I???m among the contributing writers, so let me just say I don???t speak for anybody associated with Wax Poetics (Dante, Andre, Brian or anybody else). But I feel obligated to say a little something.
Firstly, I think the magazine is a fantastic forum we, the public, have been given. The focus of the magazine does not sell hundreds of thousands of copies, but it is incredibly worthy. Who else would consider publishing an article on musicians who haven???t created an album in 30 years, like Charles Wright? I???m not saying ???don???t criticize the magazine???, but it???s important to keep the criticism positive and creative. Saying ???I won???t buy it for $7??? is ridiculous.
One of the things this thread drives home that there isn???t any consensus over what is good or bad in a publication. Some people prefer the question and answer sessions ???unfiltered???, as faux_rills put it, ???I... would much rather hear some of the people responsible for it speak on it in their own words???. Completely valid. Personally I feel that the ???realness??? of the Q&A format can be retained by good journalism, and that a good article shouldn???t shy away from taking risks and offending somebody, possibly even the subject of the article. Consider that often musicians don???t remember what occurred 30, 40 years ago and to write about their history requires more in-depth research than just one first-hand source. A straight one-person interview simply doesn???t work for most subjects.
I agree with Vitamin (did I just say that?) that more well thought-out opinion would do the magazine and our culture a lot of good. In music collector circles I???ve noticed that often people would rather leave music history alone than talk about it, because talking about it necessitates risk, and they don???t want to rock the boat. But would the articles be more interesting, less ???academic???, if they were more risky, probing and inventive? Probably.
Example: a few years back when ???Kid A??? came out The Wire put a page article absolutely slamming Radiohead, saying that they represented the death of electronic music. The next article had them in a cover feature and was very generous to them. That???s fantastic and fair journalism. The world has space for many perspectives on music culture without sacrificing truth! To that end I would also love to see more articles from outside the ???fan??? demographic.
Maybe an article on the dire straights music finds itself in during the current day (with the collapse of traditional music distribution, labels, and musical talent), paired with an article about why it???s the best time ever to be a musician because of the possibilities being so wide-open. Or an article on why funk 45s were ignored as ???collectable??? for such a long time, paired with their recent meteoric rise to collectable status. Get the guys from antiques roadshow to come by and appraise our collections ??? that could be fantastically funny.
I don't agree with Faux Rillz that most of the writers suck at wax po. In fact the reason I started the thread was because I enjoy most of the intros to the interviews. As a writer myself, I have found the most difficult subject is music. I've only published two pieces on music in my ten year career. So I respect people who do it well. And there is no shortage of talent among the contributors at the magazine. As for the argument about unfiltered opinions of the artists, it is a canard. The artist is still responding to the questions of the reporter. If you want only unfiltered words of the artists, the best format would be for the artist to write something himself. My point is that the format gets repetitive. By all means run interviews, but don't fill the whole magazine with those interviews. And to repeat, I'm no hater. I regularly plunk down $8 bucks for a boobieless magazine about records. And as a reader of mojo, record collector and spin, I actually most look forward to wax po--because it specifically covers the niche in which I'm most interested. And wax po is a little different than a toaster maker. There is a huge market for toasters. One can reasonably expect to make money from toasters. There is no such expectation with wax poetics. I would be surprised if the endeavor breaks even. There is no way the market would support a competitor to wax poetics. But that's why I would like to see more diverse content and less hagiography.
PS: The time is ripe for a ten year retrospective on Rawkus records, the label that changed hip hop forever.
PS: The time is ripe for a ten year retrospective on Rawkus records, the label that changed hip hop forever.
[hijack]
clearly you don't read much "hip-hop journalism"... there was a big piece in XXL (I think?) that was none too flattering.
I think if you knew what you were talking about in this respect you'd care less for it, but to anyone that knows the Rawkus story you sound like a purposefully ignorant moron. I only use such harsh terms because you pride yourself on being well-read and researched. It's all love...
[/hijack]
I totally agree with vitamin on WaxPo though...
I don't love a lot of the hip-hop-aesthetic-based questions, ie "since every rapper and their mother has sampled you, how does it feel to be a PIONEER of HIPHOP BEATS???" ad nauseum, I mean maybe one question to an oft-sampled artist is cool but three or four about hip-hop is ridiculous. There are surely more interesting things to talk about than loops of an artist's work? But that said it's a great resource and it's entertaining. I'm glad it exists.
