It’s been more than a year since I’ve posted any kind of “letters” section to EAR CANDY. This is not because we don’t get letters (we do) – it is simply because 99% of them are complementary and I figure why bore the readers with what I already know? The remaining 1% are complaint letters, normally someone who doesn’t like their review, even though our review policy is posted on the EAR CANDY site and I thought the disclaimer was pretty straight-forward (I’ve even “dumbed” it down from what it used to say) and easy to understand (bad assumption on my part, I guess!).

I recently got two diametrically opposite letters within days of each other. Both pertained to books that we had reviewed – but while one was intelligent and thoughtful, the other was hateful and spiteful. Anyway, I’ll show them both for your enjoyment.

And of course I will respond to the many errors in the “spiteful” letter!

HERE’S THE FIRST LETTER:
(Click here for the review in question)

Sat, 30 Apr 2005 05:39:17 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
From: crimson3@mindspring.com
To: "EAR CANDY"
Subject: Re: Badfinger

Ronnie:

Thanks so much. That was one of the best reviews I've had because it was energetic, enthusiastic, and accurate in a concise readable format. I've had many other reviews that labored on their background for 10 paragraphs before they actually talked about the book and what was in it. These days, people who read books just want to get down to business and know if a book is worth reading and the main points as to why.

May I reprint the review on my reviews page and I'll put a link to your website.

Dan Matovina

HERE’S THE SECOND LETTER:
(Click here for the review in question)

Mon, 2 May 2005 00:59:09 -0400
From: "fairchild@frontiernet.net"

To: "EAR CANDY"
Subject: Re: "Rock Prophecy" publicist?

Although your review is obtuse and incorrect, and although you misrepresented yourself with this email below offering "publicist work," it doesn't matter because you're such an uninteresting and unintelligent person that only low brows would tolerate your so-called "reviews."

If you had waitied a week for my answers to your questions you would have seen that nothing of what I'm doing is directed at "Hendrix fans" anyway. You will see us transfer these perceptions to a general audience. And the reason I distinguish Jane Reynolds as "Japanese American" is because she is not a blood relative of Jimi's, that phrase conveys that to listeners. The fact is that a high percentage of any general audience responds when the insights are explained to them, and I will be doing this long after your pathetic website is off line.

As dominator conformist you are obliged to not reply to this, so don't bother...dumb dullard.

MY RESPONSE:

Ahh, where to start? Spelling errors aside, I guess I’ll start with the obvious “obtuse” errors in his letter.

1. No, I never offer “publicist work”. EAR CANDY is not a PR firm and I have no idea where you made that jump in logic. Yes, you get "publicity" when we write about your creation, whether the outcome be good or bad. But remember, Andrew Loog Oldham said that there's no such thing as bad publicity! When I first contact a publisher about reviewing a book I always put the title of the book along with “publicist?” in the title. This goes for band, movie, book, etc. It is a general term used to describe the "managers" of such artists. I used the same subject line for ROCK PROPHECY that I do for every introductory e-mail:

Subject: "Rock Prophecy" publicist?

In my opening statement to Mikey, I said the following:

We are interested in reviewing your book, "Rock Prophecy" and your DVD "Rockprophecy Rockumentary" for an upcoming issue. Can we get review copies?

There is nothing here about doing “publicist work”? Where the hell did that come from? Yes, we are a music/pop culture internet magazine and I guess we offer "publicity" in that we write about such things, but EAR CANDY is NOT in the business to "pad your artistic resume".

2. Mikey’s statement that I was not aware that ROCK PROPHECY was not directed at Hendrix fans is also incorrect. On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 we discussed his book and the fact that it was not directed at “Hendrix Fans”. Also notice how he slickly avoids the question of his repeated racism in his book with the oft-repeated "Japanese American" description of Jimi's sister.

3. I was more than patient in waiting for his answers to the interview questions, with repeated follow-up e-mails stating the upcoming deadline. The questions were first sent to Mikey on Sun, 17 Apr 2005. That is way more than “a week” like he claims. Maybe I missed the part of the book that talked about the new ROCK PROPHECY MATH SYSTEM. Then on Fri, 22 Apr 2005 I wrote again to remind him of the deadline. Finally, I did not recieve a response from him until the day after it went to press. Were you also not able to follow such simple deadlines when you worked for the Hendrix company?

Other observations about his letter:

4) Calling me "incorrect and obtuse" (though not explaining on what points I was wrong). Obtuse evidentially = anybody who disagrees with him.

5) "I'll be around much longer than your website ergo my point of view must be correct" (also known as the Strom Thurmond argument...). If his point of view somehow manages to outlast cnn.com, that would make CNN wrong too right?

6) Calling me a "dumb dullard": I guess that wouldn't apply to knowing the difference between you and the person who criticized his beliefs, or to even being able to rationally counter arguments given to his "beliefs".

7) "A high percentage of my audience responds". A high percentage of an audience respond (or responded) to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Charles Manson or MTV. The fact that others might believe as you do does not automatically make your viewpoint correct. Once upon a time a large number of people believed the Earth was flat.

8) A "dominator conformist" would try to force his point of views on others without taking any criticism of his ideas from others. For example, say a person had a theory that Jimi Hendrix predicted a meteor collision with the Earth in 2013 resorted to name calling and refused to answer reasonable questions about his beliefs. Such tactics come much closer to "dominator conformist" tactics than a few reasonable questions. Such tactics work too; just ask the people mentioned in #7 above.

9) Finally, I guess that Mikey will be the one laughing when the meteorite smashes the earth killing all the incorrect obtuse dominator conformist dumb dullards with it (excluding the high percentage of his audience that responds....).

(Thinking out loud) "Hmm…I wonder if it ever occurred to Michael that maybe the real reason that he wasn’t given charge of the Hendrix company was that they realized what a fucking flake he was?" Who wants to have a certifiable loon as the head of something as important as Jimi Henrix’s legacy? It’s like having Charles Manson in charge of Apple Records, with press releases constantly interpreting the Beatles lyrics. If I recall, Charlie also spoke of the Beatles records telling of an impending armageddon.

Speaking of which, I casually went through all the lyrics to the Beatles songs and I found that THEY foretold of an asteroid collision BEFORE Jimi did! So, in an upcoming issue of EAR CANDY we will have…THE BEATLES PROPHECY!

Evidently, Mikey follows the same modus operandi with anyone who dares to question his "theories". Case in point is the Michael Fairchild/Wallyrus debate.

Finally (and since Mikey loves timelines so much), let me point out that I didn't create the Michael Fairchild parody until AFTER I got his lovely, adoring rant!

It's alright Mikey, I accept all of your faults. Especially since you have given us so much entertainment value here at EAR CANDY!