smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Michael Bennett" <mrhonorama@hotmail.com> |
| Subject | Re: obscure critic reference points and Stewat's soapbox |
| Date | Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:59:28 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain (4.9 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
While Stewart's 'hostility' may have been an overreaction, as a writer, I
definitely was thinking 'Amen' to his spiel -- unless you write for a big
outlet, you certainly get promos (I get plenty now as it is) but I still buy
as much music as ever, and every month a significant percentage of the
records I write about I bought. Not that I'm complaining -- every great
promo I get allows me to buy another record and double my pleasure. I think
when you write for an outlet that's not connected to the mainstream, one of
the things you really want to do is discover new things so you can tell
others -- and certainly Stewart does that in Amplifier and such.
That being said, the danger of insularity that Dale and Pat allude to is a
trap to be avoided. Much like it's better to use a simpler word rather than
one that will force most of your readers to grab the dictionary, when making
comparisons, when possible, go for one that will have a broader meaning --
or better yet, combine a broader and a specific reference. In my recent
review, I compare the lead singer of The Contrast's voice to Chris Hickey,
but also mention (elsewhere in the review) the Byrds, Eleventh Dream Day,
The Grip Weeds and others -- something for everyone I guess.
But comparisons can only go so far. I've been plowing through the review
section of the new Big Takeover -- as I write more, I become somewhat
disenchanted with some of the reviewing. For one thing, I notice that
limited reference points make for irritating reviews. When one reviewer
compares about 40 percent of the discs he writes about to The
Doughboys...what good does that do? In fact, reviews that do nothing more
than stack up comparisons are about as compelling as reading the ingredients
off the side of a box of cereal. All that means is that comparisons alone
aren't enough -- but I totally agree with what Dale said, you need to come
away from a review knowing what it sounds like.
Mike Bennett
Record reviews and more at http://fufkin.com
>From: thisispop@comcast.net
>Reply-To: audities@smoe.org
>To: audities@smoe.org (AUDITIES)
>Subject: obscure critic reference points and Stewat's soapbox
>Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:28:43 +0000
>
>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.
>
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.