From: owner-headline-girl-digest@smoe.org (headline-girl-digest) To: headline-girl-digest@smoe.org Subject: headline-girl-digest V2 #286 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 Tuesday, November 30 1999 Volume 02 : Number 286 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Death to Matt Galloway! (LONG) ["Tab Siddiqui" ] Re: Subjective criticism and negative reviews... [Steve I Subject: Re: Death to Matt Galloway! (LONG) Steve wrote: >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. Hmm, where to begin? Okay, first off, I'll readily admit that I was initially quite incensed at both the Chart and NOW reviews basically because they trashed Emm. But while I still don't agree with either review or think either was particularly intelligent or incisive, I will say that each *does* have a few valid points in retrospect. However, I take issue more with the *way* they were written and their very superficial approach to reviewing the show. I'm a writer/reviewer myself, so under no circumstances would I dismiss someone's opinion just because it differs from mine. That being said, as some others have pointed out, both Chart and NOW's reviews seemed almost as if their writers weren't at the same show the rest of us were! While Matt Galloway, for example, may not have enjoyed Emm's music, it's rather arrogrant for him to paint her set as lightweight and worthless when obviously the majority of the audience seemed quite taken by it (judging by the applause, post-set comments, and sales of her CD afterwards, I'd venture that even people who had never heard [of] her were won over - you don't do that with "overwrought songs", sorry, especially not with a Ron Sexsmith crowd, who are ostensibly there to hear something with some depth). Also, his comments about Holly were completely off the mark. She was not hamming it up the way she might backing up Bowie, she was simply getting into the music as far as I could tell. And as for her "ghastly" tune, I overheard more than one talented local musician compliment her on her song after the set, and I'd guess that their opinion is probably just as if not more, valid than some music critics'. Looking at the review itself, the rating on the show was 4 Ns - or excellent. This in itself makes very little sense if you look at the review - - he spends most of it *negatively* focusing on opener *Emm's* set, rather than headliner Ron's, and then in his brief recap of Ron's set, he offers pretty faint praise to justify such a high rating. Like I said before, I'm uncertan whether he's familiar with Ron or Emm's music, as he usually writes about urban music for NOW (and generally does a fine job of it, too), so that *could* be a factor, but it may not be. [His comment that Ron's records "are elaborately orchestrated and produced affairs" indicates he might be in a bit over his head here - first of all, I don't think I would ever use the words "Ron Sexsmith" and "elaborate" in the same sentence ;), and second, his records, with the exception of the third and most recent one, are fairly simple, acoustic affairs with minimal, elegant production.] >was it really that bad? Part of it in fact really resonated with >me, the >part where he talks about Ron's set starting off well but >after awhile all >the songs beginning to blend in together... >Christine and I both had the >same experience and were commenting on >it near the end of the show. I'd definitely agree with Steve (and Galloway ;)) here that Ron's set was poorly paced and thus the songs tended to blend into each other a fair bit. The constant switching between acoustic and electric guitar killed the momentum some of the time. >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 OK for >a Matt Galloway to trash a visiting >megastar like say the Backstreet Boys >but not OK for him to trash a >struggling young local artist like Emm? >(not that she's really >struggling at this point, but you get the idea.) I >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 Right. But here again you run the whole question of what someone thinks is "good". Obviously there are some criteria there when you're critiquing an artistic medium such as music, but reviewing is often more a matter of personal taste than serious hardline criticism, especially these days with 100-word, quick-hit, jolt-per-minute blurbs. Also, with a *performance* review, do you look at the artist and their act overall, or do you just stick to how well they performed whatever their at happens to be? For example, I really, really doubt NOW's music editor Kim Hughes likes the Backstreet Boys' music, but yet she gave their show 4 Ns last week - *because* they delivered everything their audience would expect from them - a high-octane, ultra-slick spectacle. There were a lot of disgruntled letter-writers after that one, for sure, but basically, I think she was just doing her job and being fair, saying that although they may not be the most musically talented bunch around, the show, for what is was, was enjoyable. I don't think I could *ever* bring myself to give a group like the Backstreet Boys a good review, regardless of how much of a spectacle their show was, but I am aware that that bias is maybe something I should be looking and and challenging. >only ever write glowing reviews tend to lose credibility in my >eyes. "So >what if writer X says this is a great