Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Students' Newspaper. Volume 39, Number 23. September 20, 1976

letters

page 20

letters

Letters can be handed in at the letterbox just inside the Salient office or handed in to the editor personally. However if you wish to pay & postage then send your letters to P O Box 1347, Wellington. Letters should be double spaced and on one side of the paper only.

Letters

Mumbo Jumbo Attacked

Dear Sir,

I'd like to back up the views of Hong Hong Ms Garbo in her criticism of the deterioration of the Salient rock reviews, exemplified in the recent ones of Katy Corner.

After the criticism of her Sarstedt review she bounced back last week with a pitiful attempt to examine the Jerry Garcia album. The review was full of typical inane comments.

She starts with the chat-chat with her old mate Jerry telling him she is "truly sorry" but his album just doesn't come up to her very high standards (what exactly are those standards?). She also comments that "Garcia's two previous albums are as different from each other as they are from the Dead's (Grateful Dead) albums, despite the fact that most of the Dead are on the first two as well". What does this tell me? What's different about them? Where's some intelligent comment?

But on we go......"My copies of the first two Garcia's have just about worn out, but I've a feeling Reflections will stay intact for quite a while." It sounds like good hip talk, but what does it mean? Does it mean that she has been using the first two albums as flying saucers in the back yard and the third one is made of a stronger vinyl, so its less likely to break?

Her criticism of the first track on side one is typical of her treatment of albums in general. She says of "Might As Well" (looking up her book of cliches beforehand) that it "only stands up to about three playings - nowhere near as bad as 'Hot Stuff ad nauseum - Garcia will never make me ill." What sort of comment is this? What does it tell the perceptive rock fanatic about the track? What is the meaning of this particular track? If the track had simply been a repetition of three hyena laughs, would Katy Corner have made the same comments? Is there any significance in this track that could give us a ruler to measure the achievements of Jerry Garcia?

This sort of vacuous comment is what Katy Corner's review is full of. She says that by the time she gets to the end of side one she feels "full of a long Garcia 'statement' with unique, out-of-tune voice and soft, piercing guitar in the solos." What is the statement he is trying to make? I'm sure Katy Corner doesn't know? Or is she playing the "I know, but I'm not going to tell you" game with the readers? All she's mentioned is how she's become bored, about the "repetitive monologue", and how a new "timbre" is needed. How does this amount to a Garcia "statement"? Enlighten me Katy.

I think it's probably a waste of time going into her comments on side two because they're in the same vein. She talks about "lyrical and melodic feel" to the first track on side two and builds up to her incredible comments on the final track "wrenching guitar at a sleepy tempo ends this rather sad display of Garcia genius." (yuk!!).

I suppose Katy Corner can't really help her total lack of reviewing talent is concerned. She has probably come through the English Department and has been taught that a good criticism of are is based on what you "feel" rather than what the artist is consciously or unconsciously trying to do and how well they are doing that. What is the roll of art in Western society? How does Jerry Garcia fit into that? What is Jerry Garcia's background and what are his ideas? In the light of these quest ions, what makes Reflections so significant ? These are the sort of questions that Katy Corner, or any ruck critic should be asking. Rock, and all other forms of art are not independent of society, should not be the preserve of a small self-appointed elite who know what you are talking about when you mention Jerry Garcia. Most of us do not even know who he is.

So, I urge Katy Corner to either stop writing reviews or to do some research into precisely what the purpose of reviews is, so that next time I can gain some appreciation of the significance of any particular record from the four or five paragraphs that she commits to paper.

Rock on Katy,

(Robert Collins).

Corner Up Against the Wall

I am Katy Corner (not Carner - thanks Salient, for anonymizing me), and if I have offended you as a Peter Sarstedt-lover, "apologies". However, the man means nothing to me and I have listened to him and given him a fair go. Do reviews always have to be favorable; must I be refrained from shouting out my feelings, which must be released somehow?

I deliberately selected an "English I" literary style for my review - this is a simple disc - you read, it, putting emphasis on the wrong words. If you are still irrate, get someone to read it aloud to you in the cynical, world-weary tone in which it was written. Then tell me my review is "worthless" and inane. Finally, I do have a brain that is somewhere above dumb "Stage I English" level.

