The Song Fight Bulletin Board

HeuristicsInc wrote:It's interesting, I think reviews can be a good thing. But sometimes on, for example, allmusic.com, I find myself disagreeing a lot with the reviewer. Sometimes I think it would be good to collect, say, 3 different reviews by different people. But I guess that's a lot of work, and also database space.

On another note, it's especially good when a reviewer can relate the new album to a band's previous ones, and say how they compare... using that information along with what you already know of those albums can be helpful.

Here's something for you, the best record review I ever wrote (this was some years ago). You can decide if it's good or not:
Adrian Belew - Salad Days
-bill

I think that is a good review.

I've never heard of Adrian Belew before - so I need you to tell me if I should bother searching him out to listen.

You link him to Bowie, Zappa, Talking Heads, JMJarre, NIN etc... I know enough about music to know that these don't normally share the same pigeon-hole (unless maybe the experimental/creative pigeon-hole) - so this bloke is obviously a bit of a jack-of-all-trades super-muso.

So, you're already turning me off him (I find that sort of stuff pretty wanky and annoying). The phrase "Belew's trademark guitar-made animal noises" is definitely the kiss-of-death - BUT - this is an accoustic album, now I'm intrigued.

VERDICT: It's made me curious enough to listen to look this album up on Amazon to hear some 10-second grabs of it - although I probably won't bother checking out the rest of his catalogue.

5 minutes ago I'd never heard of the bloke - now I've got an opinion (albeit a poorly informed and possibly incorrect one) so the review has done it's job.


(...I'm reviewing reviews now....this is taking work avoidence to new lows...)

I'm pretty sure I've said this somewhere else, but the problem with record reviews is that there are a hundred thousand people writing them. There's no opportunity to learn about a reviewer to know whether or not their tastes match yours, or if they're an expert on any particular style of music.

I mean, I have a pretty good idea of what kind of stuff Roger Ebert might prefer. I know that he's not trustworthy regarding any movie starring Piper Perabo, for example.

I know that I often agree with Lisa Schwarzbaum on movies, and that Owen Glieberman sometimes gives too much away. I know that Paul Clinton of CNN has bad taste in general and nothing he says regarding films can be trusted because he tends to like crap.

It would be useful to have a record reviewer that I could learn to know like that. But when I open a magazine with record reviews in it, there are dozens of names listed in the credits, and even when one person does multiple reviews they're spread kind of randomly around the review section. So usually I just look for records I've already heard, to make sure the magazine has the right opinion. Heh. Otherwise, the record reviews are pretty worthless.

One thing that I have found useful is CMJ ("New Music") has a "Recommended if You Like" item next to each review. Too often it's reserved for the reviewer to show off his obscure knowledge (I assume, since I hardly ever know the bands), but if it were done well it would actually be cool.

REVOLVER.


That's a music magazine that rocks. The reviews always work for me. I agree with JB, it's nice to know the reveiwer's style and preferences... I'm sure we can all attest to that based on SF reviews!!

Revolver, I think, includes IYLTTYLT (if you like this, then you'll like this) with their reviews, and they're not terribly obscure. I can't ever find Revolver, though.

jb wrote:One thing that I have found useful is CMJ ("New Music") has a "Recommended if You Like" item next to each review. Too often it's reserved for the reviewer to show off his obscure knowledge (I assume, since I hardly ever know the bands), but if it were done well it would actually be cool.

With CMJ it is probably more that they are doing their jobs than showing off-- their target audience is "music directors at college radio stations." At least, that's how it used to be; I haven't seen a CMJ in years.

bzl wrote:

jb wrote:One thing that I have found useful is CMJ ("New Music") has a "Recommended if You Like" item next to each review. Too often it's reserved for the reviewer to show off his obscure knowledge (I assume, since I hardly ever know the bands), but if it were done well it would actually be cool.

With CMJ it is probably more that they are doing their jobs than showing off-- their target audience is "music directors at college radio stations." At least, that's how it used to be; I haven't seen a CMJ in years.

