Hate Mail - Apparently Simels Enjoys Me Humiliating Him Over And Over Again

Steve Simels, blog malignancy  5 hours ago
And in happier news, it's official -- you know who has penned the worst essay about music in world history.

http://zthoughtcriminal.blogsp...

Here's a clue numbnuts -- the vast majority of Beatles fans/Lennon fans think "Imagine" is a saccharine piece of shit. Has nothing to do with the God thing, BTW.

Oh, yeah, because imagining no religion has nothing to do with "the God thing". Since you put the last nail in the coffin of something which might have been taken as your integrity with that one, I can move on to the rest of it.

Really, readers,  the boy has never said anything more ridiculous and he a former paid scribbler, an alleged expert in pop music, the man who flipped out when I referred to the fab four as "mop heads" and he's pretending that "the vast majority of Lennon fans think "Imagine" is a saccharine piece of shit" when it was John Lennons #1 best selling single and the name of one of his best selling albums.  That is unless you're contending that those people who snapped up the 45 were non-fans.  Which would have to be kind of a record for a record, to have been made a best seller by people who hated the thing.  You apparently really believe that.

I think you would have to explain such other things as that obscure little rag called "Rolling Stone" apparently called the drivel John Lennon's "greatest musical gift to the world" (I'd still rather hear Yoko with the dry heaves) and named it #3 in its top 500 songs, ever, some Guiness Book of World Records' survey or other names it the second best song evah! and the saps who organize the stupid ball drop in Times Square have replaced Auld Lang Syne with Lennons dreary dopey atheist dirge since 2005.  I could go on and on and on, like the stupid song goes on and on and on.  And since I didn't really want to do any research on this stupid question, I looked at a few websites and found, all over the place that people who write about pop music calling it one of the most popular pop songs ever written.

The reasons aren't hard to fathom, it is entirely without challenges, musically vapid, intellectually void, harmonically static and conceptually stupid.  It is to song writing what a deep fried Twinkie is to nourishment, only less inventive.  It's more like a Twinkie neet.  Its only achievement is to show that atheists can produce a really sucky hymn as well as anyone and be entirely more pretentious about it than the substance and artistic merit supports.   It is really the same phenomenon that made Jacqueline Suzanne a better seller than Saul Bellows or ... well, take your pick of actual writers who didn't sell as well as a writer of garbage.   In pop culture crap sells, it is popular with people who don't really want to be bothered with actually listening to and thinking about music but who want to sway and feel all drippy and nostalgic for it, maybe intoning its la-la land lyrics and torpid tune, only risking going seriously out of tune for that one high note.

If I really wanted to research the thing I'd try to fit it into his various activities like his cross country heroin bender or his various other sleazy post-mop-head days.  As it is, I saw that I wasn't the only one to note that the smart mop-head wasn't really doing much about that "no possessions" part of the deal.

Really, Simples, do you even think about how obviously wrong you are before you say these things?   This one is so stupid I'm beginning to wonder if you really enjoy me humiliating you by doing what you obviously never included in your, um... "journalistic practice" doing the minimal amount of research so you don't get even the most obvious points wrong.  Or it could be senility, it happens at our age.  That is if you ever had what you have to lose for that to happen.  I haven't seen much evidence that you ever did.  If it's the former, well, ewwww, I really don't want to be involved in that kind of thing, if its the later, get into custodial care as soon as you can.

Update;  Oh, dear.  Simels says in a comment I will only publish if I must prove he made it because, as so often happens, he lies about it, he says:

You're citing Rolling Stone as an arbiter of anything? Seriously -- Rolling Stone? [Name withheld]'s embarrassing fan/groupie magazine? That nobody has taken seriously about music since...oh, since the they humiliated [Name withheld] by running blowjob reviews of albums by Dylan and the Stones because otherwise [Name withheld] couldn't go out to dinner with them anymore? That Rolling Stone? 

Which is so funny because, as well as being an epic name dropper,  Simels' claim to fame is that he was a scribbler for another rag which was primarily an ad vehicle that used to be called, "Stereo Review" that I doubt had nearly as big a readership as RS.   My guess would be that when Simps got dumped from the failing SR he'd have done exactly what he's accusing others of in this comment to get a job at RS.  Hands up anyone who doesn't believe if they'd lavished praise on that book about an obscure mid-western power pop band Sims wrote an intro for, as well as a blurb for the back, that he wouldn't have shouted that fact all over the place.   I don't see any hands out there, don't be shy.  Sir, or madame, I can't tell who you are in the light, it's one person one vote, you'll have to put one of your hands d..... Oh, of course.  Sims, put your hands down, you don't get to vote on this.

The issue YOU SET was its popularity with John Lennon fans, the record sales alone settles that issue.  You lose.  Maybe you should give the benefit of your thinking on that to those Times Square ball drop thing folks.   Being exposed to Lennon's drivel on that occasion was the only reason I wrote about the thing. John Lennon was a total pig of a man, selfish, vain, vastly over-praised, a piece of crap to his son, a user of women whose self worship was only matched by his devotion to Mammon.  That he was ever able to pass himself off as the hippy, peace, love and sweet reason thing was due to the fact that his fans bought the PR campaign, which is what most of the pop music world is really all about.  I actually read someone, on the basis of "Imagine" calling him a hero of rationalism.   Now try and imagine how stupid someone would have to be to claim that.

Update 2:  Being mildly curious, I googled "Steve Simels Rolling Stone Magazine" and found this article from The New York Times.  Note this passage, underlining, mine:

Mrs. Gore, the wife of the Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee, was a drummer in her adolescence and a founder of an all-girl rock band at her high school in suburban Washington in the 1960's, Entertainment Weekly magazine reports in the issue that goes on sale Monday.

"I wanted to play drums," the article quotes Mrs. Gore as saying, "and I got a set when I was 14 and just started to play in the house, to the stereo." About a year later, she said, she helped organize the Wildcats, a band "named after my mother's car, which was a black Buick Wildcat."

The Entertainment Weekly article grew out of one about celebrity musicians written in 1989 by STEVE SIMELS for Rolling Stone magazine, but never printed there. It was revived after Gov. BILL CLINTON chose Senator AL GORE as his running mate last week.

I wonder if that "but never printed there" has anything to do with Sim's bitterness about the magazine that is still publishing.   What are the chances of that, would you think?