From: owner-headline-girl-digest@smoe.org (headline-girl-digest) To: headline-girl-digest@smoe.org Subject: headline-girl-digest V2 #285 Reply-To: headline-girl@smoe.org Sender: owner-headline-girl-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-headline-girl-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk headline-girl-digest Monday, November 29 1999 Volume 02 : Number 285 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Subjective criticism and negative reviews... [Paul Schreiber ] Combo: Re: Subjective criticism and negative reviews... [James McGarry <] Re: Subjective criticism and negative reviews... ["Julian C. Dunn" Subject: Re: Subjective criticism and negative reviews... okay, here's another question: i reviewed a show recently in which a certain performer gave a good performance, but not a great one. often, when walking away from his/her shows, i think to myself, "wow, so-and-so really stole the show tonight." anyway, i was discussing whether or not to mention this in my article with my arts editor. he basically said that it isn't that important for the readers to know -- i.e. my overall impression of the show was positive, so that's what the review should reflect. it would be different if i was reviewing, say, david bowie , as most readers are already familiar with him and more subtle critiques could be understood. thoughts? Paul shad 96c / 3B CS / mac activist / eda / fumbler fan of / jewel / sophie b. / sarah slean / steve poltz / emm gryner / / x-files / buffy / dawson's creek / habs / bills / 49ers / t h i n k d i f f e r e n t. "You don't know the way I feel about you" -- Emm Gryner, "Summerlong" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 01:05:42 -0500 (EST) From: "Julian C. Dunn" Subject: Re: Subjective criticism and negative reviews... On 28-Nov-1999 Paul Schreiber wrote: > okay, here's another question: > > i reviewed a show recently in which a certain performer gave a good > performance, but not a great one. often, when walking away from his/her > shows, i think to myself, "wow, so-and-so really stole the show tonight." By this, you mean, for instance, the opening act stole the show? > anyway, i was discussing whether or not to mention this in my article > with my arts editor. he basically said that it isn't that important for > the readers to know -- i.e. my overall impression of the show was > positive, so that's what the review should reflect. it would be different > if i was reviewing, say, david bowie , as most readers are already > familiar with him and more subtle critiques could be understood. I would agree with him somewhat... if your readers are going to be more interested in the person headlining the show as opposed to peripheral artists (backup singers, opening acts, whatever) then this is true. Otherwise, I think it is possible to make nice remarks about whoever it was that stole the show, without denigrating the main artist. - - Julian [ Julian C. Dunn - jdunn@aquezada.com WWW: http://www.aquezada.com/ ] [ programmer, web designer, unix user, fumbler, writer, and future engineer] [ FuE exfe94 a+++ Ifte/slc lonca r- ps++ bs+ t++/*t C+++$/C! w+++ p7 LF+++ ] [N++/N! cd260 pr++ g+++ S-/S *x++ Fa+++/Fa$/Fa! m1 b+ fc+++/ E>+ rl-- *d s!] [ "roll the tape, i'll show you how the ending began" - emm gryner ] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 10:22:40 -0500 From: Paul Schreiber Subject: Re: Subjective criticism and negative reviews... Julian C. Dunn wrote: >By this, you mean, for instance, the opening act stole the show? No ... lemm try and explain. >I would agree with him somewhat... if your readers are going to be more >interested in the person headlining the show as opposed to peripheral artists >(backup singers, opening acts, whatever) then this is true. Otherwise, I >think >it is possible to make nice remarks about whoever it was that stole the show, >without denigrating the main artist. I'm more than happy to write glowingly about the opening act if they warrant it -- I reviewed Emm and Big Wreck and Emm got about 60% of the article. What I want to communicate is the performer was not quite "on their game," so to speak. And the question is, when, if ever, is that necessary? Always? For big names? Never? Paul shad 96c / 3B CS / mac activist / eda / fumbler fan of / jewel / sophie b. / sarah slean / steve poltz / emm gryner / / x-files / buffy / dawson's creek / habs / bills / 49ers / t h i n k d i f f e r e n t. "Your attitude is your life." -- Robin Williams ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 10:47:22 PST From: "kristy radford" Subject: Re: headline-girl-digest V2 #284 too much negativity in this last post...... i am back from Brazil and dying to see emm in her next show...where ever it may be. too bad about the less than positive revue. at least you guys enjoyed the show!!!! who`s comming to the Aquedeza Bitches bash on the 16th???? (hahahah! its a joke!) be there or be square!!! love kr ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 12:52:12 -0600 From: Joe Rezac Subject: Results of my philanthropy survey Thanks once again for everyone who emailed me w/ their names/links. Here are the results (in no particular order): Musicians Natalie Merchant U2 REM Sting Ellis Paul - Woody Guthrie Foundation Mariah Carey - summer camp for inner city kids Beastie Boys - Tibetan Freedom Concert Neil Young - Bridge School Benefit Tori Amos - RAINN Don Henley - Walden Woods preservation Tom Petty - helping out underprivileged kids in LA Michael Jackson - Save the World campaign/charity Run-DMC Salt 'n Pepa Kirk Franklin Mary Chapin Carpenter Ricky Skaggs Midnight Oil Sarah McLachlan - Lilith Fair Rage Against The Machine Eric Clapton Jewel - Higher Ground For Humanity Dar Williams - Snowden Environmental Trust Carlos Santana - Milagro Foundation Ani DiFranco Indigo Girls Bruce Springsteen David Bowie Bob Geldolf - Band Aid Foundation Willie Nelson - Farm Aid Brian Eno Paul McCartney - PETA & Linda McCartney Foudation Pavaroti - Children's Benefit Concerts Counting Crows 7Seconds Warped Tour - Camp Pacific Heartland Misc. Causes which Musicians are involved in Respond CD Compilation Artists Against Racism VH-1 Music Education Respond, Inc. Music For Peace (anti-war compilation) Local Kosovo Relief Benefit Shows (featuring the likes of Emm Gryner, Sarah Slean, & more) Amnesty International Greenpeace Live Aid Farm Aid Net Aid Habitat For Humanity Musicians United for Safe Energy (MUSE) Rock The Vote I will post the link to my article as soon as I put it up on Creighton's website. Keep sharin' the music, Joe - -- sarahtaratori: A live music appreciation site http://www.radiks.net/~joerezac/ "There's so much more than good enough" - Sarah McLachlan ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 14:54:40 -0500 (EST) From: James McGarry Subject: Combo: Re: Subjective criticism and negative reviews... Steve makes an excellent point that: >grapes type thing) but it was really in jest. I don't know, *was* it a >stupid review? He didn't like Emm and Holly, but their music isn't for >everyone, I accept that. That's one thing, to suggest that you don't like an artist or a concert or something. A subjective judgement is fine. However, trying to pass off opinion as objective judgement isn't. The crowd was really into that show, his suggestion that Emm "demolished" _Protection_ and the lack of balance suggested that it was not well-received, it was, there is a responsibility to provide balanced reporting. A concert review is a combination of a critique and reportage. >Same goes for that other review that James and Tab and one or two others >didn't seem to like... it did have one or two errors, sure, but all in >all was it really that bad? Part of it in fact really resonated with me, The Chart article? Oh yes, it was really that bad. Those few factual errors kick the legs out of the whole article. If you can't get a few simple, easily checked pieces of information correct then, one has to suspect the whole of the opinion. As a journalist, especially for a glossy national (and unfree) paper, you have a very strong responsibility to get it right. I'd lay the blame squarely on his editor's shoulders. Someone should have read that piece and corrected the factual errors. We're not talking obscure information here, both artists had easily guessed websites, and taking maybe a couple of minutes to check some facts (or reading them on the CD's on the way out) would've gone a long way to lending some veracity to this article. If you're gonna slag someone, you have your facts straight or look like a goof. >And here let me go off on a bit of a tangent. Do local music writers >have any sort of responsibility to support local/indie musicians? Is it I think there are greater responsibilities that to just one's own opinion. Reviewing a concert is a lot different from reviewing a CD, you should take into account the overall feeling of the crowd. Indeed for fair and balanced coverage, you have a responsibility to at least mention that other's liked it. Matt is usually a little more balanced. The gist of the piece as I read it was, I don't understand this music, therefore its bad. But beyond that writer's do have a responsibility to The Truth, the artist, their readers, their editor, the shareholders, the advertisers, and the scene. Its a fine line and often hard to walk and its also easy to make a name for yourself by taking the cheap shot. >haven't completely made up my mind on this point, but I tend to think >that music writers have a responsibility to their audience, and a >responsibility to help *good* bands rise to the top. Writers who only Certainly. This is the entire reason why I write about music. I want to find the diamond (rough or not) and show people my 'discovery'. If a band really sucks, and you know it, and the crowd knows it, by all means, toast 'em, but do it with style, panache and explain yourself. But, completely trashing an artist for one bad show is well, the mark of schlock journalism. Like I said, its