band? He likes >EVERYONE..." So >they have to write negative reviews once in Exactly, but there are a lot more negative reviewers out there, often simply for the fact that they think being harder on an act is better criticism, more 'serious'. So-called music journalists are already so maligned that most try way too hard to sound important or highbrow, and instead just look really silly in the process. Taking another example from NOW ;), their writer Tim Perlich is known about town, especially in the music community itself, as 'the guy who doesn't like *anything*'. And it's true, if it isn't some completely obscure alt-country act, I've noticed, he can't resist getting in a slag or some type of negative slant. And that's just defetist and plain annoying. If there isn't any good music to write about at all, why even bother then, Tim? >awhile. And lets face it, lots of bands suck, and >deserve to fade away into obscurity, rather than be kept on life >support >by a few glowing reviews by insincere music writers. Absolutely, but I think in general people tend to give reviews of all stripes, whether it be movies, music, whatever, way more importance than they're really worth. While an artist or label or film might get a little more interest/sales, etc. from a good review in a large paper or magazine, reviews really aren't all that crucial or influential in the big scheme of things. >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. I definitely think there is room for criticism of *any* artist, and not only *should* there be, it can in some instances be an insightful and/or helpful thing, to illuminate the weaknesses and/or strengths of said artist. No one's perfect. In fact, I keep seeing how Emm has improved over the years, especially vocally. I wouldn't shy from saying that she wasn't nearly as strong vocally even a year ago as she is now. But reviews like the ones in Chart and NOW didn't offer any particularly constructive or insightful criticism and tended towards the surface and superficial. Galloway sounded like he'd already decided Emm's songs were "overwrought" *before* even seeing the show itself, which leads me to believe he wouldn't have enjoyed her set even if she'd played better than she ever had in her life (I've seen a lot of Emm shows in my time, let me tell you, and even *I* was especially blown away by this one, so...). If he actually *didn't* have those preconceptions, at least I would have liked to know *why* on earth he disliked the songs and/or her performance. We get no sense of that at all from his review. Granted, a short capsule review doesn't give one space to expand at length on anything (believe me, I know! ;)), but still, Galloway's review totally lacks any type of depth. Jess wrote: >amount of bad/negative press/comments... I have read a few reviews (other >artists) that are filled with so many cliched, trite phrases >to describe >artists and music, it makes them lose credibility in my >eyes too... and >Holly, but as you said, they're not for everyone. I Speaking of cliched, trite phrases ;), the Chart review got to me not because of the writer's opinions on the artists or the show, but rather the lazy, ill-informed reporting. He got some very basic facts wrong, and his facile descriptions and comparisions were pretty weak - comparing any female singer who plays the piano to Tori Amos is not only unimaginative, it's at the point where it's plain offensive, really. Get some fresh ideas there, brother. Geez. And finally, Julian wrote: >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. Ack! Heresy! ;-P Let me just say right here and now that I find Emm's version (of an already amazing song) incredibly sexy. I guess that means I shouldn't ask Matt Galloway out anytime soon, hmm? ;-) ;-P >Only if they like them, I think. Having said that, I think that >music >reviewers should only be allowed to become reviewers if they >have passed >the "open mind" test :) -- either that, or don't send >reviewers who are >usually into R&B/hip-hop to review, say, a Dar >Williams show. :-P Amen to that. ;-) - - Tab :) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:23:41 -0500 (EST) From: James McGarry Subject: Re: Death to Matt Galloway! (LONG) What she said! Tab, thank you for driving home points I just couldn't properly articulate. James. ========================================================================== James McGarry | jmcgarry@UoGuelph.CA - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- An artist should be fit for the best society and keep out of it. - - John Ruskin ========================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 02:19:51 -0500 From: Steve I Subject: Re: Subjective criticism and negative reviews... Paul wondered: >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? And I wrote, *before* I read James' very insightful post: Well, just my opinion here, but I think that if a performer has a bad night for some reason, it's fair to say something like "Joe Schmoe, usually a dynamic and entertaining performer, delivered an uncharacteristically flat set Friday night. Perhaps the many months on the road are taking a toll..." etc. While giving a truthful account of your impression of the show, you can still communicate the idea that it was probably an isolated incident and that usually the shows are better. James wrote: >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, Good point. Of course, how one perceives crowd reaction tends also be largely driven by subjective factors too. The same applause might sound "thunderous" to a supporter of the band and "polite" to a disgusted onlooker. Maybe we should start handing sound level meters to concert reviewers for objective measurement. :-) *Is* it necessary for there to be some account of audience response in a music review in order for it to be "objective"? I seem to recall reading lots of what I would call good reviews that don't even mention the crowd (an article in this week's NOW by Tab's beloved Kim Hughes as an example). >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. An interesting distinction. I'd thought about the difference between a movie review and a concert review myself. I suppose you rarely hear about audience reaction in a movie review largely because the audience is mainly movie scribes with tickets to an advance screening, hardly a typical audience. But you don't hear about the audience at film festivals either, and those at least have some "regular folks" in the audience. And how about live theatre reviews? The ones I've read (granted, not that many) don't often include an account of audience reaction either. Does that make them less objective? In any case I'm not sure I buy the idea that seeing other people and watching their reactions makes the experience more objective, or that reporting on crowd response makes a review more objective. As I mentioned before, even interpreting crowd reaction is a highly subjective affair. But more to the point, isn't crowd response in itself driven by subjective factors? You don't get thunderous applause from a coldly analytical (and objective!) crowd. Seems to me reporting on crowd response is still an account of subjective experience, only this time it's second-hand. Anyway thanks to everyone for their responses, and especially to both James and Tab (whose post arrived as I was finishing this one) for their literate expansion of their reasons for not liking the reviews, beyond the not liking Emm or Ron aspects. Definitely food for thought. Steve ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 10:11:09 PST From: "kristy radford" Subject: Re: headline-girl-digest V2 #285 wow. you guys and gals never cease to amaze me! i once upon a time, got a rather whore-ible e-mail from someone whose should probably remain nameless....but who used to run Wisdombus...outlining how every person on this list is an ass kisser and a wannabe intellectual...yada yada. obvioulsy it was a load of shit...anyway, where was i going with this?? umm....anyway reading this little debate over "the" review (which i was sure was going to end in some sort of blood shed) has made me realize how awesome even the idea of this list is. and i wanted to say how much i love being on it.....how many brilliant (and when i say brilliant, i do mean brilliant) people i have had the honour of meeting. thanks! hmmm. that didn't really make sense. wannabe's rock! :P kr ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 15:51:47 EST From: Gelsey1004@aol.com Subject: (off-topic) link hey everyone -- some people i know have been receiving pretty decent checks using this link so thought i'd pass the word...sorry if you think i'm out of line by sending this, but i saw someone sending it through another mailing list i'm subscribed too and it's a really awesome program. http://www.sendmoreinfo.com/id/248217 :) hugs -- gelsey ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 19:57:15 EST From: Songbird22@aol.com Subject: hg vacation... Hey guys, I'm going to take a little break from HG for awhile... I'll be back in a few weeks. I'm moving later in the month and I know things will be crazy... hopefully if anything huge in Emm-land happens someone will forward it to me? Thanks... see you guys soon... Jessica www.aquezada.com/jess ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:48:55 -0500 (EST) From: "Julian C. Dunn" Subject: Re: Subjective criticism and negative reviews... On 29-Nov-1999 Steve I wrote: > James wrote: >>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, > > Good point. Of course, how one perceives crowd reaction tends also be > largely driven by subjective factors too. The same applause might sound > "thunderous" to a supporter of the band and "polite" to a disgusted > onlooker. Maybe we should start handing sound level meters to concert > reviewers for objective measurement. :-) > > *Is* it necessary for there to be some account of audience response in a > music review in order for it to be "objective"? I seem to recall reading > lots of what I would call good reviews that don't even mention the crowd > (an article in this week's NOW by Tab's beloved Kim Hughes as an example). I wonder if the audience's response is that great an issue in a *positive* review. I think what's at issue here is what happens when you, as a reviewer, believe that a performance was bad -- you should seek ways to back up your opinion, and mentioning the audience reaction might be a way to do that, or at least provide some context for it (e.g. if the audience was in to the show, but the reviewer was not) - - 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 ] ------------------------------ End of headline-girl-digest V2 #286 ***********************************