Ski industry not fair to fat people | VailDaily.com
YOUR AD HERE »

Ski industry not fair to fat people

Staff Reports

As a fat person who really enjoys her skiing, I was incensed by your story (“Getting fat and phat on Vail Mountain,” Oct. 10, http://www.vailtrail.com).What makes you think fat people eat more on the slopes? If anything, I find I eat less than I do usually probably because I’m enjoying myself so much. I forget about food!My only gripe is the equipment. Why do clothing manufacturers think that no-one over a size 16 does any outdoor sports? Why does it take forever to locate a pair of ski boots to fit around my calves? How is the industry ever going to encourage larger people onto the slopes if the equipment manufacturers don’t even factor them into the equation? Or perhaps all you skinny people want the slopes to yourselves. Well, tough on you, because I for one will be out there this winter!Sally WattsBanbury, OxfordshireUnited KingdomSki racing deserves better coverageI think that the biggest reason the American public doesn’t follow ski racing is the lack of coverage by the mainstream media (“Don’t blame athletes for lack of U.S. ski-racing interest,” Dec. 5 at http://www.vailtrail.com).I live in the Denver area and it is hard to find anything in the paper or on TV. The guy that lives in Mississippi doesn’t stand a chance. Ever since Wide World of Sports quit you can’t find ski racing in prime time. Outdoor Life Network is starting to carry World Cup, but they dropped all the other snow shows. Until this changes it isn’t going to change.Thomas GoodenoughEnglewood, Colo.Let me count the waysNotice first of all how Mr. Boyd has seemingly never seen any other “best album” list since they invariably put “Pet Sounds” somewhere in the top 10 (“The top 500 albums of my time,” Dec. 5, http://www.vailtrail.com).Notice second of all how he claims Sgt. Pepper isn’t the best Beatles album yet places it No. 1 on his list. Notice third of all that he says live albums are not candidates on his list, yet includes “Stop Making Sense,” which last time I checked was a live album. Notice fourth of all that he calls Miles Davis’ album “A Kind of Blue.” Notice fifth of all that he actually has the audacity to put the Doors’ “Waiting for the Sun,” easily and almost unanimously known as one of the worst LPs of all time, on his list. Notice sixth of all that his list blows. Notice seventh of all that his column is called “Boyd N the Hood.” Notice eighth of all that I’m having too much fun with this.Nathan PhillipsWilmington, N.C.Pet Sounds still No. 1We all have an opinion; yours counts as much as Rolling Stones’ (“The top 500 albums of my time,” Dec. 5, http://www.vailtrail.com).I do agree with much of yours, especially “London Calling,” “Graceland,” Marley, Miles Davis.However, I (along with many others) think “Revolver” has stood the test of time much better than “Sgt. Peppers” (dare I say time piece), Exile may also have longer legs than “Sticky Fingers.” I prefer “More Songs about Buildings and Food” (innocent and unpretentious), but won’t argue “Stop Making Sense.” Like to see Love on the list, but maybe top 20. And the No. 1 still remains “Pet Sounds,” though it requires too much concentration while listening, most others pale in “revolutionary” structure.Enjoy your writing.Tim ErmishVailHow dare you insult Brian Wilson!The article on the Rolling Stone’s Top 500 embarrasses me (“The top 500 albums of my time,” Dec. 5, http://www.vailtrail.com).Granted, Rolling Stone has become a crummy magazine that just regurgitates what Spin and Teen Bop and MTV vomit up too, but you obviously know less than they do. Red Hot Chili Peppers? What the hell are you talking about? Where were you when you were inspired to compile your list? The mall? The only reason we have Sgt. Pepper is because Paul was obsessed with “Pet Sounds.””Stop Making Sense”? Interesting choice. You get some extra points on that one.Will “So repulsed that I had to write an e-mail” CourtneyLos Angeles, Calif.Cream, sugar, Pepper’sand Pet SoundsWhat does the “greatest” mean, in terms of music? Could someone explain that to me? I can see what it means in terms of sports, because I can imagine the 1976 Pittsburgh Steelers beating any other team in the history of football. or possibly losing to some other great team. But what does “greatest” mean in terms of music? And while you’re at it, can someone explain why “Pet Sounds” is great without talking about how influential it is?I mean, I like the album, but it still sounds like a bunch of guys in too-tight underwear standing around holding hands and singing about a really parentally-censored summer break. Where’s the pain, the ecstasy, the guts, a single interesting lyric, the wailing? I’ll take my musical innovation raw, without all the cream and sugar, please. …And I’m only going to comment on one other little thing in this argument: whoever puts Sgt. Pepper’s at the top of their list is full of horse****.Three comments why:1. When was the last time, before all of this hoopla, that you sat down and listened to that album top to bottom? And if you lie and say recently, is that the album you’ve listened to more times than any other in your life, because it’s so good? I would venture to say that no one on this list can answer yes to this (though I may be wrong), and this is not meaningless.2. Would you like the album as much if it had not hit you at an important and vulnerable time in your life, when everything seemed so much larger than life? Or, differently, if you heard this album for the first time now, without knowing that all the “critics” call it the best of all time, would you listen to it and say “this is the best of all time?” Finally, who’s going to argue for the consistency of the lyrics through the album? Like all of the Beatles’ stuff, the songs are musically super cool and innovative, blah, blah, blah, but the lyrics only rise above the level of kitsch sporadically (though occasionally brilliantly), and are often somewhere far below it (I get by with a little help from my friends, oh I’m going to try with a little help from my friends).3. Who is going to argue for the fallacy of earliness over greatness? If someone wants to field a list of the 500 most influential albums of all time, that’s one thing, but we’re talking greatness here, and influence does not greatness make. Think about Shakespeare stealing whole plot lines for his plays does this mean that the earlier stuff is better? Yes, Pepper’s BSSM is a good album, yes it was innovative, yes some of it still sounds good after all these years, and yes it was terribly influential, but there is only spotty earnest humanity to the album, most of the lyrics aren’t challenging even by the standards of the day, and no one really listens to it (as an album) anymore…Don’t fall for the hype.Tyler SageIowa City, IowaBoyd is a foolish, foolish foolAt first I thought this was an elaborate joke, but now I feel kind of depressed knowing this guy is living, breathing, and actually believes he is an authority on such things (see “The top 500 albums of my time,” Dec. 5 at http://www.vailtrail.com). If, in fact, he is on your staff, I’d think twice about renegotiating his contract. These “best-of” lists are wonderful for stirring up controversy, but I wonder, are they actually necessary? I mean, musical taste is so subjective. It’s like asking which is better, an orange or the sun?Ric MencBarrington, Ill.


Support Local Journalism