While ensuring that all PG readers are aware of his unfaltering adulation for Elvis Costello, Scott Mervis makes a prescient point in his review (Beat goes on for Police; Costello's short set a crime, July 30) of Monday's Police/Costello concert at PG Pavilion. The Police's set list was much shorter than the ticket price and The Police's rock 'n' roll stature would suggest. The unwritten rule of rock is that the headliner plays two hours -- The Rolling Stones, U2, Eric Clapton, Genesis, Van Halen, Tom Petty, Rush and even Jimmy Buffett know it. Why don't The Police?

The Foo Fighters, playing a blistering two-and-a-half-hour set Saturday at the Petersen Events Center, understand their role as up-and-coming rock legends. As frontman Dave Grohl explains, "We don't play these teensy-weensy hour-and-10 minute sets. We're not the hot new band ... "

The Police, as the hot old band, owed fans more than the one-hour-and-thirty-five-minute set delivered for $200 per ticket. But yes, Scott, what the group did play was solid, if uninspired, and many more classic rock fans can now say they saw The Police.

Kimberly J. Kisner
Regent Square

I really enjoyed the feature on The Police (Music Preview: Calling the Police, July 24), primarily because of Stewart Copeland's brutal honesty.

Distilled to its essence, he describes his relationship with the band and the band's dynamics both as entity and interpersonally, as a complicated family relationship complete with sibling rivalries, different wants and desires, and so forth.

How wonderful that he's able to lay it out on the table without coming off as a self-centered ass, but rather as someone who recognizes his own part and others in this machine called The Police.

David D. Berkowitz
Washington, D.C. (Squirrel Hill native)

The Foo Fighters concert Friday at the Petersen Events Center was right up there with the best shows I have ever seen in Pittsburgh.

I knew Foo Fighters would be great and was surprised with two quality opening acts for a change. I hope the people at the Petersen will bring in more good acts, but not too many will top this one.

I feel bad for all the young kids who saw their first show last night, because this will be a hard one to beat.

There were some 13-, 14-year-olds in front of us, and I wanted to cover their ears and tell them it was bedtime.

Tess Nemchik
Trauger

First off, great piece on the Foo Fighters by Scott Mervis in the PG. (Music Review: Grohl, Foo Fighters attain raucous rock enlightenment)

I was at the show and was overwhelmingly impressed with Grohl and the appreciation he extended to his fan base. I can honestly say he and his band put it all out on the stage that night and left no stones unturned. Best line of the night was when he came out for the encore performance and stated after the first song ... "[Expletive] it! Let's pretend that we're starting a whole new show!"

Grohl had more energy than anyone I can remember on stage in a very long time. He could have and would have went on for days. I'd easily pay double to see them again!

Seon Pierce
Irwin

I am writing in response to the letter by Marion Damick in Feedback (Readin around the world July 10) as well as one of Peter McKay's Saturday columns (Homemaking: I have some bad news ..., July 5). Damick encourages library visits and the choosing of books by children, implying it will be a joy.

McKay said, "If you can sell that one to your kids [that is, a visit to the library as entertainment], either you're a pretty persuasive salesperson or your kids are pretty stupid."

They are both right.

Stop in at the children's department of any library when the kids are out of school. You will find children using every available computer station, but very few children browsing or reading books.

What does this situation mean for our future generation? Is it just a passing phase, or will these same children as adults be using the libraries only for the advanced technology it offers?

I can't answer this question, but it leaves me both sad and fearful.

Mary Chalmers
Glen Osborne

It was with shock that I found out that KDKA had fired Valerie Abati, meteorologist. I found her refreshing, natural and always with a smile on her face. She appeared to get on well with her co-workers.

In Tuned In (MSNBC says money, not politics, drove Comcast decision, July 25), Rob Owen cites various possible reasons for her dismissal, such as people not caring for her voice or the way she came off. If that be the case, I am sure some people do not care for Keith Jones, Sonni Abatta and the traffic person. So, I don't buy that as a reason.

Ratings were also mentioned as a reason. I doubt that ratings would suffer from some people not caring for the weather person. I think that there is more to her firing than meets the eye, possibly politics, and "no one's talking."

KDKA is the only news program I watch. I will miss Valerie Abati's fresh smile first thing in the morning and her seemingly congenial nature as reflected in the smiles of her co-workers.

Therese McKenzie
Bridgeville

Twice in the past week, Bob Hoover has written pieces focusing on the fact that Kay Ryan, Poet Laureate Consultant to the Library of Congress, would not grant him an interview when he wanted it.

Hoover's work is to review books and give incidental information about literature. In these columns he focused on himself and his petulant outrage at not getting a submissive positive response from a writer who he believes owes him an interview.

In a Sunday column, which was at least long enough to briefly review Ms. Ryan's work, Hoover concentrated on her personal isolation, lack of public engagement and, primarily, her refusal to grant Mr. Hoover an interview immediately when he called.

He said in Sunday's column that he was forced to "fall back on her writings to form an impression." Isn't it amazing that the PG's literary critic would be expected to make his judgment about a writer by reading and reviewing her work! And note that he has yet to give any evidence that he has read the work, thought about it or formed an opinion on it.

In fact, the job description for the Poet Laureate includes one function -- introducing the Library of Congress Poetry Readings. The stipend for this is $35,000, which is a lot to those of us who don't make that kind of money. But, in fact, it is on par with what famous writers get for lectures and readings. It is, sadly, much less than what people like George W. Bush will get for speeches after he leaves office. Kay Ryan does not owe Bob Hoover anything as part of her job. The Poet Laureate is not the Court Jester of the People.

The U.S. Poet Laureate designation changes frequently. It's not a lifetime position. It's a chance to put an American poet before the public and let it choose to like her or not. I had never read Ryan's work before the appointment. I read two of her books last week and found her an excellent choice for the position.

Her poems are direct, comprehensible by a wide public audience, built on dazzling images and focused on the ordinary raised to art. She examines the quirky thoughts and experiences that most of us have but feel too embarrassed to talk about. She shares a lot with Billy Collins, another Poet Laureate whose work I found because of his appointment by the Library of Congress.

I hope lots of Americans buy and read Kay Ryan's work. Judge her on what you read, not whether she wants to talk to you.

Mr. Hoover, learn to competently review writing or get a job writing the social column. Too bad Kay won't be at your party. Maybe she has something better to do.

Paul Leger
North Side