Love,

"Ears".

I can't understand how a writer, having already identified herself as Katy Corner should then sign herself "Ears" - or is it some hip-rock jargon that I'm not in on - Ed,

Katy Corner - Banal Reviews

Dear John,

Record reviews by their very nature generate criticism because they are the views of one individual and do not necessarily reflect those of a majority. However, a reading public does have the right to expect that a reviewer give a clear account of his/her subject and substantiate any likely contentious points, and nobody can ask anymore than this.

A series of reviews penned by Katy Corner in recent issues of Salient has clearly shown that this fundamental point has been disregarded. Her reviews read as rather egotistical and banal statements of indulgence revolving around an ongoing rhetorical question "am I not cool?". If the criterion for being cool is having Burrito Brothers, Dead, and Patti Smith albums and smoking American Camels down at the Royal Tiger, then no doubt, she excells at this.

A reviewer is given ample licence in drafting his/her pieces to digress and relate as the fancy takes them but when this borders on the desultory then the licence is rescinded and the review is seen for what it is, sheer fraud.

This is meant in good spirit, Katy Corner, but "we are very hungry for a sweeter fare."

Regards,

Jeremy.

Apathy Amongst Malaysian Students

Fellow Malaysians,

Our magazine assumes no responsibility for unsolicited material. No such material will be returned unless submitted with a self-addressed. envelope and sufficient postage. THEY PROBABLY DON'T REALLY MEAN IT! U.S. MAIL

The elections for the next committee (1977) has come and gone. Yet today I asked myself, what has it achieved?

Only 30% of the Malaysian members were there for the general meeting. Why this low level in the turn out? Is it that there is something which is more important or is it plain apathy. This I would put to all Malaysians students.

Generally it could be said that most Malaysian students in New Zealand are selfish, apathetic and self-conceited. They would only be prepared to get their bloody BCA, go back home, get a job and make a helluva lot of money. They would not be perturbed by what's happening around them.

Take the recent issue alone - the 45% cutback of Malaysian students. Nothing had been done at all to represent the view of Malaysian students. This I would condemn the past committee for not taking an active part in it. Instead the initiative had come from NZUSA. What are this committee and it's members doing then? I asked them now. Why this apathy? Is it because they are afraid to let Air Commodore Gill to give them the boot? Why should this selfish attitude prevail.

After 2 years in New Zealand I would conclude from my observations that most Malaysians are sheepish, selfish and apathetic I ask again, that with these prevailing attitudes could we survive in a foreign land? Why should we not handle and be involved in our own affairs then.? Could we live with the conscience of being selfish and self-conecited?

I would further like to point out to the bunch of arm chair critics that if you want anything to be done by your association (i.e. MSA), the very first thing for you to do is to get up there and do something. A good suggestion would be 10 stand for the elections or else do something beneficial for the others if you 'think' you could do so.

All I'm asking here is to ask you Malaysians to think about MSA as your association. If you do not want to support and give constructive ideas there is no point then in having as Association. Could we [unclear: there] afford not to have a body to represent our views and interest? Would we then expect the New Zealanders to do the shit for us?

Well put on your thinking caps and put your books away for sometime and think it over.

Remember theres no room for selfishness and apathy. You should consider yourself lucky in getting what you want now. Think of those unfortunate ones.

Remember too that this is your association and if you want anything you should stop being apathetic nor be an arm chair critic. Stand up! Action speaks louder than words.

T.C.

More on Malaysian Students

Dear Sir,

I would like to add some thought to those of Jordan K. Mangrove (Sept 6 Salient),

Malaysians come to New Zealand and criticise things like the slow pace of contruction or industrial sites, the high prices of material, bursaries etc. They extol the rapid growth of the cities of Malaysia, the growing number of highways, high-rise buildings etc.

