Stephen Lemons of the Phoenix New Times (who it might be worth mentioning is seemingly not above working for a paper that receives a significant amount of revenue from concert promoters adversely affected by the Sound Strike) really is doubling down on his pro-Sound Strike rhetoric today, going after Salon’s interview with Rialto booker Curtis McCrary:
[Full disclosure: I am an occasional freelancer for the Phoenix New Times, and I once worked in the same building as Lemons, but haven’t really met him.]
Music fans are suffering according to Grant and McCrary. Well, bestill my aching liver. The pair should explain their alt-music angst to the Hispanic families that have fled Arizona because of Senate Bill 1070, or the kids whose parents don’t come home at night because they were caught up in Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s anti-immigrant raids and sweeps. And then there are those who’ve suffered severe injury at the hands of the U.S. Border Patrol.
Surely those who die of thirst crossing the Sonoran Desert will feel the agony of all those iPod-bearers who won’t be able to see their fave indie acts while sipping on a delicious micro-brew.
Maybe the immigrant woman whose arm was broken while in MCSO custody will shed a tear for them. The undocumented lady who got her jaw busted during one of Arpaio’s operations? Perhaps she could do a fundraiser for these lame-sters.
Sorry, I have little patience with all this petulant kvetching coming from folks whose main dilemma in life is figuring out which to do first: download a Kings of Leon album, or catch the latest gossip on the FB.
Is that really helpful? Knowing quite a few of the people in this city trying to ward off the boycott, they’re far too busy actually working, trying to keep their businesses open and worrying about their employees to “catch the latest gossip the FB”, but at this point, I guess this what it’s come to. Instead of actually trying to figure out the most effective way to change government policy around here, let’s just broadly characterize each other. Personally, I’ll live if I miss shows by one band or another, I just think the boycott hurts the wrong people, people who didn’t have anything to do with SB 1070.
Instead, Lemons gives Sound Strike organizer Javier Gonzalez a platform to throw the term “hater” around again and lump Cypress Hill not playing Arizona in with the larger economic boycott, so that it can seem like all the effort is worth it. What’s most funny/sad/frustrating to me is when Gonzalez writes that he’s been waiting around for Arizonans to call him about putting together benefit shows. From multiple conversations I’ve had with promoters here, those calls have been coming in since before the election last year, so maybe it’s not that no one is trying to set up shows, but that the Sound Strike isn’t seeing what’s in it for them to make those concerts happen.
I’d love to see fewer border crossing deaths. I’d love to see a sane immigration policy. I’d like to think, however, that we’ll get closer to those goals by doing something, instead of defining the artists’ response as playing San Diego one day sooner and endangering the livelihood of Arizonans who also want Russell Pearce and his ilk to go away.
This article appears in Apr 14-20, 2011.
Actually it’s not too bad an idea to take an i-pod out on Samaritan patrol. It’s a long day. Lots of walking. And waiting. And wondering who’s out there and if you’ll be able to help.
The ‘hipster’ strawman is absurd and reeks of pretension and condescension without a clearly defined target (not a bad way to sum up the strike in general). Who, if not the venues or the people who frequent them, is the strike supposed to affect, thereby leading to all the indirect consequences for the state that justify the whole effort?
Who else even cares?
OK, got it. But Lemons has been performing yeoman’s service in holding Arpaio’s feet to the fire. Have you seen his link to Arpaio’s goons tackling a heckler? He’s also been taking on Pinal County’s mini-me-Babeu and proved that Babeu’s goon Louis Puroll lied about being shot by narcos. So I think he deserves a little slack on Sound Strike.
Freepster, that wasn’t Lemons who investigated Louis Puroll. It was New Times’ veteran Paul Rubin.
@Nintz: My bad; confused two reporters from the same paper. Still, “The Feathered Bastard” has been dishing the dirt on scumbags like Arpaio, his minions, and Babeu, at some risk to himself. Arpaio, after all, makes a habit of arresting people on trumped-up charges.
Nintz is correct. That was Rubin. Also the link Freepster mentions was posted by my colleague James King.