There are two CMJ magazines. One is for industry (New Music Report), the other is for the general public. "New Music Monthly" is the one for average joes, although I think they've had a lot of financial trouble with it. I know that subscribers still receive it, but I haven't seen a copy on magazine racks in over a year at Barnes and Noble or Borders or Waldenbooks, where I used to purchase it. I miss it, so I'll probably wind up subscribing soon. It comes with a compilation CD that has made me purchase a lot of music over the years. Some of my favorite bands I discovered through the CMJ comp CD. *nostalgic wistful tearing of eyes* But the RIYL notes were almost never useful unless I was reading a review ABOUT a band I knew. Then I could maybe get ideas about other bands to try (or to stay away from). Kind of the reverse of how RIYL is supposed to work.

There should be reviewers of reviewers--critic critics. That way, we might have a better idea of which critics to trust. Of course, we'd have to pick the right reviewer reviewers to listen to.

In an adjunct to Generic's post at the top of the page, some of the best reviews I have read have been the ones I disliked intensely. And also I read a lot of reviews for the pleasure of reading reviews.

And User - a critic's critic is the reader. Or should be. Perhaps you're being ironic. I have decided I hate irony.

j$

I meant <i>professional</i> ones. But yeah, it was a joke.

::slinks off to watch <i>Adaptation</i>::

jb wrote:There are two CMJ magazines. One is for industry (New Music Report), the other is for the general public.

Ah, I'm thinking of the industry one. As I recall, it had some good reviews; at least, I could tell from the review if I'd like the music.

jb wrote:the problem with record reviews is that there are a hundred thousand people writing them. There's no opportunity to learn about a reviewer to know whether or not their tastes match yours, or if they're an expert on any particular style of music.

That's probably because it's a rookie's job. There are a hundred thousand 23-year-olds fresh out of journalism school who want their life's mission to be telling other people what music they should listen to. It's like anything in the music biz. There are always 100 times the number of people who want any given music-related job than there are people willing to hire someone to do that job.

One week we should all try to write a record review for each song in a fight, directed specifically at imaginary People-Who-Have-Not-Heard-This-Band-Or-This-Song-Before instead of directed at the artists themsleves. See how well we do. Maybe I'll try it.

I can not for a minute imagine anyone buying a magazine to read MY reviews... JOS, yours would work , you always have a consistent style to it...


so, how exactly would I do this JimÉ I`ll try, but I`m not sure I could pull it off... give me some parameters damnit!!

jb wrote:It would be useful to have a record reviewer that I could learn to know like that. But when I open a magazine with record reviews in it, there are dozens of names listed in the credits, and even when one person does multiple reviews they're spread kind of randomly around the review section. So usually I just look for records I've already heard, to make sure the magazine has the right opinion. Heh. Otherwise, the record reviews are pretty worthless.

If I hear about some band a lot, but haven't heard their album, reviews are useful to read to see if they're along with the conventional wisdom I've heard or are contrarian. That, supported with reasons why, is valuable to me.

Example: EW criticized Auf Der Maur for being a little too 1996y. That bothered the reviewer but it doesn't bother me. Ebert didn't like The Grudge because it just went through the motions of being a horror film without anything new or very interesting. That would bother me about a film; Wrong Turn was a terrible, stupid movie, and his review of The Grudge made me think it was going to be about as good as that one was. Or the American remake of The Ring at best.

A challenge in my English class the other day was to write a review on an album. So bloody hard. Got 45/40 though (God bless extra credit for drawing pictures )

What with previewing songs on Amazon or even better, on something like iTunes or Rhapsody, I see little point in music reviews unless I'm being introduced to a band I've never heard of. The best review for me is to click on a "Listen" link. I've read reviews many times before, then previewed the band on line and thought something like "Oh, yuck, why didn't you tell me they were cheesy/boring/metal/whatever?" or "Huh. Doesn't sound like introspective lyrical melodies to me..."

j$ wrote:In an adjunct to Generic's post at the top of the page, some of the best reviews I have read have been the ones I disliked intensely.


j$

Negative reviews are much more valuable than positive ones. I think it's much easy to describe why you don't like something than why you do like something.

If I read:
"...the Sex Pistols are awful. The lead singer is sooo ugly and he can't dance at all. He just screams about how he hates the Queen and how he is the antichrist. And as musicians, the rest of the band couldn't even get jobs as Matchbox 20's road crew...."
I'd think, "I might check these Sex Pistols out..."