a fine line, mention the bad show, balance it with something positive. Hmmm, like, "...last nights show had all the umph of a burst balloon. I know they can do better, I've see it." Especially with less established musicians, they will make mistakes, as a journalist your job isn't to nitpick their act to death. But to give fair and accurate coverage. If you have a bias (like Matt Galloway) be up front about it, e.g. "I don't normally listen to, but..." I've never heard X before, but" Otherwise it _is_ just subjective. >Of course the problem is that music by its nature is a highly personal >thing, and hopefully people are smart enough to know that and not take >any one review as gospel. :-) Yeah that is certainly true. My opinions of artists have never changed because of a review. If you like it, you like it, its _good_ to you. :-)The flipside of this is not to denigrate your audience because they like a band that you don't. >movies to see. What is the point of trashing a concert by a band who may >only come around once every 3 or 4 years, if at all? Is it so in 3 or 4 >years, the people who read that negative review can avoid the next show >by that band? The situation now is a little more fuzzy with articles :-) That's it in a nutshell! (Sorry, Austin Power's flashback.) A lot of music reviews bash bands, especially in concert. In the support field we refer to it as blocked expectations. As a writer, you have a responsibility to go beyond that. Ok, lets be very frank here. My Donnas piece for Spill.... it was a crappy interview, I was kept waiting for an hour and 15 minutes for a 15 minute interview (it was actually more like 10)... ...I was (rightfully) ticked. In my first draft, this came out in spades. I _am_ a big fan of the Donnas, and it was a good show. So, do I toast them for being late in a business not known for its promptness? Toast them because _I_ had to wait? Because, my interviewee wasn't terribly talkative, more so after being up for two days and not having eaten in 20 hours? Or do I acknowledge it was a good show, that those kids tried to put on the best show they possibly could? By the 12th rewrite I'd edited out my personal grudges and presented a more balanced piece. If you let your emotions run wild, it is subjective, entirely subjective. >In general, I guess what this boils down to is that if a writer likes a >CD/concert, s/he should praise it. If s/he hates it, s/he should trash >it. > Honesty above all, even if it means hurting a few feelings among fans of >that artist or band. Well, yes, as long as you are fair about it. If you've seen them several times and they've sucked yeah. If its a band you like, that you think can do better; that you've seen do better, maybe there's more of a balance. If you are the only grumpy one in a crowd of happy people that are obviously enjoying the band, the music, and the experience, well, you can't let your opinion out weigh the facts. >So James, I'm glad you trashed those bands in print. Haven't read the >reviews yet, but kudos all the same. :-) :-) Thanks, but I really would rather not review bands I don't like. The whole goal of my writing in music journalism is to find and trumpet the diamond in the rough. To show others how deep the talent pool is in my scene. Personally, I can ignore the bad bits, and if we as journalists did, they'd go away a whole lot faster. I hate trashing a band, I feel bad when I think I have to trash someone. I'd rather like everything I write about and ignore everything I don't. Admittedly, you can't. :-) Jess writes: >and that's really okay... So this writer didn't like her set and wasn't >into it--he was being subjective, which, in my opinion, is better (esp. >for music critics) than someone who says they like everything an artist Well, you are right that being subjective is better than being gratuitous with praise... ...but this writer wasn't just not into it, he said it was bad in a way that passed off opinion as fact. That's yellow journalism. "Demolished..." is pretty strong language, especially when he really didn't explain why. Its a this is bad rather than an I don't like it. There is also a difference between this and a movie or CD review, when you have nothing to report, _but_ your own opinion. Watching a movie or listening to a CD is not an event. Attending a concert is a much less subjective experience, you can _see_ other people and _watch_ their reaction. >wrote it wasn't being overly critical, he was being subjective and >analyzing the show... And it is his opinion, of course, but is his >review not valid just because other people who saw the same show saw it >differently? Just curious... To a certain extent reviewing is subjective. You can like or dislike artists, genres, concerts, CD, etc. Certainly his view is equally as valid as anyone elses. But an automatic gainsaying without explanation, and a discountenance of others opinions is ignoring an opportunity to be objective and its your responsibility as a writer to be as fair and