I have a pulse. I’m tired of being a punching bag. Time to hit back.
I have a huge amount of respect for Carrie Underwood. I have a huge amount of respect for the majority of Carrie Underwood’s fans. But there’s a group of them who impress me as genuinely mean-spirited and hateful people. This group, who I’ll refer to here as Carrie’s Cult (per their unfounded accusations) consistently spread defamatory claims and personal attacks across the comment sections and forums of various web publications and websites–claims and accusations which cross the line of civilized debate. Claims and accusations of a type that I’m most certain their idol wouldn’t approve of.
Most recently, The 9513’s review of Carrie’s “Undo It” has stirred up a big vat of vile, and I’ve been the victim of yet more berating even though I didn’t write the review. Apparently, any negative review of Underwood by any of our one-dozen writers is a valid opportunity to talk about how evil and unethical I am.
The problem, of course, is that there’s absolutely no evidence to support the Cult’s claims and accusations. And I thought I’d take the opportunity here to clear up some misconceptions that certain people apparently have about me and the work that I do.
The text quoted here was taken from a post made by “davilas” on a Carrie Underwood fan site, and the full text can be found here. Davilas is a Carrie fanatic who also goes by the screen name “Dudley,” and who moderates a portion of the popular Pule Music web forum, where my application to join (new signups are moderated) was rejected. Since the Cult isn’t interested in actually engaging me in debate, but rather in slinging arrows from behind shields, I’ll post my reply on this blog.
> They [The 9513] will post about Carrie because Jim Malec wants the hits. He admitted this back before the blog’s Carrie reviews got pointless.
You don’t have to be Einstein to know that every publication wants readers. But I’m dumbfounded by the implication that we wouldn’t review Carrie Underwood’s music. Are Carrie’s fans really implying that The 9513 (or any publication) should only review music and artists its writers think positively of? Or are they implying that because our writers often find faults and weaknesses in Underwood’s music that those writers are incapable of being fair-minded? Are they really willing to go down a path of logic that implies any criticism must be possessed of ulterior motives?
Of course we want hits, you spaghetti brains. We cover country music. Why would we not cover Carrie Underwood?
But that fact is unrelated to the way in which we cover Ms. Underwood, and I daresay we would win more popularity points if we took a more positive stand on her music. I think our audience would be wider than it is if we fawned over country’s glamor girls (and boys). I think we’d be more popular if we played to the mainstream, country radio line. The fact that our reviews often criticize Underwood’s music makes it harder for us to appeal to a mainstream audience.
It would make no sense from a business or editorial standpoint for us to ignore Underwood’s music.
Of course, the Cult disagrees with this because they have this adamant belief that there’s bloc of “Carrie Haters” in society who are jealous of her beauty and success. To the Cult, our negative reviews are part of this vast conspiracy to attack and undermine the success of an artist who we deem unworthy.
Please guys, don’t drink any Kool-Aid.
> Somebody once commented on a negative review of Kellie Pickler’s album or single at the 9513 saying he’d rather rely on a professional critic. That got Jim Malec all in a huff because he was all “I AM a professional critic”. His justification for that was that his reviews appeared in the Riverfront Times which isn’t even the main newspaper in St Louis. Nothing wrong with that but the incident proved how Jim’s VERY sensitive about being taken seriously. That’s why people should laugh at him instead of getting angry with him IF they pay attention to him.
I hope that some Carrie fan (or Kellie fan) who reads this message can pull the specific quotes to which the above refers–because I can’t remember it, and I can’t find it on Google or through our internal site search. That said, who wouldn’t want to be taken seriously?
Every day, New Media writers struggle against what I can the “guy with the keyboard” prejudice. Readers who disagree with us assume we are unqualified hacks hiding behind the internet’s provided anonymity. To them, I’m just a guy with a keyboard.
I’ve been guilty of deep sensitivity to that at times. Who wouldn’t be? Would you like it if I walked in to your workplace and started complaining about how you aren’t qualified to do your job? And what if you had spent a good portion of your life gaining the experience and developing the skills required to do the job? You’d probably ignore me at first, but after months and months of my unfounded berating, you’d start to get a little bit annoyed.
So here’s the rule I wish the Cult would follow: If you don’t like what I have to say, offer a rebuttal. But choosing to go personal, attacking my qualifications and implying that I’m acting unethically is childish.
Such is it with New Media, however; I should probably never reply to these folks. I should, and do feel confident, allowing my work to stand on its own. But ask any writer who publishes online about the temptation to defend his work in the face of what he sees as grossly unfair and deeply personal attacks. It’s so easy to get sucked into your own comment section.
