caliber66

Well, I was pretty much out of my office pool after the first weekend (picking Virginia to win it all will do that to you), so yesterday, we all took the winner out for free Indian buffet. Which basically means that, for losing at basketball, I got Indian buffet, but I just had to pay a little more for it.

1. Thanks. 2. Cool. I think Kot did a good job with the book. I think it's an interesting read; I just think it's incomplete and one-sided. As to the double-verification, Brian Henneman (who was of course present at many of the incidents described in the book) has said some of them didn't happen at all like they were described in the book, despite their verification. People's memories are funny like that. 3. "Jeff Tweedy made a pass at my girlfriend" seems a little major to be glossed over by "other factors," but sure. To suggest that Jeff had no idea why Jay didn't want to make music with

He called it "the most divisive incident," not "the reason I decided to quit the band," although if you read the article, he did (briefly) quit the band. Also, if you read the article, it happened not long before they recorded March, so it did, indeed occur before Mike left the band. He didn't say anything about the incident in the van being the reason he ultimately quit.

Sorry, Maudie. As far as you answering my questions, here's an analogy: I am asking you what the distance is between Rome and Milan, and you are responding with "BUT I HAVE A GRAPEFRUIT! WHAT'S NOT TO UNDERSTAND?" Just because you are responding to posts that I have made does not mean you are in any way answering my questions. We're clearly talking past each other on the past discussions, so I would suggest just dropping it and moving along. Here's a new question. Just because Greg Kot asked a lot of questions and put a lot of hours into the book, how can that possibly ensure that he i) as

I have no idea what this has to do with Jay Farrar explaining his side of the UT breakup, but okay. And the book is most assuredly just as much about the band and its dynamics as it is about the music Wilco makes/made. Again, somewhat irrelevant to the discussion of, and the veracity of Jay's claims regarding, UT's breakup.

What do the particulars of the UT breakup (correct or not) have to do with the music Wilco makes now?

I remember when that dude wanted to sell that other dude a chicken with poison interlaced with the meat. That didn't show up in the Kot book, though, because the one dude was on the run for killing the other dude's brother, when in fact it was the other dude who killed him. Then he kept silent about it for a decade, and when he finally talked about it, nobody believed him.

What does the breakup of Uncle Tupelo have to do with the music Uncle Tupelo made? If you're making the case that the book is about the music they make and not the history of the band, then what is band history stuff doing in the book?

Again, if that's the case, what's the stuff about Uncle Tupelo doing in there?

Wasn't the person Jay spoke to a journalist? Just because Kot portrayed some things Jeff did in a negative light, that doesn't mean he had the whole story about everything. If you want to know why Jay waited until 2005 to discuss the breakup of Uncle Tupelo, you're going to have to ask him. He doesn't talk about much of anything, so his decision not to talk about it doesn't surprise me in the least. Perhaps he didn't want to air his dirty laundry, but got tired of deflecting questions and decided to answer them. He's allowed to change his mind, right?

That interview was not long after the Kot book came out, and Son Volt had recently released a new album or two. I'm sure there were more interviews than Jay was getting while he was putting out solo albums, and I'm sure they were all asking for his response to the version of events Kot presented. So he decided he was sick of deflecting the questions and answered them.

I see your point. It just seems inconsistent to me that he would speak up in the book and give his perspective, then clam up when Jay presents his side. It's certainly possible that Jay's lying, but I choose to believe him.

Plus, he presents Jeff's side of the Uncle Tupelo breakup. That didn't really have anything to do with the music Wilco makes, but don't let that get in the way of making your point.

Edie, I agree. I'm sure Jeff regrets having made a pass at Jay's girlfriend, if that is, in fact, what happened. This is simply about both sides being represented after ten years. There is nothing wrong with giving both sides a voice, and balancing what had been a very one-sided discussion to that point. It was authorized in the sense that Jeff Tweedy and the rest of the band willingly gave interviews. I'm not by any means suggesting that Jeff had go/no go editing rights, but the book is Wilco-centric and presents far more of Jeff's side. Is that because Jay chose not to talk about the brea

Did you miss the part where a book came out that presented Jeff's side? Or is that somehow different from an interview because it's got a cover?

Sorry, mang. Oh, the book was definitely slanted in Wilco's favor. To suggest it's balanced is either naive or disingenuous. That's okay, though. The book was about Wilco (and authorized), and therefore one should have expected it to be biased. Nothing wrong with Jay giving his version of events, either, just as Jeff has been since the band broke up. Jay's keeping his silence for a decade did not forfeit his right to speak up about it.

I like Uncle Tupelo and Wilco about the same. I'd probably be happy if they never broke up and just continued making music like they had been.

I didn't find it to be horribly written, but it's not Grapes of Wrath, that's for sure. It is what it is.

Shut it. You're only speaking up because you have a record coming out.

I'm on Jay's side here, but you're taking it a little too far. "Practically raped"? Relax, dude. You weren't there any more than any of us.

Actually, Jay didn't say anything until after the book was written, and he had a record coming out, and he was asked about UT's breakup for the millionth time in an interview. He had no fewer than five records that came out before Okemah and he didn't bring up the "incident" before then. I think the far more relevant event is the Kot book, but he could have felt like bringing it up, apropos of nothing, ten years down the road.

I'll have to search that one out. I can't imagine topping Carl Anderson as Judas, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Definitely not "Dreamer in My Dreams".

Any time anyone talks about "checking the perimeter," I assume they are just trying to sound like they have some connection to the military.

I don't see what's so wrong with that logic. Jeff clearly spoke up for the Kot book. If what Jay said was totally wrong, why wouldn't he say something about it?