Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, July 31, 1994 TAG: 9408040008
SECTION: CURRENT PAGE: NRV-2 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
There may be a shift in the format from its mix of classic and mainstream rock, alternative, metal and blues to "contemporary music," a thin mask for whatever mass-produced, commercial plastic California decides the rest of the country will swallow.
In my decade in the New River Valley, I can remember many times when I heard songs and new artists weeks - sometimes months - before other stations or MTV caught on. Because of this, I have done a great deal of impulse buying at local record stores. These stores should take notice. Likewise, the local live music scene is rich and diverse largely because Rock 105 sponsors both big and small acts here. What is the likelihood of up-and-coming bands like The Lemonheads returning to play in small clubs around here without Rock 105?
Rock 105 is one of the few stations with the courage to play such a wide variety of music: The Beatles, Nirvana, Lynard Skynard, The Breeders, Bob Dylan, Elvis Costello, The Who, Nine Inch Nails and a block of songs of, say, Pink Floyd.
All of this speaks of Rock 105's most sterling qualities: integrity and courage. If the people of the New River Valley allow Rock 105 to be changed by the corporate mentality that assumes we are as bland and mutable as the rest of the nation, we are taking one more step toward becoming a Northern Virginia clone. Please sign one of the petitions circulating locally or write to: Rock 105, 1780 N. Franklin St., Christiansburg, Va. 24073. Providing your age and occupation will help reflect the station's diverse audience.
Sean Kotz
Newport
Editor's Note: Dave Roederer with Rock 105 (WVVV, 104.9 FM) said the station has made no programming decisions yet.
Revisionism and Oliver North
Bob Anderson, in his July 17 letter on Oliver North, presents a good illustration of revisionist history. For example, he concludes by stating, "His conviction was overturned because he was not afforded a fair trial." Quite the contrary. North got a fair trial but was justice really served in the appeal outcome? Even the right-wing judges' majority ... did not say that the trial was unfair; they merely sought an extended replay of it, without showing how this second run would provide any greater insights..." (Toobin, "Opening Arguments," 1992).
Anderson, like North, wishes to quibble about North's lies and convictions. To be specific, North was convicted of "... aiding and abetting in the obstruction of congressional investigations in November 1986, charging that North helped draft a false chronology of the Iran arms sales..." (Walsh, "Iran-Contra," 1994). North obstructed Congress by writing lies, which would be, lying to Congress. Congress is also composed of Republicans as well as Democrats. Truth should be considered a non-partisan issue.
Finally, Anderson begins his letter by attributing five points to Robert McFarlane, Oliver North's former boss. If one were to choose a credible witness for Oliver North, McFarlane would be a poor choice. McFarlane was called as a witness for the prosecution in North's Iran-Contra trial. He was so incredible as a witness that Judge Gesell observed, "This man...has told so many stories since he has been on direct that there isn't any way to know what he believes or knows. He is an intensely unreliable witness in almost every respect of the testimony."
I am not a member of the beltway "in" crowd.
Arthur Claussen
Blacksburg
by CNB