To the editors:
Critic /’krit.ik/ n. 1: one skilled in judging literary or artistic works. 2: one inclined to find fault.–Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 42ed.
Does Bill Wyman like anything at all about the music on which he is supposedly an authority?
In all the years that I’ve been reading his column in the paper, I have yet to hear him give a positive review to a single band, artist, recording, or tour. Last week’s column [“Lollapaloser,” August 28] was a slam on Lollapalooza. A few issues ago he ripped Springsteen’s new albums. Slams on megastars like Madonna, U2, and Michael Jackson pop up harshly every month or so (as a matter of fact it’s as if the popularity of the star is in direct proportion to the brutality of the rip).
It seems to me that Mr. Wyman has lost sight of the fact that definition number 1 of the word “critic” in Webster’s dictionary comes first and foremost before definition number 2.
But as not to come off as too acerbic, I will give Mr. Wyman’s opinions and his choice of vocation as a rock critic the benefit of the doubt.
Maybe his copy of Webster’s is misprinted–a large smear of black ink, perhaps, covering that number 1 definition. Or maybe Mr. Wyman fancies himself an expert on rock because he shares a common name with a certain famous stoic rock bassist.
Whatever the case may be, I was dismayed to see that the Reader is giving Mr. Wyman a brand-new music column called “Hitsville.”
Maybe the Reader could give me a column in which I critique some genre that I hate but on which I am supposedly an expert. The column could be called something like, “Battery Acid Enema-ville,” or, “Raw Rat Droppings Sandwich-ville.” Whatever title or subject matter is chosen for my column, in view of Mr. Wyman’s past writings, I am sure that the resulting opinions of both his and my new columns will be practically indistinguishable.