From: owner-headline-girl-digest@smoe.org (headline-girl-digest) To: headline-girl-digest@smoe.org Subject: headline-girl-digest V2 #287 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 Wednesday, December 1 1999 Volume 02 : Number 287 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Death to Matt Galloway! (LONG) ["Julian C. Dunn" ] Re(2): Subjective criticism and negative reviews... [gatekeeper@herzig.co] review of Science Fair... ["Mark Urban" ] Re: Death to Matt Galloway! (LONG) ["Tab Siddiqui" Subject: Re: Death to Matt Galloway! (LONG) On 29-Nov-1999 Tab Siddiqui wrote: > 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 Which is exactly why reviewers who are not as open minded as, say, Kim, shouldn't be forced to go to shows of the genre of music that they're not inclined towards. I think we've all agreed that part of Matt Galloway's shortcomings in this review have to do with the fact that he's out of his league. > 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. This train of thought certainly brings out an interesting paradox about concert reviews in general. On one hand, your readership expects you to be somewhat objective and unbiased about the show, but on the other hand, they also expect you to add your own opinions to the review, replete with your biases and likes and dislikes. Obviously you're not going to please everyone :) I wonder how much damage a bad review really does? To me, when I read a bad review, I usually take it with a large bag of salt, since sometimes even friends I go to shows with have completely different impressions of the show than I. I'm guessing most people (artists and fans) shrug off bad reviews, since there's so much bad press out there. Besides, for someone like Emm -- she's received so much GOOD press in NOW that an article like this isn't going to much. > 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 They aren't the worst of the crop :-) Did you read the review of "Flawless" in the Star the other day, Tab? Oh my god... it took me about three tries to get through the thick prose in that; I ought not to have bothered because five minutes after reading it, I couldn't remember what the writer's point was :-) > 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, Well, it *is* NOW magazine... Conspiracy Central :-) (although now that John Sewell has left to go write for eye, there's less of that attitude insofar as city attitudes are concerned, but I'm sure they'll get someone to replace him... Dan Savage! hahahahaha) > 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 Amen to that. Even Emm's not perfect, and as much a fan as I am, I don't like everything she's done. - - 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: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 09:11:15 -0600 From: gatekeeper@herzig.com (Gatekeeper) Subject: Re(2): Subjective criticism and negative reviews... jdunn@aquezada.com writes: >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 I'd like to add my two cents worth here. In the end, the outcome of the final review probably comes down to a few main factors: 1. The skill and experience of the reviewer. Do they focus on the big picture or the little things, or both? How well do they know the artist and their work? Have they attended other concerts of the artist so as to have a basis for comparison? 2. The motivation of the reviewer to write the review. Do they care about whether the artist succeeds, or not? 3. How much the reviewer values his/her credibility. 4. The style of the reviewer. Does the reviewer tend to give a balanced report or do they focus on only the bad things? How picky are they? How much do they enjoy unnecessarily trashing someone and do they have the journalistic freedom to do so? 5. The expectations of the reviewer before the concert. Were they disappointed? Was there too much hype going in? 6. What politics could be involved, if any? There are probably a number of other factors that also affect the reviewer, but those are the main ones that I think make sense. We must remember that reviewers are human beings, and human beings are rather an imperfect bunch. We all make mistakes and we all have our biases and ideosyncracies. That's what makes us human. A review of a concert can never be an objective thing. It is by its nature subjective. Some people will like it and some won't. Let's not get too hung up in over-analyzing the bad review Emm got. Although I wasn't at the concert, I am quite sure it was great judging by most of the comments of the Emm supporters in this mail list. And that's what counts! Regards. George ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:29:54 PST From: "Mark Urban" Subject: review of Science Fair... http://www.furia.com/twas/twas0252.html ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 14:24:27 