Who else would consider publishing an article on musicians who haven???t created an album in 30 years, like Charles Wright?
GRAND ROYAL did an interview with him in the mid-90s... that magazine was really fun - a great read that I'd go back over after I'd finished it... 'fun' is not a word I'd use to describe WP
There is usually something great in each issue... but to say that it needs to be supported because its the only mag like it is admitting defeat as far as I'm concerned - that just means a better version of the same thing will come along at some point to replace it
GRAND ROYAL ... that magazine was really fun - a great read that I'd go back over after I'd finished it...
True indeed. I didn't love everything in the mag, but it hit far more often than it missed. Remember the Kid Rock article they did? It was pretty remarkable (though it doesn't make the current Kid Rock any less of a fuckface).
when did become OK to do it half-assed just because (at least) somebody is doin it?
or
why is it OK to shield yourself from criticism with "it's hard work"?
Haha, so Wax Poetics is both half-assed and the George Bush of music journalism?
My "make your own magazine" retort was not a cop-out. Creating a publication requires time, thought and a lot of typing, something regular posters on this board do considerable amounts of. Anyone that complains about the quality or topics in WP should write out the articles that they want to read, and dollars to donuts says the magazine would probably run it if it was written in a semi-literate fashion. Wax Poetics is not Rolling Stone, it is an independent open to submissions from all people. I mean we ran a damn interview with Anthony Pearson (proposed and written by Guzzo) in the same issue as an Eddie Fisher article (written by a "journalist").
I don't smell beef with any of this banter, I just hate to see actual real-world efforts downgraded because one is unpleased with certain content or approach (especially when they have an open door to insert what they deem "interesting").
Two questions: Would WP be as scrutinized if it was an online journal rather than a printed publication? Is the fact that you have to buy it with actual money the sticking point here?
Would WP be as scrutinized if it was an online journal rather than a printed publication? Is the fact that you have to buy it with actual money the sticking point here?
a good point
i think the mag's quality / writing lax journalistic standards would be critisised just the same.
Take pitchfork for example.. i have crazy beef with those tools, but since its online, and free i still scim it on the daily.
now if they wanted to charge me $12.50 canadian (that's what the price tag says on one of my wax poe back issues)... then i would just stop buying it, hence stopping my complaints...
when i worked at a record store and had access to every mag that came out every month i read them all.. mojo, wire, grandslam, big daddy, source, vibe, weird indy rock zines etc etc... but i don't buy any of them now.
there's always going to be certain agendas pushed by mags, and there's always gonna be certain writing stlyes favored.
i think the bottom line for me is that its very very hard to get me to shell out money for toilet reading.
Keep On has been probably the only mag of interest to me in the last number of years and thats going through a major restructuring at the moment.
i bought most of the early wax poetics as there was usually somethign of interest in each of them (probably still is) but every time i picked up the zine i just came away beefing, about stoooooopid inaccuracies (purdies claim of playing drums on all the beatles records), badly written psuedo scholaristic BS articles on plunderphonics / sampling issues (yawn, wasnt this shit in the wire back in 91?) and the overall tone of "crate diggin" hip hop nerdery, the madlib fluff peace being the straw that broke the camel's back.
Some people prefer the question and answer sessions ???unfiltered???, as faux_rills put it, ???I... would much rather hear some of the people responsible for it speak on it in their own words???. Completely valid. Personally I feel that the ???realness??? of the Q&A format can be retained by good journalism, and that a good article shouldn???t shy away from taking risks and offending somebody, possibly even the subject of the article.
Well, I didn't really mean to offer that as an end-all principle for music journalism; I devote a substantial portion of my life to consuming music writing, so I am by no means hostile to it.
But, given the abilities of most people associated with WP, I would take a straight Q&A over some sort of a 'thinkpiece' written by one of them almost every time. There is some fantastically bad writing in there and there's no way around that fact.
PS: The time is ripe for a ten year retrospective on Rawkus records, the label that changed hip hop forever.
[hijack]
clearly you don't read much "hip-hop journalism"... there was a big piece in XXL (I think?) that was none too flattering.
I think if you knew what you were talking about in this respect you'd care less for it, but to anyone that knows the Rawkus story you sound like a purposefully ignorant moron. I only use such harsh terms because you pride yourself on being well-read and researched. It's all love...
