BULL!
Re: "Planet Picks: Ride 'Em Cowboy," by Leilani Polk (Feb. 2-8)
I have never understood why women are so attracted to "cowboys." Any man who gets a rise from riding an animal seems to be a bit of a sadistic control freak. How can a woman get off on men who prefer animals beneath them? Give me a compassionate animal lover any day!
Le me explain what happens to the bulls or horses or calves that get roped, chased, smashed to the ground and ridden. Very few vets guard rodeo. Animals are usually hauled off to the glue factory afterward because of various injuries. Why do horses and cows buck in the first place? The are given electric shock, they have caustic ointment put up their anuses and they have their genitals squeezed by straps. I would certainly jump in pain after that. Having a stud muffin on your back doesn't help. Most cows and bulls would rather be grazing in the grass. Not very dramatic, but reality.
The next time you gals get all romantic about a rodeo rider, get your facts straight. Rodeo has always been … cruelty for the buck!
Louise Kahle
St. Petersburg
ROAD RAGE
Re: "The Boys in the Van," by Scott Harrell (Feb. 2-8)
I am a local musician, but I was furious when I saw the cover of this week's paper. The idea of following a band on tour is a good idea, I'll give you that, but my bias aside, at least pick a tour where something happens. I know you were trying to portray a realistic tour, to clear up the misconception of touring rock stars people get from movies, but the Beauvilles? I am not alone when I notice that all the bands that get write-ups [in the Planet] are of a strict taste and a strict group. I just feel like there is a huge buddy-buddy thing going on with you and your bands, and I think the music community as a whole would like to see you open your doors a little. I have enjoyed your paper since I moved here a few years ago, and I think you have a brutally honest opinion on music, which is great, but you've got to stop buttering up the same old bands, please!
Blake Yeager Via e-mail
Scott Harrell responds: Thanks for reading and responding. I don't write about bands because I know members of the bands. I write about bands I think are worthy of the recognition (and there are plenty of bands worthy of recognition that I haven't gotten to yet). I didn't know anyone in either of these bands before I became a fan, but I freely admit that mutual respect and personalities have made me friends with some of them since then. You don't have to like these bands, and it doesn't make your opinion any less valid, but I believe them to be among the dozen or so strongest bands around here. I thought that before I ever met them, and I still think it now. My job causes me to hang around and become friends with tons of musicians. A lot of people I really like are in shitty bands that will never get coverage in the Planet, and most of the local bands I do cover, I meet for the first time when I contact them about doing an interview. Also, I take umbrage with the idea that I only cover a certain type of band. It's simply not true. The cover story came about because of timing. It wasn't about these two particular bands so much as it was about the experience – they just happened to be going out for a short time when I could come along, and I was pretty sure I would get along with everybody involved well enough to get through five days without being left on the side of the road somewhere. Yes, both bands have been featured in the Planet's music section before, but a band profile and a cover story that involves a band are not the same thing. Again, I appreciate the contact; I can always do better, and I'll be on alert to make sure my coverage widens stylistically if you and others think it's too narrow. But assuming I favor my friends is both tacky and baseless; I might as well assume the "real" reason you felt compelled to contact me is that your band or your friend's band hasn't yet gotten the coverage you feel sure it deserves.
This article appears in Feb 16-22, 2005.