PST From: "Tab Siddiqui" Subject: Re: Death to Matt Galloway! (LONG) Steve wrote: >*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 And Julian replied: >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 into the show, but the reviewer was >not) I'm going with Julian on that one, but I'll add that it's rarely the case the audience is mentioned at all in a review since it *is* supposed to be the reviewer's so-called 'expert' opinion/critique, after all. That of course raises the whole question about how opinion factors into criticism, but I'm not even going to get started with that. ;) Let's take an example - audiences eat up these big-ticket mega-musicals like Phantom and Lez Mis and whatnot, but reviewers will either go one of two ways on shows like those - either, they'll take them for what they're worth - - shiny, crowd-pleasing spectacles - or they'll cut them up for their lack of true theatrical soul. Which one is right? Well, both. I'll admit, I've seen all those shows, I sniffled through Jean Valjean's big death scene and the poor Phantom's lonely quest ;-P, and I *enjoyed* myself - but I certainly wasn't intellectually and emotionally challenged, which is what real theatre should ideally do. >(an article in this week's NOW by Tab's beloved Kim Hughes as an >example). Oh, dear. ;-) Let me clarify once and for all - I think the woman is (was? ;)) a great radio host, extremely knowledgable about music, and usually a solid writer (I don't always agree with her reviews, especially, but if they're well-written, I don't mind). But 'beloved' might be going a *bit* far... ;-P - - Tab :) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 14:34:44 PST From: "Tab Siddiqui" Subject: Re: Death to Matt Galloway! (LONG) I wrote, and Julian replied: >>really silly in the process. Taking another example from NOW ;), >>their > >They aren't the worst of the crop :-) Did you read the review of > >"Flawless" in the Star the other day, Tab? Oh my god... it took me >about >three tries to get through the thick prose in that; I ought >not to have >bothered because five minutes after reading it, I >couldn't remember what >the writer's point was :-) LOL! I hear you there, Julian! That review was just... *strange*. And the worst part is, that reviewer, Geoff Pevere, is one of the best cultural commentators we have in this country. I think he should maybe stick to columns, because his reviews are often *so* overly complicated that they leave you scratching your head in confusion. ;-) He's quite a brilliant writer at times, though, and has pulled off some excellent reviews in the past. I'm sure it depends a lot on how he views/likes a given film... >Well, it *is* NOW magazine... Conspiracy Central :-) (although now >that >John Sewell has left to go write for eye, there's less of that >attitude >insofar as city attitudes are concerned, but I'm sure >they'll get someone >to replace him... Dan Savage! hahahahaha) LOL! That's hilarious, I was just thinking the exact same thing this morning! ;-) For those of you who have *no* clue what we're going on about, there are two entertainment weeklies in Toronto, eye and NOW magazines. NOW's city columnist, former mayor John Sewell, has just left NOW in a huff and switched over to eye. This after popular sex columnist Dan Savage (c'mon, everyone admit it, now, you *know* you read him ;-P) switched allegiances from eye to NOW. Yes, Virginia, there *is* a newspaper war going on in Toronto, and it ain't just the dailies that are affected. >>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 > >Amen to that. Even Emm's not perfect, and as much a fan as I am, I >don't >like everything she's done. Emm's not perfect? Can we say that on this list?! - - Tab :) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 21:39:12 -0500 From: Christopher Phillips Subject: TWAS 252 Emm Gryner, Chantal Kreviazuk, Bandits This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. - ------_=_NextPart_000_01BF3BA5.43F0BC9A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Here's a review of Science Fair (& Chantal K's new album & the soundtrack for "Bandits") Chris PS - If you live in the Baltimore / DC area let me know so we can maybe meet sometime or something? :) http://www.furia.com/twas/twas0252.html <> - ------_=_NextPart_000_01BF3BA5.43F0BC9A Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="TWAS 252 Emm Gryner, Chantal Kreviazuk, Bandits.url" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="TWAS 252 Emm Gryner, Chantal Kreviazuk, Bandits.url" [DEFAULT] BASEURL=http://www.furia.com/twas/twas0252.html [InternetShortcut] URL=http://www.furia.com/twas/twas0252.html Modified=407F1877A53BBF01EE - ------_=_NextPart_000_01BF3BA5.43F0BC9A-- ------------------------------ End of headline-girl-digest V2 #287 ***********************************