Mail

Heavy metal thunder

This letter is in regards to the annual Klammies awards. I am on your preliminary voting panel this year, and my question is: What does the Pitch have against original heavy rock and roll? This year, when I was actually offered an opportunity to nominate bands from this particular sector of rock, I was thrilled! All of us at the club where I book bands were very excited. We thought, "Finally, the Klammies are going to recognize heavy metal rock!" Otherwise, why would they send us a ballot? I mean, they know what we do at Niener's. So we got together and made some deserving suggestions -- bands that worked hard for their fans for many years to bring heavy rock music to the KC scene, keeping it alive and well!

Finally, the results came out, and once again, the only rock bands listed were alternative. And the funny thing was all the venues nominated were under 1,000 seats/alternative clubs.

I have nothing against alternative music; these guys work very hard and are equally talented. I just believe that all original heavy metal rock should get the same recognition, or even any recognition, by the Klammies. It's really hard to believe that these local music awards organizers are not biased.

Even if you can't give them a single spot in your existing categories, then how about giving them a category of their own? I suppose it doesn't matter if we ever get credit from the Klammies; we simply are not going away! -- Vickie Norris

Independence, Mo.

Lewd, crude, and rude

I really have tried to be patient with the new Pitch.Several times now, I've resisted the impulse to complain, in order to allow time for things to gel. But enough is enough. It is time to give Dan a "Savage" boot out the door.

Now, I have a twisted sense of humor myself. As an avid fan of such Pitch features as the "Red Meat" cartoon, I've even shocked my children a time or two. But the "Savage Love" column (March 16-22) devoted to the putrid urban legend of lesbian/lobster lewdness is a new low. For God's sake, people, get a real writer. Better yet, forget about trying to replace Kiki Dakota altogether. We can't seriously allow this creep Savage to continue. Where is the editorial discretion?!

Such crap can't even be defended with the old journalistic argument that provoking controversy is good for discussion and good for business. Perverse stories like this aren't controversial or even entertaining in any way. They are simply the twisted ravings of some beer-soaked frat house puke. Pitch readers deserve better.

Thanks for all the other good stuff you do. -- Scott Shattuck

Kansas City, Mo.

Change it back

I knew that once a big corporation purchased the venerable PitchWeekly it was not going to be good for the readers. Now I have been proven correct.

In what appears to be clear-cut cost-saving measures, the type in the classifieds now looks like something out of The Star, what used to be red and black lettering on the back is now black and green, and the most dangerous thing of all, there is no longer any editorial. I must also comment on the softball main articles. They suck and should only be found in The Star, not the Pitch.

Many people that I have spoken to take offense to this new "design" and pick up the Pitchonly to be used as birdcage fodder. If you really want to keep me as a reader, you need to change back to the Pitch of only a couple of months ago and quit trying to look and act like the Star! -- Ted J. McIntyre

Kansas City, Mo.

I want to express my opinion about the change in the two comics "The City" and "Red Meat." I enjoy both strips, but I think that you have done a disservice by reversing the size of "The City" and "Red Meat." I think that there is a lot more detail in "The City" and it benefited from the larger size that you used to publish it in. I think that you need to reverse the decision and return "The City" to its old size. -- Bruce Tanner

Olathe, Kan.

I am a longtime reader of the fine newspaper PitchWeekly.

Recently, it has come to my attention that the paper has reduced the font size of the print in the Classifieds section and Personals section. I can appreciate the economics behind this decision. However, I would ask that you reconsider your change to the typeset. It is too small to be of any use to a large group of readers. It is hard and difficult to read and scan the copy.

I wear eyeglasses, but I'm far from blind. But after trying to read and comprehend the copy print for several minutes, I decided to put the paper down. I'm sure other longtime readers are having the same problem and will begin to drop reading or using the publication due to its unreadability.

Please give this issue your consideration. I'm sure other options exist to keep your paper profitable rather than reducing it to a phone book miniformat. -- Paul Green