[/hijack]
Nor does he pay much attention to the pseudoalternative weekly press, apparently, as there was a piece by Ta-Nehisi Coates in the Voice at about the same time as the XXL one.
I agree that one of the most annoying things about WP is dudes trying to force these old dudes to talk about rap music. I truly could not give less of a sh!t about whether Charles Wright approves of NWA.
Some people prefer the question and answer sessions ???unfiltered???, as faux_rills put it, ???I... would much rather hear some of the people responsible for it speak on it in their own words???. Completely valid. Personally I feel that the ???realness??? of the Q&A format can be retained by good journalism, and that a good article shouldn???t shy away from taking risks and offending somebody, possibly even the subject of the article.
Well, I didn't really mean to offer that as an end-all principle for music journalism; I devote a substantial portion of my life to consuming music writing, so I am by no means hostile to it.
But, given the abilities of most people associated with WP, I would take a straight Q&A over some sort of a 'thinkpiece' written by one of them almost every time. There is some fantastically bad writing in there and there's no way around that fact.
I think you're over-exaggerating the bad qualities in the writing. The set of priorities of Wax Poetics readers/writers is different from the usual, and the contributors aren't completely composed of journalists, but is it really that much more terrible than your average URB article?
If you don't hold much alegience to the Q&A format, maybe you can you turn it around and offer a suggestion other than that. Instead of saying the writing is "fantastically bad", where do you find it lacking? What could you suggest to improve? (like Vitamin's suggestion of more incisive, creative article themes)
I don't agree with Faux Rillz that most of the writers suck at wax po. In fact the reason I started the thread was because I enjoy most of the intros to the interviews. As a writer myself, I have found the most difficult subject is music. I've only published two pieces on music in my ten year career. So I respect people who do it well. And there is no shortage of talent among the contributors at the magazine. As for the argument about unfiltered opinions of the artists, it is a canard. The artist is still responding to the questions of the reporter. If you want only unfiltered words of the artists, the best format would be for the artist to write something himself.
True, objectivity is never attainable. But most artists and musicans can't discuss their work within a historical context, (with a few exceptions) which is why writers are needed. Music can speak for itself, it's the result of active expressions, but the story behind it, the "meaning", cannot. A good writer will give you an accurate historical picture, but phrase it in a way that is appealing and presents a unique angle.
My point is that the format gets repetitive. By all means run interviews, but don't fill the whole magazine with those interviews. And to repeat, I'm no hater. I regularly plunk down $8 bucks for a boobieless magazine about records. And as a reader of mojo, record collector and spin, I actually most look forward to wax po--because it specifically covers the niche in which I'm most interested. And wax po is a little different than a toaster maker. There is a huge market for toasters. One can reasonably expect to make money from toasters. There is no such expectation with wax poetics. I would be surprised if the endeavor breaks even. There is no way the market would support a competitor to wax poetics. But that's why I would like to see more diverse content and less hagiography.
Agreed. Wax Poetics is a unique magazine.
To reply to Dante's question: I do think people respond vastly differently to online publications. That's really the power of the paper publication. It's less disposable and the fact that people consider it "authoritative" should be flattering, really
Some people prefer the question and answer sessions ???unfiltered???, as faux_rills put it, ???I... would much rather hear some of the people responsible for it speak on it in their own words???. Completely valid. Personally I feel that the ???realness??? of the Q&A format can be retained by good journalism, and that a good article shouldn???t shy away from taking risks and offending somebody, possibly even the subject of the article.
Well, I didn't really mean to offer that as an end-all principle for music journalism; I devote a substantial portion of my life to consuming music writing, so I am by no means hostile to it.
But, given the abilities of most people associated with WP, I would take a straight Q&A over some sort of a 'thinkpiece' written by one of them almost every time. There is some fantastically bad writing in there and there's no way around that fact.
I think you're over-exaggerating the bad qualities in the writing. The set of priorities of Wax Poetics readers/writers is different from the usual, and the contributors aren't completely composed of journalists, but is it really that much more terrible than your average URB article?
If you don't hold much alegience to the Q&A format, maybe you can you turn it around and offer a suggestion other than that. Instead of saying the writing is "fantastically bad", where do you find it lacking? What could you suggest to improve? (like Vitamin's suggestion of more incisive, creative article themes)
Is it more terrible than the average URB article? I don't know, because it's been a good five years since I've cracked an issue of that magazine, but I supect not. That's setting the bar rather low, though.