I don’t think there’s a writer worth his salt who wouldn’t welcome well-reasoned criticism of his work, but these people go more than a step beyond “well-reasoned criticism.”
> That having been said let’s be fair and admit the 9513 is a blog that’s getting more attention these days.
Actually, The 9513 has been growing steadily for the past three years. “These days” is a bit of an understatement.
> But it’s being carried by new writers, Blake being the best of them.
Let’s clear something up. Blake Boldt is a phenomenal writer. I’m so glad to have him as part of our team at The 9513. We’re really lucky. But Blake joined our team in late 2009, and he has written a total of 12 out of the 2500 articles we’ve published to date. His first was in November of 2009, which was a review of Carrie’s album Play On.
Blake Boldt is a huge asset to us. I love that guy. I am so proud of him. But the implication that he alone is the driving force behind our success is an insult to our fantastic team of writers–the vast majority of whom (with only three or four exceptions) have been with us for over a year, if not longer. Every writer on my team makes essential contributions. Every writer on my team offers insightful criticism.
Carrie’s Cult just doesn’t have the ability to respectfully disagree with that insightful criticism. They liked what Blake wrote, more or less, so he’s the good guy. They don’t like me, so I’m the bad guy. There’s no middle ground. And you know what? That’s OK. They’re entitled to their own opinions. It’s just too bad those opinions are based solely on gut feeling as opposed to even the slightest amount of even-tempered reasoning.
> Jim Malec’s reviews give me 2nd hand embarrassment. He’ll bend over backwards and then get all pretzel like to explain why outright mistakes in Taylor’s songs like the scarlet letter in Love Story make her more authentic
Here’s what I wrote in my “Love Story” review:
“Likewise, when Swift refers to herself as a “scarlet letter,” she’s not literally branding herself an adulterer (the phrase is a reference to Nathaniel Hawthorne’s 1850 novel of the same name), but comparing herself to forbidden fruit; like Hawthorne’s Hester Prynne, who wore a scarlet ‘A’ on her chest to signify her sin, the narrator in “Love Story” is “off limits,” desirable but forbidden by her social enclave (in this case, the narrator’s family, or, more specifically, her father).”
I’ve taken a lot of criticism from the “Taylor Sucks!” camp for my “Love Story” review, but I stand behind every word of it. And I’d like someone to explain to me what part of what I wrote is pretzel-like.
Pretzel? Bending? Give me a break. Agree with me or disagree with me, what I wrote is not crazy. A reader’s inability to accept the possibility that literary symbols are applicable in a number of ways doesn’t mean that my observation of that possibility is crazy.
Here’s a follow up from the comments section of that review:
“The scarlet letter that is referenced is the object, not the work. Objects, as symbols, carry meaning and elicit reaction, and I think it’s clear what the symbol means in this case (as noted in my review).”
Maybe my theory is right, maybe my theory is wrong, but having a theory doesn’t mean you’re pretzeling.
> and he’s become a champion of every female on country radio who isn’t Carrie.
Yeah, I would definitely refer to these recent reviews as “championing:”
http://www.the9513.com/the-janedear-girls-wildflower/
http://www.the9513.com/the-band-perry-hip-to-my-heart/
http://www.the9513.com/lee-ann-womack-there-is-a-god/
http://www.the9513.com/reba-mcentire-consider-me-gone/
> His newest review is a funny one where he actually says Kellie’s done a “superb” job picking her material unlike some of her peers and it’s VERY clear that’s a reference to Carrie.
Or, it could be a VERY clear reference to Carmen Rasmusen, whose career tanked out of the gate.
> Jim once wrote an article about how Miranda’s overrated
An article, written in 2007, that included the following:
“she’s good. She’s damn good. She might even be great. But we don’t know that yet, because she’s only released two albums”
“Kerosene was a solid record which featured truly excellent songwriting. “Mama, I’m Alright”, “What About Georgia” and “Me And Charlie Talkin’” all make use of specific, concrete imagery and sharp, poignant storytelling, while songs like “There’s A Wall” and “Love Your Memory”, while not necessarily brilliant or groundbreaking in any sense, are still both tightly constructed melodically and focused lyrically.”
“Kerosene shows the complicated emotional conflict of a young woman striking out on her own; there is sensitivity and fear evident her her lyrics and her voice, and even when she shows her temper (on the title track), it plays more as cute than violent, because we see this woman in the full context of the human condition.”
