tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220957931635097123.post8098758964945317431..comments2023-09-25T22:26:25.692+10:00Comments on mnml ssgs: Dysconnect, March 2009: Decoding Recoding [reviewing reviewing]chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17030219185948353658noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220957931635097123.post-22672799521298019042009-04-30T08:14:00.000+10:002009-04-30T08:14:00.000+10:00@ a Tart: As for reviewing, I think it's extremely...@ a Tart: As for reviewing, I think it's extremely important to be descriptive. If you're writing as someone with no music theory to people with no music theory, sometimes the band x + band y + hoop 'on acid' thing can work, but yeah, usually it's just lazy.<br /><br />...my view is that all reviews are interpretations. It's not a lab report, and this pretense toward 'objectivity' is rubbish... <br /><br />...having said that though, as partisan as each reviewer should openly be, sledging for sledging's sake is unproductive. Even if/when you don't like something, you need to concede enough space to demonstrate that as personal and that the failings are in the context of other qualities...<br /><br />...a lot of this can be achieved by being descriptive, by giving the benefit of the doubt, and conceding your peculiarity.<br /><br />...but if it's a descriptive review and you get to the end and still have no idea what the recording sounds like, this is a failure of reviewing, to me.PChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11828854682227101864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220957931635097123.post-19070855732197893552009-04-30T02:25:00.000+10:002009-04-30T02:25:00.000+10:00"...if bloggers take the time to write personal, i..."...if bloggers take the time to write personal, introspective, engaging reviews..."<br /><br />a great blog which sometimes does this is the delightful teleosteopathy:<br /><br />http://teleost.wordpress.com/chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17030219185948353658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220957931635097123.post-37925608693832426672009-04-30T02:22:00.000+10:002009-04-30T02:22:00.000+10:00You've hit some nail on it's head when you conclud...You've hit some nail on it's head when you conclude with this statement: "If only we took the time to write carefully, to read carefully and to foster this culture of warm engagement (as opposed to the dominant culture of cool disengagement), we’d all be making an infinitesimal difference, and that adds up." <br /><br />HOWEVER, all this to'ing and fro'ing over sources like P4k and other "gatekeepers" of taste is not getting at the power from below that you call for in order to engage with music lovers. Isn't that the real point? Do we, as folks who write about music want to intimately engage with folks who want to hear about music or not? If engagement is what we desire then let us make a forum wherein that is possible. <br /><br />Enter the blog. And here is why blogs succeed and why music blogging increasingly becomes a vital source for information and for taste-making. The authority that was once vested in famous music editors is now much diluted by the proliferation of less famous but influential bloggers. Many will listen to something with a kinder ear if a blogger they think is cool promotes it. <br /><br />Now, I've just contradicted myself haven't I? Blogs are this intimate site of engagement yet a source of "cool disengagement" at the same time. Well, they don't have to be if bloggers take the time to write personal, introspective, engaging reviews of either your types 1 or 2. Let's just stop with these ridiculous four line descriptions and magic formulas (this band is like band x plus band y with a dash of band z all on steroids and jumping through a hoop of flames, i.e., useless bullshit.a Tarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17589680607452370871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220957931635097123.post-61101294918767860832009-04-29T22:31:00.000+10:002009-04-29T22:31:00.000+10:00Anonymous is totally right. The recency bias is al...Anonymous is totally right. The recency bias is always going to create more of a buzz for a reviewer on discovering a new band or album.<br /><br />Perhaps then the best approach would be to take on the albums, give them time to bed in, review much later on. <br /><br />This takes us back to the reviewer reviewing material he/she would buy though because I know you sure as heck wouldn't get me giving TinchyStryder the benefit of a "bed in" period.