America's best read urban weekly | Learn More »
The problem with writing a cultural report on a band that made history is that you´re not going to include the entire history. There´s just no way. Everyone has their own accounts, and the people reading this need to understand that the author´s is just one account.I try to break it down, and the only problem that I see with the entire piece, ethically, as a whole:"Carkuff, 42, and Bruce, 39, talk about how a Black Happy reunion is something the long-retired band has been talking about for years. But with members flung from Spokane and Coeur d’Alene to Seattle, San Francisco and St. Louis, the idea was one they knew would be difficult to pull off. It was so unlikely, Carkuff — who plays trombone in the band — says he didn’t believe it would actually happen."The band members are not quoted, but the author is giving her impression of their discussion. I personally don´t think that there is anything wrong with this, because giving one perspective on top of another represents the band´s culture. If a writer describes the band as making culture, as making an impression on the people that follows or even the ones who don´t follow them, either way, I´d take as compliment because it means the band must have been pretty powerful. I think the team behind Black Happy should own up to it, or at least admit that their followers have their own minds.
Website powered by Foundation