As you can see, my affection for Lambert is hardly as new as Carrie’s Cult would have you believe. And, as you can see, I noted her potential early on, just like everyone else. What the article in question is very clearly saying is that I didn’t believe she had proved herself worthy of the enormous amount of critical praise she was receiving at the time. Simple.
> but now he slobbers all over her because he realizes he missed the boat on that one and wants to join the cool kids. Not that Miranda doesn’t deserve praise but most of us were way ahead of him on that one. Jim’s just constructed a WEAK argument to act like she didn’t deserve his praise until more recently.
Or, maybe–just maybe–my “weak” argument is actually based on the fact that I think Revolution is a flippin’ fantastic record…one that lives up to all the potential I noted in my earlier reviews of Lambert.
> This is another thing to know about him: when he changes his mind it’s not bc he was ever missing something bc that’s just not possible If he changes his mind he covers it by saying somebody’s finally improved something he’s been saying all along they needed to improve. It’s nice bc that means he’s never wrong
That would be compelling argument if there wasn’t a direct line of consistency through my entire body of work on Miranda Lambert.
> Like at any site the writers at the site set the tone of the comments. Here’s the tone they’ve set at the 9513: all Carrie fans are cult members who can’t take any criticism of her but if you slam her without justifying your opinion that’s AOK. So people like Rick, Stormy, Razor-X, and many more who make mean comments about Carrie without ever bothering to justify their opinions aren’t cult like and stupid, just the Carrie fans.
I think this is an unfair criticism of The 9513. We don’t censor any comments, and I can personally attest that the staff regularly (and publicly) butts heads with all of the above-mentioned commentators.
> Any Carrie fan who does explain his opinion is ignored and they keep calling Carrie fans a cult. I know there are some Carrie fans who make really dumb attacks at that site and it’s embarrassing. I wish they’d realize they’re just feeding into these people’s groupthink.
Again, I offer an invitation. Point me to the well-reasoned defenses of Underwood’s music. Show me the link. Let’s dispense with the empty rhetoric. Show me the links.
> But we could all post the most respectful smart comments in the world and they’d still call Carrie fans a dumb cult. They’ll never change.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. Also pardon me, but where have I called Carrie’s fans a cult?
> Jim Malec’s admitted he’s got different standards for different people.
Any critic who tells you he doesn’t work on some degree of a sliding scale either isn’t being honest with you, or he isn’t being honest with himself. Not one of us is humanly capable of reviewing music on a perfectly level and objective playing field–and that’s a good thing, because music isn’t made by one kind of people for one kind of audience. And it’s also good because critics aren’t, and shouldn’t be, robots.
I don’t personally know of any critic who believes that his or her job is explicitly to define what’s “good music” and what’s “bad music.” Rather, these assessments are incidental ones we make while commenting on the music within a certain context. There’s a reason why you don’t read negative reviews of indie records on The 9513–why would we draw negative attention to an album that most people aren’t going to hear in the first place? An artist has to be observed both in context and in terms of technical proficiency.
Carrie Underwood shouldn’t be discussed in the same context as such an indie artist, because the two don’t occupy the same cultural space. Underwood will sell millions of records and her singles will be heard by millions of listeners. Because of that, the conversation we have about her is fundamentally different than the conversation we have about Jan Doe from Augusta, or the one we have about the new female artist who probably has a less than 10% chance of having a hit at radio. It makes sense, and it is fair, to examine Underwood’s music, and the messages she sends through that music, with the knowledge that she penetrates our culture deeply and across certain demographics.
The fact that Underwood has so much appeal and so deep a cultural reach allows us to examine the state of the genre, the format, the industry and the culture in a way that we couldn’t extrapolate from an indie artist. And, of course, there is the fact that Underwood’s massive appeal means that she has massive influence. It is fair and appropriate to examine how she uses that influence. Does that mean we hold her to a higher standard in some regards? Of course it does.
And one reason why is because when we’re dealing with an artist of Underwood’s stature, questions of symbolism and influence are much more interesting and relevant than the specific nuts and bolts of the music’s mechanics. Everyone knows she’s going to have a #1 and sell millions, so repeating those points in a review would make for a perfunctory read.
And on top of that, the fact that Underwood has $1,000,000 to spend making a record means that we’re going to hear her music differently, and expect different things from it, than a record that cost $50,000 to make. And the fact that she has access the best songs from every songwriter in the world necessitates that we be less forgiving of poor song choices than we are with an artist who doesn’t have such access. If Underwood releases bad songs, it’s not for a lack of potential material. It is fair to comment on what all that says about her as an artist.