Let me be clear: I am not wedded to the Q&A format in all contexts, but in this context, given the quality of the pool of writers they have to draw from, I think that it is the best alternative. As you hinted at, most of the people writing for the magazine are not professionals; they're collectors long before they are writers, and no amount of 'constructive criticism' from me is going to change that.
People coming at this shit from Hip-Hop perspective have the attention spans of squirrels. Who actually read that John Klemmer article? I usually skip those sort of irrelevant articles about shitty jazz dudes who were sampled by primo. Could care less.
I did and I can't say I'm glad about it. It might help me one day on Jeopardy. I don't appreciate that the driest writer in WP is from Canada. Please know that this is not indicative of our author pool. Thank You.
People coming at this shit from Hip-Hop perspective have the attention spans of squirrels. Who actually read that John Klemmer article? I usually skip those sort of irrelevant articles about shitty jazz dudes who were sampled by primo. Could care less.
Yeah man, if only no one had ever heard of them, then they'd be good.
What, you don't like Free Soul? Don't make me get Barefoot Ballet up in this bitch!
Gabor Szabo, John Klemmer, Eugene Mcdaniels are all well known and made good music. Now, you want to tell me where you can even read about those dudes in a contemporary magazine? I see nothing wrong with reading those kind of articles next to The UBER RAER ones. It also could be a way for new people into jazz/funk/soul to go "hey, I have that record" and feel some commonality about the whole thing.
Sometimes people want to learn about artists and records they already have.
Yeah man, if only no one had ever heard of them, then they'd be good.
What, you don't like Free Soul? Don't make me get Barefoot Ballet up in this bitch!
Gabor Szabo, John Klemmer, Eugene Mcdaniels are all well known and made good music. Now, you want to tell me where you can even read about those dudes in a contemporary magazine? I see nothing wrong with reading those kind of articles next to The UBER RAER ones. It also could be a way for new people into jazz/funk/soul to go "hey, I have that record" and feel some commonality about the whole thing.
Sometimes people want to learn about artists and records they already have.
Balance Nathaniel son
Balance this!
Does one good song merit a 15 page article. Eugene Mcdaniels is cool with me. But John Klemmer??
Another thing that ought to be acknowledged here is the way the editor props himself with each introduction. At the risk of taking myself out of contention of ever writing for WP, something I'd like to do, I gotta say those intros are just embarassing. The toaster analogy is correct. Everyone has a job to do and everyone has a right to critique (aka bitch) without having to be lectured about how hard it is to do _____.
why is it OK to shield yourself from criticism with "it's hard work"?
Haha, so Wax Poetics is both half-assed and the George Bush of music journalism?
No. That was response to what mylatency said.
Would WP be as scrutinized if it was an online journal rather than a printed publication?
Yes. WP is scrutinized because its the only place that covers something we really give a fuck about. (can't speak for all though). This scrutinatin' is all about love!
Comments
Firstly, I think the magazine is a fantastic forum we, the public, have been given. The focus of the magazine does not sell hundreds of thousands of copies, but it is incredibly worthy. Who else would consider publishing an article on musicians who haven???t created an album in 30 years, like Charles Wright? I???m not saying ???don???t criticize the magazine???, but it???s important to keep the criticism positive and creative. Saying ???I won???t buy it for $7??? is ridiculous.
One of the things this thread drives home that there isn???t any consensus over what is good or bad in a publication. Some people prefer the question and answer sessions ???unfiltered???, as faux_rills put it, ???I... would much rather hear some of the people responsible for it speak on it in their own words???. Completely valid. Personally I feel that the ???realness??? of the Q&A format can be retained by good journalism, and that a good article shouldn???t shy away from taking risks and offending somebody, possibly even the subject of the article. Consider that often musicians don???t remember what occurred 30, 40 years ago and to write about their history requires more in-depth research than just one first-hand source. A straight one-person interview simply doesn???t work for most subjects.
I agree with Vitamin (did I just say that?) that more well thought-out opinion would do the magazine and our culture a lot of good. In music collector circles I???ve noticed that often people would rather leave music history alone than talk about it, because talking about it necessitates risk, and they don???t want to rock the boat. But would the articles be more interesting, less ???academic???, if they were more risky, probing and inventive? Probably.
