smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | thisispop@comcast.net |
| Subject | obscure critic reference points and Stewat's soapbox |
| Date | Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:28:43 +0000 |
[Part 1 text/plain (2.5 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Regarding MTN HIGH's post Stewart wrote:
>Hmmm...I sense a bit of hostility here
Stewart - your opening paragraph has more hostility than MTN's whole post.
And then you ratchet it up from there. Reviewers getting lots of free music
was a small part of MTN's post - a side point relegated to parentheses.
Hmmm...I sense a bit of guilty conscience here. And if after all of these
years of writing and networking you're only getting three free CDs a month
you've made a misstep somewhere. Yes, it's impossible to support and follow
the indie scene without buying music (and often lots of it), I find it hard
to believe that you're averaging 36 promos a year.
MTN HIGH's original point was a good one. Often critics are so deeply
entrenched in the music scene, current and historical, that their reference
points seem to be relevant only to other critics. I'm a firm believer that
if after reading a review you don't have a sense of what a record sounds
like than the review is worthless. I'm not saying that I should be able to
hum all the songs after reading about it - but I should have an idea of
what other records this CD might be similar to based either on actual
comparisons or through a description of the music.
I know that everyone has different reference points, which is why the
intended audience is always important. I think you can get away with more
obscure references on a board like this, but a review in Entertainment
Weekly isn't going to be very beneficial to the majority of their readers if
it references Radiators From Space, Jupiter Affect, and Moods for Moderns
(all references that would make me take notice).
I used to have a big problem with reviews in magazines like Your Flesh
because the references were incredibly obscure to the point of being
comical. And then I'd finally hear one of the records and think something
along the lines of "would it have killed them to just compare it to the
first Gang of Four album?" I occasionally see pop reviews of new artists
that compare them to another new artist of limited reach and question how
many people will even know of the referenced band, let alone actually have
heard the record. Sometimes reviews seem to be written by one critic for
another critic. Maybe there are enough critics out there to support a band,
but other than Stewart, most of them can get the record for free.
Sleep Cheap
Dale
np - The 88 - a 2003 top 5 record for me so far - imagine Ray Davies
fronting Dear 23 era Posies with a bit of T-Rex thrown in.
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.