Posted by Larry Jordan on July 9, 2014, 3:06 pm Edited by board administrator July 9, 2014, 3:36 pm
Being a conservationist I'm chagrinned that trees had to be cut down to produce the paper that the UK's Maverick magazine is printed on. Their publisher, David Rossiter, apparently doesn't mind going into print with articles that are poorly researched and written. This would not have happened under former editor Alan Cackett.
On his supposed Reeves fan site Arie den Dulk recommends people read a 3 page article on the 50th anniversary of Jim Reeves' passing in the current issue of Maverick. It is bylined by David Brassington, whom Den Dulk boasts is a member of his fan club. Why does that not surprise me?
Someone in the UK who called my attention to the story described it colorfully as full of errors and an outright howler. Now that I have acquired a copy, I agree.
Brassington claims, for instance that Marty Robbins found the plane wreckage (but Marty did NOT go and search for the plane because, he explained to me, "I didn't want to find him.")
The writer says that Jim married his childhood sweetheart (even though Reeves met Mary after he became an adult). He credits Chet Atkins with moving Jim closer to the microphone to capture his low tones (but it was Bea Terry who brought this about). On and on.
Over the years I have read many such articles on Jim Reeves which are slapped together by ignoramuses who are too lazy to actually research their subject matter, rely on myths and half-truths, and thus perpetuate outright falsehoods about Jim. I would not dream of recommending such pieces, but the Holland webmaster obviously feels no similar restraint.
Mr. Brassington takes an oblique swipe at me by telling his readers that 'two fairly recent biographies...have not been very flattering but as a Christian I regard us all as flawed characters to a lesser or greater degree, and personally I am not interested in 'hatchet sensational journalism' as mostly they are after making a fast buck...”
Putting aside the fact that his dishonest mischaracterization of my book is hardly consistent with Christian teachings about being truthful, I must say I am wondering on what basis Mr. Brassington is able to ascribe motives to me, which he could not possibly know? To be dismissive of a piece of work that took over 13 years to complete, is based on more than 500 taped interviews plus Jim and Mary Reeves' personal diaries and private correspondence, is irresponsible in the extreme. It is also inexcusable and very arrogant. Maverick readers have a right to know about my book and to judge for themselves by perusing excerpts of it (which are available on Amazon and elsewhere) as to whether it is "sensational journalism." I also don't appreciate being lumped in with Michael Streissguth who did indeed produce a piece of trash on Jim.
Mr. Brassington's article reproduces some of the most unflattering early pictures of Jim and he credits Bear Family Records as their source (which also doesn't surprise me; they have a penchant for presenting Jim looking like a hillbilly hick).
He also fails to tell Maverick readers about any of the new CDs that VoiceMasters/H&H have produced. So he is depriving people of even knowing about these wonderful new products, which are a significant contribution to the Reeves legacy. But elsewhere he reviews a years-old release by Bear consisting in part of music from the Oslo show I already released years earlier than that!
As true fans of his know, Jim Reeves was a uniquely talented artist who had far-reaching and long-lasting impact on the music world. He deserved a better article than what Maverick printed.
The intelligent response I got from publisher David Rossiter to an email I sent him was, and I quote: "Whhhhooooo!"
That should tell potential readers of the magazine all you need to know: Don't waste your money, as clearly they aren't interested in the truth and they will let unqualified people fill their pages with crap.
I *am* a magazine publisher myself, and a radio show producer, and have worked in journalism since I was 15. So I have some insight into the news business. Playing fast and loose with the truth as Maverick apparently does can only get you into trouble. Readers aren't as stupid as some would believe. Sooner or later they'll catch onto you...
Larry, one of the reasons why your book on Jim is so great is because you took the time to research everything very carefully, and made every effort to get the facts straight. Misinformation has always been a pet peeve of mine after constantly looking very closely at a new book or CD that I was looking forward to, and finding that there were so many careless mistakes, they weren't even worth buying. I've seen liner notes in many CD's that were clearly written by someone who had absolutely no knowledge of the artist they were writing about! In one of Elvis' CD's (put out by good old RCA!) there were liner notes about an unreleased song that was included called "Black Star". This was the original title song of Elvis' movie "Flaming Star" before it was renamed and the title song re-recorded. It goes on to say that a new title song had to be written because they could no longer use the song "Black Star". In reality, it turned out to be the same exact lyrics in both songs, with Elvis simply replacing the word "black" with "Flaming"! I've also seen several photos printed in reverse on Elvis' CD's. One picture even had Elvis' name across the neck of his guitar and, of course, the letters were all backwards! RCA didn't seem to take any interest in getting things right with Elvis' releases because they knew they would sell anyway. And as we all know, Jim didn't seem too happy with the label because of lack of promotion. I'm not at all surprised that the story you mention, Larry, is full of errors. Simply put, most people are completely incompetent, and don't care about facts at all.
Re: A waste of ink and paper
Posted by JULIE (Webmistress) on July 11, 2014, 12:59 pm, in reply to "Re: A waste of ink and paper" Board Administrator
The article in Maverick was even worse than Larry mentioned. David Brassington -- the man whom the Holland webmaster brags is a member of his Jim Reeves "fan club", even urging his members to read the story -- claimed that "Distant Drums" was recorded at the same time as "He'll Have To Go" in 1959 (!); he called Jimmie Rodgers the Texas Blue Yodeler even though he was born in the same town as Leo Jackson -- Meridian, Mississippi -- where he lived for most of his life; and he alludes to confusion over Jim's birth date but it was crystal clear he was born in 1923.
We have learned that facts don't matter to a lot of lazy writers and the people who publish their work.
All over the web you can read people reproducing the same mistakes, including on the site of a former editor of a UK magazine who claims that Bear Family's 16 CD boxed set released years ago contains all Reeves recordings when VoiceMasters long ago proved it most certainly does NOT. Bear itself continues to promote it as such and that deception has probably sold them a lot of product but it is dishonest in the extreme. -- JULIE