LETTERS

LETTERS

Please send your letters to: Mail Dept., CREEM Magazine P.O. Box P-1064 Birmingham, Ml 48012.

HUBBA!

Hi! I’m a girl from Sweden and I’d like you to write to me! I’m 18 years old and I listen to all sorts of rock ’n’ roll music from the Beatles to Springsteen! Write to: Towe Soderberg Karlsgatan 27A 72214 Vastera Sweden

BROKEN HEARTED AGAIN New Year’s Eve. Down here in Lonesome Town all is quiet and sullen. Today, someone has managed to change the whole shebang. Pulled the plug and rug out. Took from us one hell of a Teenage Idol. Rick Nelson.

This probably won’t mean much to your average CREEM reader, who—like most—lumps Rick together with the rest of the Villains of ’50s rock (Fabian, Avalon, Pat Boone, Paul Anka, etc.).

Well, I’m here to set the record straight. Rick was a rocker. His earliest works are some of the most passionate sides by any hepcat, runnin’ the gamut from rockabilly to rippin’ R & B and everything in between. Just bend an ear to songs like “Stood Up,” “Waitin’ In School” and “Shirley Lee” and tell me the kid couldn’t rock with the best of ’em!

Even more amazing is that Rick and his combo could handle the rockers with a two-fisted punch and still have enough heart left for the slow stuff. And the fact can’t be denied that he dished out the ballads with the same emotion that went into the making of his rock ’n’ roll material. Heck, I’d rather listen to “Travellin’ Man” anyday than a thousand “Careless Whispers.”

It’s a shame that today’s youth follow the likes of Duran Duran and Family Ties when they could be listening to Ricky Sings Again! and watching The Adventures Of Ozzie & Harriet. One needn’t have grown up with Rick Nelson to enjoy his records. All that’s needed is an appreciation of good old rock ’n’ roll. Bob Matonis St. Louis, MO

HAIR RAISING FACTS!

I have a news flash that the Heee Desk missed: not only is CREEM back (better than ever), but so is Quiet Riot. Yes, boys and girls, they are recording a new album (be still, my heart). Now, after spending several months with neither Richard Riegel nor Kevin DuBrowto kick around, I have them both back. What more could a girl want from life?? Except perhaps lots of cash and Gene Simmons’s body?

I think I like the new format, but have you done away with heavy metal completely? (You wish.) Give us at least a little every month—I need a giggle or two every now and then.

Speaking of giggles: the Liz Derringer interview with Mark Knopfler was a great idea, but next time send a mature adult. You could hear her giggling all the way through the interview. (Ah, shucks Mark, tee-hee.)

A last quick note to Richard Riegel re: his review of John Cougar Mellencamp’s Scarecrow. I have lived in the Midwest all my life and I have never met anyone named Justice, Independence or Nation and I doubt that he has either.

Sharon K. Tackett

Columbus, OH

FISH FRY STILL P’OCEEDING!

This isn’t one of those l-hope-youprint-this-letters. I’m just in the middle of typing up job applications, listening to “Wonder, Wonderful, Wonderland” by Plasticland, and vaguely pondering what

I just finished reading in CREEM’s March ’86 issue. Dave DiMartino, amongst other once-admired critics, seems to be veering toward MTV-type rock in his personal tastes, or at least a lot of shiny and bland stuff—tolerating Van Halen, Madonna, etc.

