Anthrax is a fun live band. Her loss.

Stay on the couch, Kathy, it's dangerous!

Wait till she gets to Burzum...

I love this sort of idea in general. I cannot get enough of Anna's stuff and it'd be fun to read a film version of what she does.

Only 1500 albums? Thats hardly a "collection".

Pretending that Anthrax concerts aren't a total sausagefest is ignoring reality. Yes, there are women who like them but their crowds are probably 95% male if not more.

his records are organized alphabetically, with no regard for genre? how bourgeois.

http://imgur.com/VATch

@9:

lame ass chicks who were stupid, ugly, or both.

Has anyone ever told you that you're a judgemental creep?

I think the blog is pretty decent. Read her entries on Back from the Grave, B-52s, Albert Ayler and Au Pairs, and she seems ready to grapple with Ayler and not make fun of it, despite not really liking it. I don't begrudge her a book deal.

Yeah, @9 sounds fairly gross.

i've been reading it for a while. 'scool. no biggie.

that said, it's simple and fluffy. it hardly seems the place to complain about"fueling gender stereotypes". and if it got a book deal, so what?

i myself own a pretty damn big record collection and while wifey loves the music inside of it, she would admit that requiring a 4-bedroom house for two people and a lot of records is pretty stupid. i wouldn't be mad at her if she called it "stupid".

once in a while, i myself think it's kind of stupid, but my records are like my kids, and if i was one of those people who had 14 kids... odds are you'd call me stupid.

I have 2204 albums and they hardly take any space at all.

@ 10, you just filled my quota for the day, thanks.
All kidding aside, the post just tickled memories of how I perceived the world 20+ years ago. Usually I have to watch Heavy Metal Parking Lot to get such a humbling reminder of my roots. In all reality as I've matured I gained a great appreciation for much of the music I tried to turn my back on. In defense of the woman's review, I will say that Anthrax has aged as only a "meh" for me. Their not Slayer, but more honest and fun than Metallica, and still light years better than Megadeth. Plus 2 of the members were in SOD. Speak English Or Die is a hardcore-metal-crossover classic.

Megan, I usually agree with you, but this time... I don't totally disagree, but I think you are reading this too literally.

In fact the author of the blog writes quite intelligently about her feelings of being a feminist and it's effect on how she views the albums frequently. Her take on of AC/DC's "Dirty Deeds" is case in point. She loves Big Balls, but is creeped out by the track about having sex with an underaged groupie.

And at least when she finds something she likes, she digs deeper in, doing a lot of research and leaving you with lots of links to click through about the artists.

She writes intelligently. More than I can say for Minard, who sufffers from the Jezebel/Gawker symptom of uneducated verbal-diarhea in the form of snark overload.

This woman's blog has actually made me go back and listen through A Certain Ratio. Minard has only succeeded in making me want to throw my computer against the wall. (I gave up on her posts a while ago though. Maybe she's changed.)

Anyways.... Not everyone is gonna love Anthrax. Give her a break.

@14: did you just go count? nerd brother!

annnnnd it looks like she's addressing you directly, megan:

http://alltherecords.tumblr.com/post/800…

It's interesting to read this around the anniversary of Live Through This, which includes a song Love wrote in response to being assaulted by the audience at her own show. This is the kind of typical of male behavior at certain rock events, which explains why a woman may think that an Anthrax show might not be the most female friendly space. I'm really amazed that a female writer would be so dismissive of a concrete rational concern about risks of assault at certain types of shows.

It's also interesting as a consistent theme in Live Through This was how she felt alienated by alleged girl power types.

Part of the patriarchy is that no matter what a guy does, there's an assumption he has a good reason and people will seek it out, while whatever a woman does, people will find a reason it is suspect. Including other women.

It's weird how you complain about something that "fuels gender stereotypes" when you are dismissing a female writer similar terms most male critic/geeks use to dismiss women: call her a fake, blame her for how other people react to her, trash her motivations ("I'm sure it'll end in a book deal. Just like the 300 sandwiches blog did.") and even say her husband appears more genuine and fun than she is.