<br /><br />As an aside, thank you for this post and all these comments. You've given a gal the chance, in a world where her friends don't understand the importance of a good review (or music for that matter), to enjoy the pleasure of a proper virtual/internal debate.Jonesynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220957931635097123.post-46230427138357289482009-04-29T22:29:00.000+10:002009-04-29T22:29:00.000+10:00This comment has been removed by the author.musicmedication.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14041820279369949462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220957931635097123.post-8611437597607831162009-04-21T23:50:00.000+10:002009-04-21T23:50:00.000+10:00one thought on a contributing factor to the upward...one thought on a contributing factor to the upwards creep of reviews at pitchfork, and maybe some other sites, offered without any research:<br /><br />1. reviewer gets a new album, gets excited about it partly because it's new.<br />2. reviewer checks archives to see what the last album by that band got, or some other comparable item.<br />3. reviewer thinks, "well that got an X. I like this one more, so it must get at least an X+.5"<br />4. reviewer publishes review.<br />5. time goes on, initial enthusiasm dies down.<br /><br />..and loop back around for the next album, which receives the positive glow of newness, and therefore has to be better than an X+.5 because it's *so* much better than the last one, which got an X+.5. <br /><br />in short, when you're holding the shiny new thing in your hands, you forget how shiny the old thing used to be.<br /> <br />maybe?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220957931635097123.post-38327021957723345582009-04-19T18:55:00.000+10:002009-04-19T18:55:00.000+10:00"e) the fact that writing a compelling review that..."e) the fact that writing a compelling review that nails the recording is actually really, really, really difficult. Especially if the conclusions reached in the course of writing mean that the rating ends up having to be three stars."<br /><br />the normal distribution dictates that overwhelming majority of records will be in this broad middle bracket, yeah? most records fit "some high points, some flat spots, your mileage may vary".<br /><br />it's annoying for a reviewer that after having listened five or ten times it's still not categorically good or bad, but that's the nature of the beast. 2.5 stars, bump it up slightly for charity's sake, 3 stars. NEXT!Davehttp://www.toandfro.com.au/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220957931635097123.post-21286864075834305102009-04-07T04:19:00.000+10:002009-04-07T04:19:00.000+10:00Yes, I think it's exactly what you mean when speak...Yes, I think it's exactly what you mean when speaking about decoding.<BR/><BR/>A little information about the music you're listening to can be helpful. It can also put the recording into context which again for me can be important in understanding what the artist was trying to accomplish.delnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220957931635097123.post-12186315076868014262009-04-06T21:31:00.000+10:002009-04-06T21:31:00.000+10:00@ Del: maybe it's that... maybe it's also that rea...@ Del: maybe it's that... maybe it's also that reading a review gives you much more framing.<BR/><BR/>...by this I mean: if you use an mp3 player, put it on shuffle for a day and try not to look at the tracks you can't quite identify. It's very hard to 'just listen' to music without identifying it.<BR/><BR/>...perhaps the review isn't quite, or isn't just 'all about the music'.<BR/><BR/>Maybe this feeds in about what I was saying about decoding?PChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11828854682227101864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220957931635097123.post-35428712940190376602009-04-06T20:41:00.000+10:002009-04-06T20:41:00.000+10:00Q: why would you need to read the blurb on boomka...Q: why would you need to read the blurb on boomkat when you can simply click play and make your own mind up?<BR/><BR/>---------------------------<BR/><BR/>Because not everyone has so much time that they can sit through sample after sample of new music, nor have the means eg. If you’re at work. A non biased review written by someone who’s opinion you value can be very helpful or even enjoyable. It’s not like you’re going to base your opinion solely on what was written. You can listen then make your own judgement. Quite simple really.<BR/><BR/>Granted it could be argued that it's biased because they want you to ultimately buy the music but for the most part I find this not to be the case.delnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220957931635097123.post-50054352644142020742009-04-06T07:33:00.000+10:002009-04-06T07:33:00.000+10:00@ anonymous: Good question.... why have reviews if...