I remember the days when CREEM ripped apart bonehead, MOR, corporate rock, etc., and in every issue there was loads of information on truly exciting and/or new rock ’n’ roll that was written by people who had a deep understanding of the history and possibilities of rock. CREEM actually had lengthy color Liverpool psychedelia LONG before “New Music” became popular in malls, (non-disco, non-heavy metal, non-blandL.A.-rock, non-Lionel Ritchie/Barry Manilow-type-just-plain-stupid-musicmade-purely-for-money). I used to be able to read CREEM and find out a lot more about rock history, about great new bands (and not-so-great new bands) that were touring the U.S. or making records not available in the U.S. Because of CREEM and the few times I obtained the New Musical Express, I was able to get “into” the Clash in 78, then ska, then the Undertones, the Echo, the U2, etc. (all pre-’81)...l guess what I’m trying to say is that I wish you took more chances and had more extensive coverage of what’s happening in “underground,” on indie labels or imports I am missing out on. More background on new bands, etc.—or is rock in such a sorry state that there’s not much new? I want to read about groups like James, the Cult, Plasticland, Violent Femmes, more on the Unclaimed, Vipers, Fuzztones, Toy Dolls, Replacements, Mosquitoes, Del Amitri, Feargal Sharkey, Julian Cope—I haven’t even heard some of these groups/people. I wish I could just turn on my radio and hear new exciting sounds (though I’ll admit it isn’t all great, it sure beats hearing “Jump” by Van Halen for the 468th time, some old Eagles number, and blah music by Night Ranger or Scritti Politti or Phil Collins)—enough about the radio—the point is: CREEM is already far better than any mag I’m able to get a hold of (wish I could find NME and Jamming, though). Just keep improving, please. The article on ’60s/Psychedelia was great; so was the Smiths article in the Feb. issue. I’ve been (almost too much so) in love with the ’60s since 1974 when I was 12. A lot of cynical rock writers have written off the Beatles because they seem commercial or too Monkee-like or conventional or whatever—I get a lot of flak from friends who think they’re hip—they roll their eyes because I think the Beatles were one of the greatest bands ever (actually the greatest). Don’t forget that they were extremely influential, controversial, intellegent, and COOL in the ’60s. The Stones were great; the Who were great; so were the Byrds, Doors, Hendrix, Love, Yardbirds, etc., but the Beatles paved the way—the Stones were initially just a blacker, meaner, version of the Beatles. Anyway, the Beatles were fucking brilliant—they just seem a bit bland now because the same 20 songs get played over and over on the radio, and they weren’t as shrewd as the Stones about maintaining a cool image. The Beatles were even great LIVE (yes!!!). I’ve seen some incredible old films of them—they sucked in America and Japan, mainly because they didn’t give a damn, but some of the European performances were A-OK, though never as exciting as the Who, and the Hamburg tapes are as ferocious as the early Clash or even Black Flag (listen to Hamburg version of “Long Tall Sally” in the dark—more exciting than Springsteen even, and a hell of a lot less self-conscious and less pretentious). I used to thrilled by Bruce, but now he’s all serious and doing what his groupies Jon Landau and Dave Marsh have designed for him to do and obviously trying to play all his cards right so he’ll become a LEGEND, no matter how contrived his music gets, and dressing like a dumb chauvinistic American Hero and using the stars and stripes to win the masses—he was already a legend—why’d he have to resort to all this nonsense and why have the rock writers licked it all up and called him everything short of a saint??? Hey, it even bugs me when John Lennon gets overly praised, though that’s never happened in CREEM. CREEM’s thrown a lot of shit his way. Tell Bill Holdship to do an article on Lennon, (I like the way you write, Bill), assessing his music and his character—good and bad...other writers always concentrated on the peace (anybody can be for peace) and Beatlemania stuff—what was his actual relevence and what made him tick? That’s open for debate, I suppose—I know he’s easily hated. I guess my opinion is that he was often an asshole, but was also incredibly endearing and unique. My guess is that he’ll probably be surpassed in fame and “legend” status by a lot of other rockers, including Springsteen, but that’s because more than any other rocker or star or famous person, Lennon was the “real genuine” article, whatever that means. Elvis in his Sun period is the only other person I can think of, or maybe the way Woody Allen comes across in his films..! don’t know, what was unique and great about Lennon is so subtle and delicate (?) and relevent and “idealistic” that it can’t be articulated or sold the way Elvis and Springsteen are. Oh well, who cares? I appreciate him and that’s good enough. MASSIVE THANKS FOR READING THIS. More ’60s, more Smiths, more humor, less MTV glamour kings and queens, MORE ALBUM REVIEWS! How can I hear the Chesterfield Kings and the Mosquitoes?

FINE WHINE, INDEED

After reading Jim Farber’s review of Here’s To Future Days by the Thompson Twins I had to write. Before he even started the actual review he had the Twins nailed to the wall! I also enjoyed the comment on their performance at Live Aid being a genuine hilarity. I, considering myself one of their greatest fans, am not ashamed to say that the sound system was not all that great. But I should state that I have the right to make a comparison. I’ve seen the Twins twice in concert and I must admit that they put on a helluva show.

Mr. Farber should realize that the Thompson Twins are like fine wine...they become better with age. It’s obvious that Jim is no expert on fine wine—he’s already an expert on writing rancid record reviews! A little advice, Jim: If you’re going to write a record review, do it right; instead of trying to knock a good band down a few hundred pegs because of some silly prejudices that you conjure up in your feeble head.

T.A.J.

New Windsor, NY

Coleen Toews

Reedly, CA