there was a special music issue of "the nation" called "the national entertainment state III: who controls the music?" (aug 25/sept 1). then, the issue with the letters column about the music issue was called "saving the global economy" (dec 15). here's the transcription of Johnny's letter(submitted by Laura Weinstein and Gail Kramer):

Congratulations on your excellent coverage of the bottom-line-driven machinations of the corporate music industry. As a musician struggling to make a living in part through dealings with the big six giants, I well appreciate the descriptions of the cultural corruption propagated by these behemoths. I was confused, therefore, by Armond White's call for a market- based resolution to the racism rampant in the mainstream music press. His suggestion that music media coverage be determined by sales figures belies a disturbing reverence for the marketplace that renders artistic achievement moot.

I, too, prefer Li'l Kim to Hanson, but let's not overlook the corporate devices that deliver both to our record stores. In White's world of fair play, only the most commercially successful musical groups qualify for media attention; most musicans working with independent labels would be railroaded out of the magazines.

While Spin, Rolling Stone and Entertainment Weekly could go a long way toward repairing their obvious favoritism toward white artists, editorial subjectivity in and of itself is not the monkey wrench. I first appreciated Spin's editorial independence last year when my commercially "unproven" band was given a full page in the review of the year's forty most "vital" artists. Had sales dictated this compilation of musicians, many of the artists, certainly all of the independent ones, would have been excluded, and the readers would have been left to pore over more stories about bland acts regurgitating current trends - remember Milli Vanilli? Black, white, yellow or brown, massive sales do not make a group musically relevant.

Johnny Temple
Girls Against Boys
New York City

Back