smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Harris, Will" <wharris1@bcharrispub.com> |
| Subject | Re: obscure critic reference points and Stewat's soapbox |
| Date | Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:47:09 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (3.8 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
>Um... wait. Since when has the role 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?
The role of rock critic ISN'T synonymous with salesperson...but, to a
certain degree, isn't one of the ultimate points of a review to convince a
possible consumer that an album is or isn't worthy of purchase? Certainly
it's not the only reason, but it's got to be in the top few...
>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.
>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.
As I said in my original post, you SHOULDN'T have to dumb things down to the
simplest possible level; it's just that mixing the mainstream with the
obscure is a reasonable idea. If there ARE no mainstream, familiar
influences available, then say as much.
>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.
Offering a comparison between two artists, one known and one as-yet-unknown,
serves a significant purpose within a review: it changes the mysterious into
the familiar by providing a common stylistic thread between the two. What
must be remembered is that not everyone cares about the lyrical quality, the
performance, the production, or any of those things; they just want to know,
"Who does it sound like?" That's the foot in the door that the casual
consumer needs. And it's quite possible to accomplish an intelligent review
that covers ALL of those things.
>If you are truly interested in new artists and read a review that piques
>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.
And it's what I do as well. But not everyone does.
I'm not trying to be desperately argumentative here. I'm just trying look
at this from the viewpoint of my wife, who is a wonderful, intelligent woman
with an incredibly open mind when it comes to music...but, unlike myself,
she doesn't study it day in and day out, she doesn't subscribe to music
magazines, and she doesn't go around memorizing the names of obscure bands
she's read about but never heard, just because she wants to be able to
remember them when looking through bargain bins. She just knows what she
likes, and a review that doesn't at least ATTEMPT to speak to that kind of
casual music listener is never going to inspire her to buy something...and
I'm pretty sure she's not alone in the wilderness with her tendencies.
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.