Sexism and patriarchy is all about projecting ideas and definitions upon women without their participation. How is what you've done here any better? To quote O'Hollar: "A lot of the criticism of this blog is that it plays up this idea that women’s voices are marginal or less important, but for all that has been written, no one has made any effort to reach out to me for comment, or even to ask me a question. One article got my name wrong throughout. It’s clear that critics are more interested in making me a symbol of some harmful stereotype than understanding what this is, or who I am. Talking to me might make that difficult. It might humanize me."

Did you even try to engage her before writing this mean spirited pile of speculation and accusation? Engaging her as a human means you couldn't write such tripe as " she'd rather just barf out some words about what the bands are wearing and hope the idea alone makes for decent page clicks" and accuse her of "stealing" attention and ideas that she clearly didn't.

This is also an uncomfortable gender trend: women engaging in policing and gatekeeping as savage as the boys club. Even if you are trying to critique normative thinking, you're echoing how men silence women by picking apart their credentials and finding them wanting. Even though part of the point of feminism is such things don't belong to anyone and you don't need credential. You're essentially saying her interest is less valuable because she's admits she's not an expert, therefore she must care more about her husband's authority than music.

I doubt that if a guy wrote a blog about his girlfriend's "stupid" interest, and that "stupid" was obviously ironic (or it was his brother's, mother's or father's), he'd get some guff for the title but mostly be praised by both genders for exploring a new interest from a witty point of ignorance. The only people who would call him out for betraying men by ceding ownership of the culture to his wife would be men's rights activists. It's sad that women can be counted upon to find their fellow women wanting as much as dudes.

It's interesting to read this around the anniversary of Live Through This, which includes a song Love wrote in response to being assaulted by the audience at her own show. This is the kind of typical of male behavior at certain rock events, which explains why a woman may think that an Anthrax show might not be the most female friendly space. I'm really amazed that a female writer would be so dismissive of a concrete rational concern about risks of assault at certain types of shows.

It's also interesting as a consistent theme in Live Through This was how she felt alienated by alleged girl power types.

Part of the patriarchy is that no matter what a guy does, there's an assumption he has a good reason and people will seek it out, while whatever a woman does, people will find a reason it is suspect. Including other women.

It's weird how you complain about something that "fuels gender stereotypes" when you are dismissing a female writer similar terms most male critic/geeks use to dismiss women: call her a fake, blame her for how other people react to her, trash her motivations ("I'm sure it'll end in a book deal. Just like the 300 sandwiches blog did.") and even say her husband appears more genuine and fun than she is.

Sexism and patriarchy is all about projecting ideas and definitions upon women without their participation. How is what you've done here any better? To quote O'Hollar: "A lot of the criticism of this blog is that it plays up this idea that women’s voices are marginal or less important, but for all that has been written, no one has made any effort to reach out to me for comment, or even to ask me a question. One article got my name wrong throughout. It’s clear that critics are more interested in making me a symbol of some harmful stereotype than understanding what this is, or who I am. Talking to me might make that difficult. It might humanize me."

Did you even try to engage her before writing this mean spirited pile of speculation and accusation? Engaging her as a human means you couldn't write such tripe as " she'd rather just barf out some words about what the bands are wearing and hope the idea alone makes for decent page clicks" and accuse her of "stealing" attention and ideas that she clearly didn't.

This is also an uncomfortable gender trend: women engaging in policing and gatekeeping as savage as the boys club. Even if you are trying to critique normative thinking, you're echoing how men silence women by picking apart their credentials and finding them wanting. Even though part of the point of feminism is such things don't belong to anyone and you don't need credential. You're essentially saying her interest is less valuable because she's admits she's not an expert, therefore she must care more about her husband's authority than music.

I doubt that if a guy wrote a blog about his girlfriend's "stupid" interest, and that "stupid" was obviously ironic (or it was his brother's, mother's or father's), he'd get some guff for the title but mostly be praised by both genders for exploring a new interest from a witty point of ignorance. The only people who would call him out for betraying men by ceding ownership of the culture to his wife would be men's rights activists. It's sad that women can be counted upon to find their fellow women wanting as much as dudes.

Man, Megan. I usually like you, but you come off like a real asshole here.