1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Confronted by Richard Marx

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!, Jan 11, 2013.

  1. Riptide

    Riptide Well-Known Member

    McClelland is shameless. Shameless!!!

    I'll bet he has a dead fake online girlfriend.
  2. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    I'm surprised Richard Marx isn't already posting on this thread.
  3. Yea, but he quotes a poster on Metafilter. So he must be winning this argument.
  4. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    I'm afraid to. I don't want Richard Marx stalking me. He's bad-ass.
  5. Bamadog

    Bamadog Well-Known Member

    Richard Marx: Duh, winning.

    Very nicely played sir.
  6. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    So I was sorting my CDs today and came across my copy of Marx's greatest hits and had to play it. You know, the songs are pretty good, but I think the criticism is more over how the songs were produced. So much reverb, a lot of synths, fake drums, electric drums, wouldn't be surprised if a keytar was part of the studio session and the classic sax solos. There are some songs it's difficult to figure out what instruments are being used since everything sounds artificial.

    Of course, this was the 80s and the music does sound like every teen movie from the era, which I think is why his music is mocked today. But the wailing saxophone straight out of St. Elmo's Fire, the synth drums from American Anthem, the horns (or maybe its just a synthesizer) from Secret of My Success... it is all there.
    And then there is Marx's voice that sounds so pleading and whiny, like a 16-year-old begging his girlfriend to let him touch her there, maybe for just second...and with his pinkie.
  7. Bob Cook

    Bob Cook Active Member

    The thing is, even if Marx is getting the better of McClelland, then so what? It says something about Marx that he gets in shit-fits with local bloggers and radio hosts, and nobody else. No doubt, the guy likes to punch downward. He reminds me of coaches and players who would be all smiley-faced and what do you need from the national press, but would treat the local beat writers like shit on the bottom of their shoes.
  8. I can't speak to the other examples, but in this case, Marx didn't really do anything to bring this on. Little, nobody reporter thought he was being funny by disrespecting someone who has actually done something, he gets called out on it, and the little nobody reporter runs through the entire episode snarky and arrogant. Maybe RM is a little prick in life, maybe he isn't, but there is no question about McClelland here. He's is coming off like an arrogant, fratboy little prick.
  9. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    The original story was sort of entertaining, but you'd think that Henry Kissinger or Paul McCartney had driven down to a bar to confront a guy over a "shameless" comment, not Richard Marx. What's the followup to this series, drinks with Philip Michael Thomas? My pissing match with Edie Brickell?

    With the Slate article, I kind of agree with you. ... He's milking this thing and it's not even a little entertaining anymore. But do you blame him that much? Edward McClelland, from what we've learned about him, has every reason to milk another paycheck out of this thing. And at the end of the day, most people here won't remember the name Edward McClelland.

    On the other hand, to the extent that Richard Marx thinks he has a good name that he needs to protect, what does he get out of an e-mail like the one he sent? I mean I could exchange "I'm rubber and you're glue, and you're ugly, too" e-mails with Richard Marx all day long for the fun of it. At a certain point I'd wonder why he keeps responding.
  10. I understand what you are saying, but I think we all do things we know we shouldn't do, but they make us feel better afterwards. If everything we read is correct, Marx tried handling this between him and McLellend with a simple email. He chose not to respond. And I understand why . . . it could have been from any novice hacker who knows how to create an email address. But eventually, it came down to a meet, which should have ended the whole thing. It should have come down to a "look, I'm sorry if I offended you so much. I certainly didn't mean to cause this much of a problem, because clearly, I did." But snark-boy kept it up with his second blog post. At some point, you would feel like he is wagging his finger in your face.
    Should Marx have just left it be? Sure. The guy isn't worth the trouble, but we all have guys who push our buttons. This just happened to be his. Let's just settle this on celebrity boxing. Or, maybe slightly-more-of-a-celebrity vs. a nobody-want-to-be celebrity boxing.
  11. TheSportsPredictor

    TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

  12. BrianMGriffin

    BrianMGriffin New Member

    This is a strange thread that I just discovered today. One thing I'm noticing -- with a quick Google -- is that McClelland is more accomplished than he lets on and way more accomplished than I think most people on here realize. The guy has written some well-received books and has contributed to the NYT, Columbia Journalism Review, LA Times, Salon and Slate. I dare say for most of us in here, if we are "punching" at him, we are "punching up." Unless I'm chatting with the Who's Who of the annual APSE Awards, his resume is nothing to sniff at.

    And beyond that, it doesn't surprise me that he's accomplished. He tells a good story. That the blog post gets such a strong reaction and a long thread on here tells you it's not forgettable stuff. A weird run-in like this is a chance to tell a story that neither has to have a hero or a villain. He's a guy with a crappy blog. Richard Marx is a guy who made forgettable pop. And their worlds collided. And here's what happened. Good stories don't have to have heroes and villains, just characters. And they are both pretty good characters.

    And finally, what's so offensive about being called "Shameless?" Especially when it's clearly in the context of his music career, which is exactly what Marx says is fair game. He basically said the other artists involved in that project have had high points in their career except for Marx, who is shameless. And that's obviously implies musical/career judgment in that context. McClelland explains to him that he meant it to be about his music when he offers an apology. To me, that's a good way to handle it because obviously Marx didn't even get the point and he was clarifying that.

    There was nothing about the blog post that indicated to me that the writer had a personal axe to grind with Marx.

    Very strange encounter and strange encounters make for good stories. I'm glad he told it and I am interested in hearing what happens next. So I hope he blogs it.

    One more point. There is the Chicago-based dark comedy on Showtime called "Shameless" with William H. Macy. By being a Chicago guy who is called "Shameless," that indirectly ties Marx to the show. And that would be the best piece of art he's ever been associated with, so...McClelland did him a favor. :)
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2016
    OscarMadison likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page