All of this doesn’t mean that we, as critics, ignore the faults in other people’s music. But problems with production or song choice are magnified depending on the stature of the artist. To imply that that’s not true is to reduce the job of the critic to that of an underwriter.
> He tries to act like he holds Carrie to a higher standard bc he thinks she’s an iconic talent.
I do, and she is.
> He expects people to accept he’s objective just bc he’s been forced to admit Carrie’s a great singer. In fact in the comments of his TH review he actually acted like Carrie fans should be grateful to him for complimenting Carrie’s improved voice. THAT’S how much of a sense of entitlement he has.
Or maybe I would just appreciate it if Carrie’s Cult would take my words as they’re written. Maybe, just maybe, my comments were to the effect of: “Hey guys, you’re going crazy attacking me for supposedly hating Underwood, even though I just wrote a lot of really nice things about her.”
And it’s pretty crazy, if you ask me, that the role of my public record doesn’t apply two-fold. On one hand, Carrie’s Cult wants to parse my words about Swift and Lambert, putting everything I’ve ever written into play. On the other hand, when it comes to the good things I’ve written about Underwood, they want to dismiss those things and imply that I wasn’t genuine in sentiment. So, it seems to me like their criticisms against my reviews of Underwood are based on arbitrary criteria; they’ll pick out what they think supports their “Jim is the devil” mantra, while acting like any counter-evidence doesn’t merit noting.
How can you possibly debate with someone willing to take that position?
Again, to each his or her own. I don’t have a problem with any of that, except when the attacks become personal and defamatory. What’s next, are they going to call my fiancé ugly? Am I going to read, “Jim Malec is only marrying her because he couldn’t score anyone better?” Where is the line that these people aren’t willing to cross?
> Being objective means being able to step outside your narrow mindset and see what a song’s going for to evaluate it for what it is before you state your opinion about it.
Sometimes a song aims so low that achieving “what it’s going for” is no achievement at all.
> THAT’S what Jim’s incapable of doing with Carrie. He’s got blinders on with her but he’s not smart enough to realize that
And here’s another example of when a fair-minded criticism of my work turns personal. Have I ever called Carrie Underwood “stupid?”
> The 9513 gave JAD a thumbs up from Matt C. (who’s no longer there) but it was 1 of the dumbest reviews ever because Matt C. seriously thought that JAD was literally about a girl who went to a church bc she thought she was getting married but when the doors opened it was all surprise this isn’t a wedding it’s a funeral! Then when people tried to make him see how stupid that interpretation was Matt C blamed the JAD writers for not being clear instead of accepting the responsibility for being THAT stupid But to be fair Matt C’s the guy who thought Carrie should be invited to join the Opry so he wasn’t always that stupid. That JAD review was around when things started getting REALLY bad over there.
OK, so let me get this straight. When a guy writes something bad about Carrie, he’s stupid. When he write something good about Carrie, he’s not stupid. Unless his name is Jim Malec, in which case, he’s still stupid.
Matt C’s “Just a Dream” review dealt with how the language and metaphors in the song were confusing and hard to follow. And he wrote about having the listen to the first verse four times to write a cognate summary of it. He didn’t say, even, that he didn’t understand the song–he said that there were parts of it that were unclear and hard to follow.
Here’s a quote from his review:
“Metaphors aside, the premise of a woman who thinks she’s walking into her wedding actually walking into her lover’s funeral is simply implausible. It’s the kind of implausibility that could be quite startling and memorable if done right, but it’s not done right here. It’s a terrible swing and miss by the writers, but give credit where it’s due: they weren’t afraid to swing for the fences, and Underwood and Bright were willing to record (and release) a risky song that deviates significantly from the Carrie canon and the Carnival Ride fodder.”
Continuing on to another point from the Carrie forums…
> If Carrie ever releases SWISLY as a single Jim Malec won’t be able to help himself, he’ll review it and spend 3/4 of it talking about Carrie and her song selection “issues”. Then he’ll act like Carrie fans should bow at his feet for the 1/4 of the review where he praises the song and says Carrie’s a good technical singer and he’ll throw that review at people as “proof” he’s objective. What it’ll actually be is him doing that thing where he acts like he’s been right all along because Carrie finally released a single that he’s capable of understanding with his narrow mindset and for once Carrie is worthy of a pat on the head (I wonder if he’s even tall enough to reach it ) from the great Jim Malec.
Wow, a height joke. That’s the height of immaturity.
Wake up and grow up.
