Re: Prog definition in Mojo

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:34:44 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
<ssully@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>sdavmor <sdavmor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> I like the Glam and Punk issues a lot. Gotta get the Psychedelia one.
>> They make great bathroom reading material.

You said it, not me. I rest my case.

>Capo seems miffed that a mag might want to sell issues.

No - "guitar accessory" here seems miffed when supposed "reputable"
journals (continually) print obvious mistakes that make one question
why they should be taken very seriously to begin with (or at the very
least, seriously wonder about their proofreading and editorial
skills.)

>That aside, Mojo's articles hardly strike me as slap-up jobs generally,
>either here or in their regular issues.

Seeing as how the vast majority of the content of their specials are
merely recycled bits and pieces from previous issues of the regular
mag, I shudder to think how you *do* define "slap-up job".

>Their 'sloppy mistakes' tend to be of a sort that only a fervent fan would notice.

In some cases, that's true. (The current - or maybe last, now -
regular issue comes to mind, where Daevid Allen is identified as Hugh
Hopper in an SM photo - on the same page where there IS a picture of
Hugh Hopper, no less.)

However, calling Vanilla Fudge a trio - I'm sorry - that's some
embarassing *** for a magazine like that. And the Mick Karn note was
pretty pathetic, too. I mean, how hard can it BE to just pick up a CD
and look at it? (For that matter, they could checked out a VF cover
while they were at it...)

The all time winner to beat in the photo sweepstakes, however, is and
always shall be from one of the Lennon tributes a few years back, in
the Albert Goldman article, where, spread across two pages, they have
a picture of Janis Joplin herself with ol' Albert himself. Grossman,
that is. Priceless.
.