smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Ryan Williams <ryan@jimmyether.com> |
| Subject | Re: obscure critic reference points and Stewat's soapbox |
| Date | Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:47:05 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain ISO-8859-1 (2.6 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
>> *if* the
>> intent of the writer is to "spread the word" to others about music in
>> this
>> genre' that is available for purchase/might be of interest beyond this
>> group.
>
> I pretty much agree with that. It's a fine line you're walking when you
> want to simultaneously presume that you're addressing people who know as
> much about music as you do just as you're trying to bring in people who
> might not ordinarily buy pop music but would perhaps consider it if
> they saw
> a familiar reference point.
Um... wait. Since when has the roll of Rock-Critic ever been synonymous
with Salesperson? Aren't they supposed to simply present their personal
impression of the music honestly and without being influenced by sales
incentives and hype? Good writing is about truth, honesty and trust...
not pandering to a particular demographic. Sure, you want to be able to
communicate to your audience, but if a band or artist obviously draws
from the more obscure influences, then I would think it logical to make
those comparisons. Stewart said it well in his sample I think, and I
only vaguely know of the bands he referenced (and have never HEARD any
of them). However, from his alternate description, I have a good idea
what Bronwyn sounds like regardless. As he stated, it's the writers who
resort to nothing but comparison criticism that bug the hell out of
me... giving no idea of the lyric quality, performance, or writing. That
type of writing just makes me think that everything must be horribly
derivative. It's nice to know where an artist comes from, but the more
important thing is what makes them unique. If you can't find anything,
I'll probably skip it.
Where do you draw the line with what is a familiar to the audience and
what is not? I know a lot of people who have never even heard of Big
Star, yet I would guess that pretty much everyone on this list claim
them as one of their favorite bands. If a band called Trumans Water
draws its primary influence from Faust and Amon Düül, should those
references be omitted because they are obscure to the average top-40
listener? Basically, this leads to everything being compared with how
much it does or doesn't sound like The Beatles, The Stones or Pink
Floyd. Pretty boring and not very informative.
If you are truly interested in new artists and read a review that peaks
your interest, yet you don't know any of the referenced bands... head on
over to The All Music Guide (http://www.allmusic.com) and do a little
quick research. You dig deep enough and you can figure out what speaks
to you and what doesn't. At least, that's what I do.
Ryan
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.