@ anonymous: Good question.... why have reviews if you can listen? I ask this as a genuine question...PChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11828854682227101864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220957931635097123.post-936300730235863422009-04-06T06:34:00.000+10:002009-04-06T06:34:00.000+10:00why would you need to read the blurb on boomkat wh...why would you need to read the blurb on boomkat when you can simply click play and make your own mind up?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220957931635097123.post-35642546835256123542009-04-04T14:26:00.000+11:002009-04-04T14:26:00.000+11:00i don't know why you would want us to do the exact...i don't know why you would want us to do the exact same thing nearly every other techno blog is doing. that's not how we roll. if one of our writers was feeling dubstep, they would write about it. i don't think it's a coincidence that the people i chose to write for ISM are not feeling it. <BR/><BR/>there's really no limit to what we cover to be honest, unless David Vunk's ridiculous italo selection is about protecting black music (which is something that we do, don't get me wrong!). we don't try to even cover 1/100th of all techno and house out there, we only give exposure to what we're feeling. nothing is forced.pipecockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11092825988675368839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220957931635097123.post-10805459678553763492009-04-03T12:54:00.000+11:002009-04-03T12:54:00.000+11:00The funniest thing about the Pitchfork reviews is ...The funniest thing about the Pitchfork reviews is that if you read the columns they're all about the "subjective" aspect of music, but they insist each review is graded down to the decimal point. (Occasionally two decimal points, but usually only when the reviewer wants to make a sophomoric joke.)<BR/>The 9.6 is definitely inflated - I loved the album, but 9.6 is really the kind of rating that indicates an instant classic or something. Compare it to the ratings they gave to "Album of the Year" winners - _Person Pitch_ by Panda bear got a 9.4, Deerhunter's _Microcastle / Weird Era Cont._ got a 9.2.Will C.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220957931635097123.post-45023702683464532022009-04-03T12:44:00.000+11:002009-04-03T12:44:00.000+11:00Firstly, thanks everyone for a great discussion - ...Firstly, thanks everyone for a great discussion - always a pleasure to read everyone's 'warm engagement'. Spread that warmth.<BR/><BR/>@ Pitchfork: I think we'd be surprised just how many people read pitchfork, and the extent to which their reading 'frames' (like wayfarers, only cooler) the recording for its audience. The fact that this audience is increasingly a lifestyle category dominated by aesthetic considerations doesn't negate that to me... I think they're emblematic of the shift, and their popularity shows how they're both shaping the path and following it.<BR/><BR/>...I write from Melbourne though, which is indie rock city to the hilt... I doubt it has nearly as much traction in other places.<BR/><BR/>BUT/BUT/BUT: the fact that Pitchfork engages with Skull Disco and finds it wanting, but doesn't feel any need to reflect on its own conditions of judgement (hey, maybe I don't like it 'cos I don't get it...) is also symptomatic. <BR/><BR/>but/and at the same time, it seems important that people listen and critique out of their box. <BR/><BR/>@ Pipecock on this tip: I *wish* ISM *would* engage outside its own cherished assumptions and the sovereignty of authentic (mostly black) innovators (which all comes back to this weird Platonic primordialism about people banging drums in caves) who have to be cherished and protected against (mostly white) imitators... it would be great if they would suspend the ambient prejudice against (for example) dubstep and bassline in order to cover it... but we all have our prejudices... (and it's not like SSGs cover either of those genres much, so mea culpa)<BR/><BR/>@ Boomkat, Forced Exposure: its interesting that both these sites are there to flog records though. The fact that some people have said that the best critical reviews come from sites that are openly about trying to persuade you to buy something... isn't that cause for alarm?<BR/><BR/>~ I mean no offence to the people who write the blurbs for either site, they're well written ~<BR/><BR/>Does this not show, however, an inability to distinguish (or care) about the distinction between editorial and advertising content?<BR/><BR/>Broadly:<BR/><BR/>I worry that tipsterism amounts to lifestyle advertorial: 'check this out'; 'this is cool'; 'essential purchase'; 'must have' etc, etc.<BR/><BR/>Finally, the broader point I wanna get back to is the poverty of cool as a way of engaging with the world. <BR/><BR/>It is a nasty, cold, stiffening posture, and I'm sick of it.