Javier Pacheco's Response to Keith Olsen's Q&A.

***ThePenguin*** · #1 08-29-2000, 09:04 AM

I received this from Javier last night; I'm not sure if I'll add it into the Q&A sessions as I hadn't given much thought as to how rebuttals would work; I guess I should.

quote:

As you read this, you need to put aside your knowledge of S&L as members of that famous group Fleetwood Mac. You need to think back of them in the period in question (1970) as struggling artists way before their incursion into that band and the fate that awaited them. The point I am trying to make is that we do not live in a world where there is a level playing field for all. The opportunities they experienced would not and could not have happened to anyone who was perceived as 'other', that is, different from the white mainstream. In the three sections, I saw very few critical questions posed to Olsen. The adoring fans treated him more like a holy apostle than an ordinary person with ethnocentric foibles. But then, that's the nature of adoring fans.

I noticed he stated that he thought Lindsey's mono caused the break-up of Fritz. I guess those many years of heavy 'external stimuli' seriously wreaked havoc on Olsen's memory. Lindsey came down with mono at least 6 to 9 months after Fritz had disbanded. Also, Keith Olsen's curt, shallow answer to the only critical question posed (in my mind) of whether he picked out S&L on the basis of their 'look' did not surprise me. In order for one to make an informed and just opinion about the worth of another there must be some measure of empathy. Olsen wants you to believe he was fair-minded and that he gave all the members of Fritz ample thought and consideration. That is pure atrophied cow dung. He saw us perform once, one set of material. He had firmly focused on only two persons. Contrast that with Bill Graham, who'd expressed interest in the entire group. Curiously, Mr Graham never opined that only S&L were worthy of promotion--he was looking at the whole of Fritz, not simply pretty faces. Olsen conveniently overlooks the
well-documented reality of Rock music's star-making machinery and the patterns of racism pervading all aspects of the entertainment industry. Afterall, it is no coincidence that the chief moguls of that world are white and that Hispanics constitute less than one percent of all music venues. Well now, some of that has changed--now it is mostly black and white. But back in the 1960s many stars of African American music looked to Motown, Chess, and Stax labels in order to find the kind of support and exposure that was lacking for them in the cozy white enclaves of the times. I sense a cruel hypocrisy in his answers--or is it plain ignorance? His judgement that S&L were the only talented members 'worth fighting for' was based upon his hearing them performing my songs. It is curious that even back then he was able to detach them from the music and at the same time project that they would become the famous composers they are now, even though at the time they hadn't written anything of their own (with the exception of Stevie's pair of songs, which I don't believe swayed his thinking then). So he wants you readers to believe that this great leap of faith was based entirely upon his perception of their potential talent as a dynamic duo.

One last item to consider is one of regional values that I commented upon in the Fritz Q&A. We were a San Francisco Bay Area band playing music inspired by many of the big-name influences in the Bay Area at the time. We were somewhat a product of our environment. Olsen did not relate to this scene let alone, understand it. I had mentioned that Brian and I vehemently rejected the values of Tinseltown. Bob was unsure but willing to go along with everybody else, while S&L were bolstered and greatly encouraged by Olsen to go to the Southland. Now I understand clearly why their attitudes changed so drastically when we were gigging down in L.A. Our earlier band consensus had been that we weren't interested in becoming carbon copies of the Airplane or the Dead, we had our minds fixed upon our own originality. I like to think we had transcended the commerciality of the three-minute ditty. The prevailing aesthetic of Southern California recording execs was much more commercial and at great odds with our type of orientation. Therefore it is obvious that the band would have required a major overhaul in order to meet the $tandards of Hollywood. Therefore, it would be much easier to reform the sound by dividing up the group. Yes, its that old adage, divide and conquer. I tend to believe that it was a question of retaining major control. I discussed how David Forest (ex-con and thief) manipulated us to follow him to Los Angeles for the purposes of keeping his fingers in the pie. And I stand by my assertions of Olsen as a another racist product of the times. For him to imply that he was objective and fair-minded is spurious. Imagine if he'd heard East L.A.'s Los Lobos back in 1974--he would have been equally dismissive of that group ('no commercial potential'). Well they just aren't his 'cup of tea.' So just multiply that aversion by all the record/media biz sharpie insiders who make 'artistic' decisions on a daily, monthly, yearly basis and you have the macrohistorical patterns of discrimination.
Yes everyday thousands of CDs vie for the honor of 'discovery' and hit status. Established names are already shoe-ins. But you'd be amazed how far the primary contacts from major labels (even payola) can help to get those new groups 'over.' Again, its a question of empathy.

[Edited 2 times, lastly by ThePenguin on August 29, 2000]