Example: a few years back when ???Kid A??? came out The Wire put a page article absolutely slamming Radiohead, saying that they represented the death of electronic music. The next article had them in a cover feature and was very generous to them. That???s fantastic and fair journalism. The world has space for many perspectives on music culture without sacrificing truth! To that end I would also love to see more articles from outside the ???fan??? demographic.
Maybe an article on the dire straights music finds itself in during the current day (with the collapse of traditional music distribution, labels, and musical talent), paired with an article about why it???s the best time ever to be a musician because of the possibilities being so wide-open. Or an article on why funk 45s were ignored as ???collectable??? for such a long time, paired with their recent meteoric rise to collectable status. Get the guys from antiques roadshow to come by and appraise our collections ??? that could be fantastically funny.
PS: The time is ripe for a ten year retrospective on Rawkus records, the label that changed hip hop forever.
[hijack]
clearly you don't read much "hip-hop journalism"... there was a big piece in XXL (I think?) that was none too flattering.
I think if you knew what you were talking about in this respect you'd care less for it, but to anyone that knows the Rawkus story you sound like a purposefully ignorant moron. I only use such harsh terms because you pride yourself on being well-read and researched. It's all love...
[/hijack]
I totally agree with vitamin on WaxPo though...
I don't love a lot of the hip-hop-aesthetic-based questions, ie "since every rapper and their mother has sampled you, how does it feel to be a PIONEER of HIPHOP BEATS???" ad nauseum, I mean maybe one question to an oft-sampled artist is cool but three or four about hip-hop is ridiculous. There are surely more interesting things to talk about than loops of an artist's work? But that said it's a great resource and it's entertaining. I'm glad it exists.
GRAND ROYAL did an interview with him in the mid-90s... that magazine was really fun - a great read that I'd go back over after I'd finished it... 'fun' is not a word I'd use to describe WP
There is usually something great in each issue... but to say that it needs to be supported because its the only mag like it is admitting defeat as far as I'm concerned - that just means a better version of the same thing will come along at some point to replace it
True indeed. I didn't love everything in the mag, but it hit far more often than it missed. Remember the Kid Rock article they did? It was pretty remarkable (though it doesn't make the current Kid Rock any less of a fuckface).
Haha, so Wax Poetics is both half-assed and the George Bush of music journalism?
My "make your own magazine" retort was not a cop-out. Creating a publication requires time, thought and a lot of typing, something regular posters on this board do considerable amounts of. Anyone that complains about the quality or topics in WP should write out the articles that they want to read, and dollars to donuts says the magazine would probably run it if it was written in a semi-literate fashion. Wax Poetics is not Rolling Stone, it is an independent open to submissions from all people. I mean we ran a damn interview with Anthony Pearson (proposed and written by Guzzo) in the same issue as an Eddie Fisher article (written by a "journalist").
I don't smell beef with any of this banter, I just hate to see actual real-world efforts downgraded because one is unpleased with certain content or approach (especially when they have an open door to insert what they deem "interesting").
Two questions:
Would WP be as scrutinized if it was an online journal rather than a printed publication?
Is the fact that you have to buy it with actual money the sticking point here?
Yes, but who would do the liner notes to that?
My services are available.
a good point
i think the mag's quality / writing lax journalistic standards would be critisised just the same.
Take pitchfork for example.. i have crazy beef with those tools, but since its online, and free i still scim it on the daily.
now if they wanted to charge me $12.50 canadian (that's what the price tag says on one of my wax poe back issues)... then i would just stop buying it, hence stopping my complaints...
when i worked at a record store and had access to every mag that came out every month i read them all.. mojo, wire, grandslam, big daddy, source, vibe, weird indy rock zines etc etc... but i don't buy any of them now.
there's always going to be certain agendas pushed by mags, and there's always gonna be certain writing stlyes favored.
i think the bottom line for me is that its very very hard to get me to shell out money for toilet reading.
Keep On has been probably the only mag of interest to me in the last number of years and thats going through a major restructuring at the moment.
i bought most of the early wax poetics as there was usually somethign of interest in each of them (probably still is) but every time i picked up the zine i just came away beefing, about stoooooopid inaccuracies (purdies claim of playing drums on all the beatles records), badly written psuedo scholaristic BS articles on plunderphonics / sampling issues (yawn, wasnt this shit in the wire back in 91?) and the overall tone of "crate diggin" hip hop nerdery, the madlib fluff peace being the straw that broke the camel's back.
