From: owner-jinglejangle-digest@smoe.org (jinglejangle-digest) To: jinglejangle-digest@smoe.org Subject: jinglejangle-digest V5 #21 Reply-To: jinglejangle@smoe.org Sender: owner-jinglejangle-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-jinglejangle-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk jinglejangle-digest Thursday, January 31 2002 Volume 05 : Number 021 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [MLL] A few thoughts RE: reviewers: ["Brian J. Bowe" ] Re: [MLL] A few thoughts RE: reviewers: ["Journey Bear" Subject: [MLL] A few thoughts RE: reviewers: A few thoughts RE: reviewers: As someone who has at various times made a living writing reviews of things (and as a college journalism instructor), I've found this debate fascinating. Please allow me to share some of my rambling musings on the topic. My intention isn't to flame, it's just to share my thoughts... 1) Let's not forget who one of MLL's heroes is -- the one and only Lester Bangs. He's one of my all-time heroes, too, but he sure could be a prick. And sometimes he was tougher on bands/artists who he loved the most (because the expectations were higher). But he also was notorious for changing his mind later on (for example, he trashed MC5's "Kick Out the Jams" in his first review published in Rolling Stone, but he later came to regard it as a masterpiece). Lester's credo was to state his most honest opinion as forcefully as he could with no apologies, and if later on he changed his mind, he'd express that opinion strongly as well. The idea here is that reviewers are not infallible, and record reviews are just a snapshot of that person's impression of the product. The best thing to do is find reviewers with whom you agree most of the time, because they can turn you on to stuff you might never have found out about. 2) It's not good to get worked up and huffy over this kind of stuff. People's opinions differ. I'm a big "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" fan, and I'm pretty sure that I can forcefully argue the artistic merits of that show. I thought the trashing of Sarah Michelle Gellar on this list recently was kind of annoying, but whatever. I got over it. 3) I find it amusing that some folks engaging in this debate will say things like "'Got No Shadow' received rave critical reviews.'" Critics are always idiots who can't write (unless, of course, you agree with them). But whatever, reading (or writing) about music isn't anywhere near as fun as listening to it. Cheers, brian ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:54:25 +0000 From: "Journey Bear" Subject: Re: [MLL] A few thoughts RE: reviewers: >From: "Brian J. Bowe" > > > >3) I find it amusing that some folks engaging in this debate will say >things >like "'Got No Shadow' received rave critical reviews.'" Critics are always >idiots who can't write (unless, of course, you agree with them). > Absolutely. LOL. End of discussion. >But whatever, reading (or writing) about music isn't anywhere near as fun >as >listening to it. > Absolutely. Occasionally I'll read a review that is so passionate about its subject that I am deeply impressed. A reviewer who can convey that much depth of feeling and insight about the subject is to be admired - and I would be willing to seek out the album being reviewed based solely on such a review. But this happens very infrequently, and even then personal tastes differ so much that I may not agree. And ultimately, the only thing that matters is what the listener feels about the music she or he is listening to, which has nothing to do with whatever anyone says or writes about it. The experience is personal, subjective, and often non-verbal. It's only when one tries to convey one's experience to another through verbal means that trouble arises. And if someone objects to a reviewer's panning of a favorite album, one approach is to write the reviewer. Here's a f'rinstance: Patti Rothberg's forthcoming second album, "Candelabra Cadabra," got reviewed by someone at a college in NJ last year. He totally trashed it, and even got very insulting in the process - personally as well as musically. Patti was willing to ignore it, but her producer/guitarist/boyfriend Freddie Katz took offense to this - I saw the review; he had every right to be upset - and wrote the reviewer a scathing retort, stern without going overboard, but picking apart every point the reviewer had made. The reviewer responded, clearly chastised and apologetic, and admitted his errors. I think he even amended his review. It's one thing to express what you like or dislike about an album; it's quite another to mock or insult or fabricate stories about or otherwise verbally attack a musician in non-musical areas. In such instances, it may do some good to take the reviewer to task. It really helps, though, to have incontrovertible first-hand knowledge that what you are expressing is factual. So, look out Carmello! Free speech works both ways. JourneyBear whose review was much more positive if a little bland, and expects less controversy as a result ;-) _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------------ End of jinglejangle-digest V5 #21 *********************************