Halloween Preparations, 350 Variety Show, Fencing, and Olde Club
Students looking for Halloween costumes at the LPAC Costume Shop’s annual used costume sale. Photo by Jiuxing June Xie.
Print
Email
Late Valentine's Day at the Symposium
Today, jackdaws and magpies, the sages have gathered, to talk about love. To talk about love cut through with time. Crippled with the burden of the clocks of our ancestors, we stagger around in the daytimes, and maybe post some chocolates to the dorm next door by the tilting-upward of the next due dawn. In short: we know that we need it. And we don't know how to get it. Or, more specifically—when we don't know just when the getting's good.
Related Stories
Submit a Comment
Comments posted anonymously must be approved by Gazette staff before they are published.
Discussion Rules
- Be nice.
- Be constructive.
- Don't curse.
- Don't threaten.
More details on our policies here.
#1: 10/29/2009 at 10:54 a.m.
Eric Copeland was the second act at Olde Club, playing music perhaps best described as “experimental.”
honestly, what does this even mean? god, what a joke these captions are
— person | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore
#2: 10/29/2009 at 1:57 p.m.
yeah thanks DG for wonderful coverage of how "experimental" Olde Club is these days
— swassip | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore
#3: 10/29/2009 at 9:43 p.m.
That means that the photographer described it as "painful to listen to," but since she wasn't interested in writing a music review, we didn't want to be mean.
— Dougal Sutherland | Editor
#4: 10/30/2009 at 12:56 a.m.
Zzzzzing.
Way to make a big fucking deal about photospread captions, fools.
— Aidan | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#5: 10/30/2009 at 12:42 p.m.
Gosh, maybe if the Olde Club manager didn't tell DG reporters that she "doesn't talk to the Gazette"--you know, did her job--perhaps there would be some more in-depth coverage?
— Um | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#6: 10/30/2009 at 6:04 p.m.
"experimental" is often used a euphemism for music that isn't music. other possible ways to describe music such as eric copeland: ambient, noise rock/pop/whatever actual genre it sounds closest to, "grating on the ears but an arguably valid form of art/music," etc...
— mb | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#7: 11/1/2009 at 10:58 a.m.
Perhaps if the Gazette hadn't publish stories in the past that included the phrase "An anonymous, unreliable source said," I wouldn't worry about talking to a reporter.
"Experimental" doesn't really mean anything, it's often used by people who don't actually have the vocabulary to describe any kind of music beyond a really basic rock/pop/hip-hop description.
Thanks,
Anna
— Anna Zalokostas | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore
#8: 11/1/2009 at 11:06 a.m.
Dougal, it is interesting how you first censor Jiuxing because the phrase "painful to listen to" is too mean, and then un-censor it. is that meant to be taken as an insult?
additionally, the task is on the reporter, not on Olde Club, to describe these bands. this is supposed to be a newspaper, isn't it?
— Louis Jargow | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore
#9: 11/1/2009 at 1:48 p.m.
Oooh, you got us! Our photogs only manage to take photos well, and our vocabulary for music is not pretentious enough. Dougal, it's time to close shop. The people have spoken.
— Urooj Khan | Editor
#10: 11/1/2009 at 1:58 p.m.
And Anna Z., what story are you thinking of? I just did a search for "anonymous, unreliable source," which came up with nothing. "Unreliable source" comes up twice--for when we linked to *Wikipedia*. So, plz enlighten.
— Urooj Khan | Editor
#11: 11/1/2009 at 5:35 p.m.
"Perhaps if the Gazette hadn't publish [sic] stories in the past that included the phrase "An anonymous, unreliable source said," I wouldn't worry about talking to a reporter."
Acknowledging a source is unreliable but presenting it anyway is a perfectly viable new media journalistic practice. You'll see it a lot especially on tech rumor or celebrity gossip sites, where there is so much more competition to break a story first than in traditional media (not to mention both publications and retractions can be made so much faster) that it makes more sense to include something, qualify it, and allow your readers to decide whether or not to believe it, because if you don't do it someone else will. It's a bit more reckless, if less paternalistic, than traditional media strategies. Also, Urooj apparently can't even find when that phrase was used, so for now, you are nothing but an unreliable source yourself.
More to the point, you are clearly biased by your own previous affiliation with one "traditional" media source in particular and, if your job description includes ANYTHING about publicity (it may not...), I would call this a conflict of interest that is preventing you from doing your job to the fullest of your abilities (i.e. at least not being negligent enough to refuse to speak with one of the two main media sources on campus).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_music
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=experimental+music&x=0&y=0
— Peter '11 | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#12: 11/1/2009 at 6:09 p.m.
I think it's rather relevant that this was *not* an Olde Club review. It was a Week in Pictures. Had we been publishing a review of the concert and only said that the music was "experimental," that would have been one thing, and it certainly would have been "on us" to describe the band.
But the only Gazette person who was there in any kind of Gazette-related capacity was June, and she said that she didn't have anything to say about the show, because she's not really a music person and in fact wasn't there the whole time, because she found it hard to listen to.
I'd also like to point out that I wouldn't really consider what I did "censoring" -- it wasn't clear from my first comment, but she told me that in an IM conversation, it's not like she put that in the draft of an article and we decided not to publish it. My feeling in not publishing it wasn't really about being mean, just about having someone who was interested in reviewing the music rather than just taking pictures of it.
Anna, our archives back to 2004 certainly don't contain the phrase "an anonymous, unreliable source." "Unreliable" and "source" appear in the same article three times, two of which are articles by me which tongue-in-cheekingly used that phrase to link to Wikipedia, and one in which it was just a coincidence (referring to certain statistics as being unreliable). Anonymous sources do come up more often, but even the New York Times uses them.
— Dougal Sutherland | Editor
#13: 11/3/2009 at 3:10 a.m.
obviously, my pictures aren't pretty enough to make y'all forget about captions.
:(
— june. | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#14: 11/3/2009 at 1:35 p.m.
I think it's hilarious when Anna tries to shame the Gazette, and then comes off looking kind of silly and under-informed.
— Hah. | Unregistered, Swarthmore