Most significantly, what personified Woodstock '69 (and the societal impetus for the gathering itself) were the powerful, unprecedented and genuine spirits of innocence, optimism, open-mindedness, cooperativeness and transcendence, qualities obviously alien to the jaded, sarcastic, world-weary Roberts, who, like many contemporary music people, exalts divisiveness and the bloated human ego. Roberts, after all, is someone who actually considers rap--those atonal, infantile jingles epitomizing the boastful human ego's self-deification--to be music.
Which brings to mind the adage: "A music critic is like a eunuch at the palace. He sees it done every night but he can't do it himself."
Let the sunshine in.
Peter Tonks
Denver
The only thing more boring than watching Woodstock II on cable was reading Michael Roberts's boring piece about it. Spare us from pompous rock writers who can only imagine what it means to actually have principles.
Light up and lighten up, Roberts.
Jo Rodgers
Boulder
Hitting Rock's Bottom
In reference to Michael Roberts's August 17 Feedback column concerning the RMMA Rock Showcase, I would like to clarify some of the issues mentioned in his review of the show. The RMMA chose most of the bands with an internal judging and screening process. Also, sponsors of the event were allowed to select a band or two of their liking. (Westword was a sponsor, but declined a choice.) As a sponsor, I obviously wanted the acts I play with--Wanker and Vinyl Oyster--on the bill. To assume that the criteria of selecting the bands was based upon their friendship with me is false. My job at the show was to ensure the field, supply backline and announce the bands, which I was more than happy to do.
Many thanks need to go out to the RMMA, the sponsors and the countless volunteers who donated time and sweat. Sure, the show could have been better attended, but the positive side is basically this: The fans saw a very diverse lineup of Colorado bands, it was free, and a good time was had by all. That's a bottom line I can live with.
Bob Rupp
Rupp's Drums, Denver
Teen Streets
Regarding Andy Van De Voorde's "The $1 Million Man," in the July 27 issue:
Subtle harassment of minority youth by an agency of the city government, which proudly displays and verbally spouts "To Serve and To Protect," has become the height of lunacy. To be a minority youth in this city means you cannot be in a group larger than two, you cannot dress in a current fashion and you literally/actually have no rights.
A minority male youth can expect to be stopped and questioned/hassled frequently by a member of the group that has vowed to protect the citizenry of this city. This youth can be handcuffed without an explanation or reason given if/when the officer deems his/her safety is in question. This situation is, evidently, an excuse to dispense with the recitation of Miranda.
The handcuffed individual commonly may not exercise his Fourth Amendment rights. He must endure being "frisked," asked questions and ignored or told to "shut up," and then whisked away to jail where the machinations of justice are quagmired.
It also appears to be common that the justice system routinely assumes that minority youth belong to a gang, consume alcohol and/or use other illegal substances, are jobless, are basically irresponsible and have no acceptable support systems.
All of the above smacks of anarchy. If you are not a minority youth and do not think this pertains to you, think again. Your group may be targeted next because of age, economic status, sexual preference, religion practiced or because you simply oppose anarchy. When any individual or group is harassed and/or controlled by an elite few, all individuals or groups are at risk.
Take a few minutes to think: What does a law mean, who or what does a law protect, and how can a law be better monitored?
Debra A. Morris
Denver
