Jan 26, 2022Liked by Mitch Blum, CJ Kaplan, Ken Warshaw
I loved (and cringed at) Ken's story. This was a lovely post.
My question though is about Mitch's response. Your entire riff seemed to be making fun of BJ, and comparing them to the worst candies in the world. Then, without any counterargument to the "they are terrible in so many ways" screed, you just say "yes, it's in." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I would be curious to know why, after so many deprecatory comments about the crappy lyrics and filler songs (which are usually death knells), this album gets a pass. Just cause NJ?
BTW, I love the game and the saga, and always look forward to getting a new EONS in my inbox. Hope I'm not sounding shitty or nit-picky above, just genuinely curious.
Thank you, David, I would love this opportunity to expound upon my voting methodology.
I listen to the album, in order, several times before making any notes. I then break the songs into 3 groups: killer, good filler, and bad filler. For an album to get in a majority of the filler has to be good, but a key factor are the killer tunes. The more killer tunes on an album the more forgiving I am with the filler tunes. (Also, I try not to ding great songs for being over-played - that's not the song's fault.)
So, let's take "Slippery When Wet". There are 10 songs and I think we can all agree that 4 are excellent: "You Give Love a Bad Name", "Livin' on a Prayer", "Wanted Dead or Alive", and "Never Say Goodbye". That's a "Don't Be Cruel" level performance of 4 killers. Of the 6 remaining tunes we have an even split:
Good filler: Raise Your Hands, Without Love, Wild in the Streets
Bad filler: Let It Rock, Social Disease (extra penalty for the "sexy" intro), I'd Die For You
So it's easy to see why it would get in: an even split of filler plus 4 above-average songs.
Now, on to part 2 of your question: why does my favorable response read like a criticism?
In this case, it's because Ken got way over his skis with the Reese's comparison. In comparative terms, Reese's is at the top of the candy pantheon and Bon Jovi is somewhere in the middle/lower third of the music pantheon. That inequity needed to be addressed.
But most importantly, we have to try to take personal preferences out of the equation as best as we can. We have to acknowledge our biases and try to respect the argument that the pitcher is making. A great pitch should convince us to let in albums that don't fit our personal tastes, especially if you're like me and you tend to like arty, psychedelic music.
Thanks for your kind words and for reading and commenting.
Thank you David. We appreciate your comments and your kind words. I just want to point out it was my cringe-worthy story about the concert and not Ken's. Although I'm sure Ken has his own testicle-shrinking tales to impart, this was my (and my brother's) cross to bear. Thanks again for reading.
I loved (and cringed at) Ken's story. This was a lovely post.
My question though is about Mitch's response. Your entire riff seemed to be making fun of BJ, and comparing them to the worst candies in the world. Then, without any counterargument to the "they are terrible in so many ways" screed, you just say "yes, it's in." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I would be curious to know why, after so many deprecatory comments about the crappy lyrics and filler songs (which are usually death knells), this album gets a pass. Just cause NJ?
BTW, I love the game and the saga, and always look forward to getting a new EONS in my inbox. Hope I'm not sounding shitty or nit-picky above, just genuinely curious.
Keep it up.
David in California
Thank you, David, I would love this opportunity to expound upon my voting methodology.
I listen to the album, in order, several times before making any notes. I then break the songs into 3 groups: killer, good filler, and bad filler. For an album to get in a majority of the filler has to be good, but a key factor are the killer tunes. The more killer tunes on an album the more forgiving I am with the filler tunes. (Also, I try not to ding great songs for being over-played - that's not the song's fault.)
So, let's take "Slippery When Wet". There are 10 songs and I think we can all agree that 4 are excellent: "You Give Love a Bad Name", "Livin' on a Prayer", "Wanted Dead or Alive", and "Never Say Goodbye". That's a "Don't Be Cruel" level performance of 4 killers. Of the 6 remaining tunes we have an even split:
Good filler: Raise Your Hands, Without Love, Wild in the Streets
Bad filler: Let It Rock, Social Disease (extra penalty for the "sexy" intro), I'd Die For You
So it's easy to see why it would get in: an even split of filler plus 4 above-average songs.
Now, on to part 2 of your question: why does my favorable response read like a criticism?
In this case, it's because Ken got way over his skis with the Reese's comparison. In comparative terms, Reese's is at the top of the candy pantheon and Bon Jovi is somewhere in the middle/lower third of the music pantheon. That inequity needed to be addressed.
But most importantly, we have to try to take personal preferences out of the equation as best as we can. We have to acknowledge our biases and try to respect the argument that the pitcher is making. A great pitch should convince us to let in albums that don't fit our personal tastes, especially if you're like me and you tend to like arty, psychedelic music.
Thanks for your kind words and for reading and commenting.
Thank you David. We appreciate your comments and your kind words. I just want to point out it was my cringe-worthy story about the concert and not Ken's. Although I'm sure Ken has his own testicle-shrinking tales to impart, this was my (and my brother's) cross to bear. Thanks again for reading.
...and in Boston "docked" is pronounced "dawked" and "Worcester" is pronounced "Wistah".
You had me at Bon Jovi, lads.
Ken just called Bobby deranged