However these are not indicators of a good standard of living; the basic fact is that labouring conditions are very bad. Wages are low e.g. the average wage is something like SNZ 2 per day for a labourer (you can get a prostitute for 50c a night). The situation is not as bad as it sounds because with a general absence of sales lax, food prices are low. However labourers come near to being slaves to their employers.

Are the Malaysian students in New Zealand interested in reform? Most of them seem to be working too hard to give it much thought and one suspects that those so bitter against the Malaysian government are only releasing frustrations from failing at their studies. In general, Malaysians are not active in trying to promote reform Why?

Malaysia is a repressive country. Perhaps they are too scared. Then again perhaps they're too stupid. They don't understand how a welfare state works. Malaysia is a rampantly free enterprise stale (ie it gives excessively generous tax exemptions to big companies and doesn't "interfere" with their activities). New Zealand is essentially more leftist (horrors!) and more socialist.

Malaysia gives the appearance of being wealthy but in practice much of the wealth goes out of the country to Japan and the U.S., not the man (begging) in the street.

The Malaysian government can say that the New Zealand system is nearer communism than its own and the Malaysians will then accept it because even if they don't know what is good, they know communism is bad.

Perhaps Malaysians aren't scared or stupid, at all. Malaysian students come to New Zealand to escape the life of the labourer through education. When they return, they will fall half-way between poverty and corrupt riches. No doubt many are "would be if they could be". Though they are politically rather powerless, economically they are content. Is it to their advantage to promote a radical balancing of incomes through more equitable taxation?

Malaysians are stupid! They see all their problems in terms of repression, denial of rights etc. As J.K. Mangrove and others have said, they regard their New Zealand education as a right and while here adopt a "all take no give" attitude.

New Zealanders gain some very expensive "Invisible exports" from the money sent from Malaysia. Their fees may pay for teaching costs (but if so why do other countries charge more) but what about administrative costs e.g. registry and immigration officials' salaries.

In numbers these are too few Malaysians to make them profitable, but enough for them to be a nuisance, Malaysians alto have come to regard it as their right to work over summer to earn enough to get through the next year. However, in the present economic recession, this may mean they sometimes displace legitimate New Zealand unemployment. New Zealand may have some interests in helping Polynesians but what about Malaysians and educated ones at that?

I am not saying that Malaysians should [unclear: lick] our boots as J.K. Mangrove implied, nor that New Zealand is perfect. I'm just saying that the "all take no give" attitude never solves problems only brings them. Has not Malaysia got enough problems to already.

The Jack of Spades.

MSA AGM A Wash Out

Dear Editor,

The MSA AGM was held on 11 Sept and it was indeed a great disappointment that the so-called "progressive elements" did not turn up. Loo Kim Hoe was conspicuously absent such a contrast 10 his "dynamism" at the last AGM before the late Tun Razak visited Wellington last year. As for Angelius Tay, well that loud-mouthed blabber came to the AGM giving the impression that he was going to contest for the Presidency but "chickened" out at the last moment. David Yap came, but it was disappointed to see him standing as a Committee member. Where the hell was Charlie Kong? His absence was also conspicuous. To all these so-called "progressive elements", where were you when the MSA needed you to lead it to greater "dynamism" as you've always advocated? You were always critical of Leo Ann Puat and Co., but when the opportunity came for you to prove your mettle, you "chickened" out. Where are your balls (if you have any)?

Also notably absent were Kelvin Ratnam and Peter Yap, who had always made it a point to "stir" at MSA AGMS. Did they too "die a natural death" like their Association, MSSA?

As for the AGM itself, it reflects the apathy of the Malaysian students here. The AGM had to be constantly reminded of the necessity of having a "quorum" to carry on with the meeting. Apart from the Presidency, all the other posts were uncontested. The unopposed candidates who were returned had a substantial number of no-confidence votes cast against them. If this trend persists, the MSA may die a natural death like its counterpart the MSSA. Now that they are e elected it is up to Chin Yew Choy and Co. to prove that they are better than the previous Committee to prevent MSA from disintegrating.

Thank you,

Sincerely,

TLK Cheong,

Ding Heiflai,

Harun Butuh

(sorry to spell your names wrong, but I couldn't decipher your signatures typesetter).