objective as possible. Galloway's critique of Emm's version of "Protection" was overly subjective and unfair because that song actually garnered her the most applause of anything that night. He would've been more accurate to say, "I couldn't fathom the crowd's response to..." and gone on with what he said. By ignoring the facts and not stating his biases, he missled his audience. Julian writes: >and Holly, but as you said, they're not for everyone. I also have to >disagree with James, who called Matt "dense" because he didn't like that >Massive Attack cover. I mean, I appreciate that many fans, including Rob, >adore that cover -- but I don't really like it. And this is exactly it Julian. You state your bias, give credence to other people's opinion and then give yours. Which, in my mind, makes that little paragraph so much better than what he wrote. He is "dense" be cause he couldn't look outside of his own opinion, where as you could. :-) You are being entirely fair to someone who wasn't being entirely fair. :-) >test :) -- either that, or don't send reviewers who are usually into R&B >/hip-hop to review, say, a Dar Williams show. :-P That's one thing with me, I try really hard to like different music. In many cases this has helped me become a fan of music I might not like otherwise. I owe my audience the effort to try and understand, to see the value in something I might not like, to state my bias when reviewing a genre I don't like or understand and to transcend my own opinion. No if you disagree with being fair or balanced in your reporting, or that you owe your responsibility to anyone but yourself, at least make it an interesting read. C.J. O'Connor... ...often I couldn't stand what he said about bands... but I always admired the wonderful sense of style he used to trash someone. Tab might likely mention Scott Feschuk... And if you're going to be contraversial, get your facts straight like Kim Hughes. You can be critical _and_ do a good job. James. ========================================================================== James McGarry | jmcgarry@UoGuelph.CA - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "To be complex does not mean to be fragmented. This is the paradox and the genius of our Canadian civilization." Adrienne Clarkson, Governor-General of Canada ========================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 19:33:33 -0500 (EST) From: "Julian C. Dunn" Subject: Re: Subjective criticism and negative reviews... On 28-Nov-1999 Paul Schreiber wrote: > I'm more than happy to write glowingly about the opening act if they > warrant it -- I reviewed Emm and Big Wreck and Emm got about 60% of the > article. > > What I want to communicate is the performer was not quite "on their > game," so to speak. And the question is, when, if ever, is that > necessary? Always? For big names? Never? I don't know about "necessary" -- it's up to you to make the judgement about whether or not the roughness of the show is a necessary thing to mention -- but I think it's always /permissible/, so long as you can (and do) back it up with a reason. If a performer you have seen before is not quite on the ball, you at least have some context you can refer to, as in "the last time I saw X, X's song Y was much better because of Z" This, I think, applies and should apply to both small-name and big-name acts. - - Julian [ Julian C. Dunn - jdunn@aquezada.com WWW: http://www.aquezada.com/ ] [ programmer, web designer, unix user, fumbler, writer, and future engineer] [ FuE exfe94 a+++ Ifte/slc lonca r- ps++ bs+ t++/*t C+++$/C! w+++ p7 LF+++ ] [N++/N! cd260 pr++ g+++ S-/S *x++ Fa+++/Fa$/Fa! m1 b+ fc+++/ E>+ rl-- *d s!] [ "roll the tape, i'll show you how the ending began" - emm gryner ] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 20:17:33 -0500 From: Paul Schreiber Subject: Re: Subjective criticism and negative reviews... Julian C. Dunn wrote: >I don't know about "necessary" -- it's up to you to make the judgement about >whether or not the roughness of the show is a necessary thing to mention >-- but I think it's always /permissible/, so long as you can (and do) back >it up with a reason. Ah, but that's part of the problem. Substantiating why a performance wasn't quite so good isn't always easy. (It's unlikely that there was something wrong technically with their music -- I couldn't tell either way.) It seems to me like there's a bunch of intangible things like confidence, emotion. It's hard to measure, quantify or describe the subtlties in someone's comfort level with the audience. i'm sure i'm missing something (but that's my point, isn't it?). Paul shad 96c / 3B CS / mac activist / eda / fumbler fan of / jewel / sophie b. / sarah slean / steve poltz / emm gryner / / x-files / buffy / dawson's creek / habs / bills / 49ers / t h i n k d i f f e r e n t. "It's like signing a record contract is like signing away your human rights." -- CMG ------------------------------ End of headline-girl-digest V2 #285 ***********************************