Gibson states that I’m “seemingly not above working for a paper that receives a significant amount of revenue from concert promoters adversely affected by the Sound Strike.”
I am fortunate enough to work for a paper that allows me to express an opinion that may be at variance with advertisers. I think that’s a good thing.
We’re not going to agree on this, obviously. However, there’s a certain myopia that some music critics seem to have, a sort of naval-gazing. There are bigger issues involved here. All I can say is that de la Rocha was doing a lot to help the civil rights struggle in Maricopa County, long before 1070 made it something even music critics could comment upon.
Grrrr — I’m going to quit trying to cite authors. I’m clearly not paying enough attention to the details of the bylines. Mea culpa for not pursuing a journalism degree.
Still… Keep up the good work on Arpaio Mr. Lemons. Maybe, one day, we’ll get a Justice Department attorney with the moxie to take down this (featherless) bastard and all his spawn.
(By the way, why the h*ll didn’t Goddard go after him? It’s not like you’re the only one who sees through the crap.)
Thanks for the good words, Freepster! Goddard weenied out. Seems to be a congenital condition for most Democrats.
Remind me what other music critics have had anything to say about this issue besides you, Dan, young Martin and maybe me? I think we all agree there are broader issues, here. I think some of us, you, for instance, Stephen, are only looking at one. I respect and appreciate your support for human rights, your fervor in opposing racism and your unwavering support of Puente. But it’s like you’re questioning credentials, here–like we all need activist green cards to keep from being deported from the realm of “those with, perhaps, a point of view worth exploring.” Yeah, we care about the Rialto. That’s because we care deeply about preserving downtown as the hub of our progressive and creative communities. It’s getting to be like the last bunker as we overlook all the hostile square miles to the northwest and the southeast. And this legislature isn’t just trying to humiliate and export “reasonably suspicious” people.” (I don’t know about you, but we all wore that pin for months down here.) They are specifically trying to neutralize the votes, our votes, that kept Janet Napolitano in office, and that managed to maintain two Congressional seats against every effort to overthrow them in the last election. In short, the Rialto may be in this fight to try to stay alive and keep its folks employed, but it’s for far more than their own interests. It’s a vital cultural anchor in a community trying to save its character against the tyranny of the north, and the apparent hordes that now seem to be moving here because they actually *agree* with those idiots. Downtown and university people give their time and money and their creativity, and still more time, not to mention passion, again and again to, for instance, marches against SB1070 and for Derechos Humanos and Humanitarian Aid is Never A Crime, and Samaritans, Borderlinks, Borderlands Theatre, Casa Maria. They’re on the migrant trail walk every year. They vigil. They accompany. They put signs in their store windows. They walk the walk, daily. These people are not enemies of Puente, but they also fight for education and for sustainable living, against the death penalty and irresponsible mining, for women’s and children’s health and for, believe it or not, kindness. It would be so awesome if you were different, Stephen. If you were not just another blinkered and arrogant Maricopa County person thinking you know how to straighten out Tucson, and convinced that if we don’t agree, we need to be humiliated and punished. Above all, I just wish *everyone* involved could keep their pride in their pockets long enough to figure out how we can all work together to get rid of that menacing clot in the Statehouse. It’s gonna take all the mighty music power we can muster, and then some.
apologies for sort of referring to you as a music critic, Stephen.
Hey Stephen your last post said it all. Zach cares not about Tucson, his only concern is the mighty state of Maricopa. You don’t come across any better asking us to suffer for your (failed) cause for it appears the legislature, and those that elect them, do not care at all if the boycott causes local businesses to fail. They probably find it rather amusing that sound strike has played right into their hands – a progressive tool being used to punish fellow progressives. Nice work there buddy.
The joke is on y’all. The boycott has failed to damage the major corporations that run Arizona. Tourism is up. Tell me just how much the boycott hurt Country Thunder and other country music promoters! The only people who have been hurt by this silliness are those in the business of putting on shows involving acts that won’t show up because of ideology.