Well, I didn't really mean to offer that as an end-all principle for music journalism; I devote a substantial portion of my life to consuming music writing, so I am by no means hostile to it.
But, given the abilities of most people associated with WP, I would take a straight Q&A over some sort of a 'thinkpiece' written by one of them almost every time. There is some fantastically bad writing in there and there's no way around that fact.
Nor does he pay much attention to the pseudoalternative weekly press, apparently, as there was a piece by Ta-Nehisi Coates in the Voice at about the same time as the XXL one.
I agree that one of the most annoying things about WP is dudes trying to force these old dudes to talk about rap music. I truly could not give less of a sh!t about whether Charles Wright approves of NWA.
I think you're over-exaggerating the bad qualities in the writing. The set of priorities of Wax Poetics readers/writers is different from the usual, and the contributors aren't completely composed of journalists, but is it really that much more terrible than your average URB article?
If you don't hold much alegience to the Q&A format, maybe you can you turn it around and offer a suggestion other than that. Instead of saying the writing is "fantastically bad", where do you find it lacking? What could you suggest to improve? (like Vitamin's suggestion of more incisive, creative article themes)
True, objectivity is never attainable. But most artists and musicans can't discuss their work within a historical context, (with a few exceptions) which is why writers are needed. Music can speak for itself, it's the result of active expressions, but the story behind it, the "meaning", cannot. A good writer will give you an accurate historical picture, but phrase it in a way that is appealing and presents a unique angle.
Agreed. Wax Poetics is a unique magazine.
To reply to Dante's question: I do think people respond vastly differently to online publications. That's really the power of the paper publication. It's less disposable and the fact that people consider it "authoritative" should be flattering, really
Less articles about Gabor Szabo & John Klemmer.
Is it more terrible than the average URB article? I don't know, because it's been a good five years since I've cracked an issue of that magazine, but I supect not. That's setting the bar rather low, though.
Let me be clear: I am not wedded to the Q&A format in all contexts, but in this context, given the quality of the pool of writers they have to draw from, I think that it is the best alternative. As you hinted at, most of the people writing for the magazine are not professionals; they're collectors long before they are writers, and no amount of 'constructive criticism' from me is going to change that.
BIG DADDY was amazing. Its piss-poor design is forgivable because now it's gone for good.
GRAND SLAM was amazing. Its deplorable proofreading is forgivable because now it's gone for good.
See a pattern?
I enjoy WAX POETICS, warts and all. AND I support it by buying every issue. Why? Because I don't want to be writing on Soulstrut a year from now:
"WAX POETICS was amazing. Its rather dry, pseudoscholoarly, backpackish approach is forgivable because now it's gone for good."
People coming at this shit from Hip-Hop perspective have the attention spans of squirrels. Who actually read that John Klemmer article? I usually skip those sort of irrelevant articles about shitty jazz dudes who were sampled by primo. Could care less.
I did and I can't say I'm glad about it. It might help me one day on Jeopardy.
I don't appreciate that the driest writer in WP is from Canada. Please know that this is not indicative of our author pool. Thank You.
Yeah man, if only no one had ever heard of them, then they'd be good.
What, you don't like Free Soul? Don't make me get Barefoot Ballet up in this bitch!
Gabor Szabo, John Klemmer, Eugene Mcdaniels are all well known and made good music. Now, you want to tell me where you can even read about those dudes in a contemporary magazine? I see nothing wrong with reading those kind of articles next to The UBER RAER ones. It also could be a way for new people into jazz/funk/soul to go "hey, I have that record" and feel some commonality about the whole thing.
Sometimes people want to learn about artists and records they already have.
Balance Nathaniel son
Balance this!
Does one good song merit a 15 page article. Eugene Mcdaniels is cool with me. But John Klemmer??
daaaahhhmmmmmnnnn!!
and its his 666TH POST!!!!
So seductive
Nate is a top contributor to the board. Those pics are what it's all about.
This is a great idea....
No. That was response to what mylatency said.
Yes. WP is scrutinized because its the only place that covers something we really give a fuck about. (can't speak for all though). This scrutinatin' is all about love!
You need us we need you.