that maybe he really did have trouble
understanding how offensive he'd been.  I'm sure Meltzer's behaved far worse
many times, and each time it's been no big deal; in the annals of
rock'n'roll excess, it's really very low on the scale.  But what's revealing
is that Don's private life wasn't the time or the place for rock'n'roll
excess.

I enjoyed the piece because it was interesting, and because it was written
with passion.  And, yes, having followed this band for over twenty years, I
am interested in the personalities behind the music.  Even if they're not
very nice ones!

- Andy

mailto:Andy.Gilham at btinternet.com; http://www.btinternet.com/~andy.gilham