<BR/><BR/>...the dominance of cool is everywhere: witness even BBC's Top Gear and their car rating system.<BR/><BR/>'It's a very good car (record)... but is it cool?'PChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11828854682227101864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220957931635097123.post-18975150447418738682009-04-03T07:48:00.000+11:002009-04-03T07:48:00.000+11:00I told my students (architectural history) to look...I told my students (architectural history) to look at this post for help with their essay (the bit where you outline the two different reviewing types).<BR/><BR/>I think that bit is really well written.Jimmyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08391023792426888178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220957931635097123.post-50554722543166422062009-04-02T22:08:00.000+11:002009-04-02T22:08:00.000+11:00I find the record reviews on Boomkat.com well writ...I find the record reviews on Boomkat.com well written and informative. You can tell that the reviewer truly does have a passion and knowledge for the genre and LISTENS before putting pen to paper.<BR/><BR/>There has been plenty of times I've flicked through a sample which i was willing to pass on then something about the review rang true for me which in turn made me appreciate the record more... Like I say, otherwise I would've passed on it.delnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220957931635097123.post-14134727580122552922009-04-02T15:07:00.000+11:002009-04-02T15:07:00.000+11:00who honestly reads pitchfork reviews anymore? the...who honestly reads pitchfork reviews anymore? they're a lifestyle magazine at this point.<BR/><BR/>there are good places to keep up with newly released music on a regular basis. forcedexposure is probably the most diligent and expansive resource to check out what new records are distributed stateside. granted, the reviews quote one sheets and shit, but they do lots of cross-referencing. in general, it's a great database.alwaiz al reddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07870594826598659993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220957931635097123.post-30907880018802026632009-04-02T05:03:00.000+11:002009-04-02T05:03:00.000+11:00Gotta say I agree with quite a lot of what you say...Gotta say I agree with quite a lot of what you say, PC. My own personal problem with pitchfork boils down to how it sometimes seems to take the slightly glib attitude toward reviewing that lifestyle mags like xlr8r trade in. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just that I'd rather read a review that makes me want to listen to an album, rather than one that makes me want to buy the t-shirt. <BR/><BR/>As regards RA: the max score is a 4.5 now, which seems a little more genteel to me. My understanding is that the editorial staff are also now assigning the scores based on what's been said in the review. I reckon that the scores are a useful tool for those who just want to see whether to check a record out, rather than hear about it more deeply through a reviewer's commentary.<BR/><BR/>@pipecock: you make an excellent point when you say that reviewers shouldn't take on records outside of their taste. In example, I have no real interest in jazz. I recognize what's great about it, and I really wish it pushed my buttons, but it just doesn't, unfortunately. For this reason, I'm not going to go out and review a jazz record. to do so would be useless at best. Pitchfork taking on Skull Disco sounds exactly like that to me. Talking about 'diminishing returns' gets the wrong end of the stick so completely, its clear the reviewer simply didn't understand the music very well.<BR/><BR/>To me, dance music is rewarding in an important way: it speaks towards emotions that no previous music could. For most of its audience, however, I think edm is a more superficial thing than that. I can't find fault with that. Here's where I would tend to disagree a little with your essay Pete: I am very grateful to hear what the likes of the ssgs have to say. I don't think it's a crisis, however, if the Nathan Barleys are having their fun, too.Bootsy Colinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09179446560356313287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220957931635097123.post-83710685178785298862009-04-02T02:54:00.000+11:002009-04-02T02:54:00.000+11:00haha just realised that Pitchfork doesn't even do ...haha just realised that Pitchfork doesn't even do the monthly techno column and shit any more. shows how much i pay attention to that site ;)pipecockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11092825988675368839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220957931635097123.post-63393609567755945262009-04-02T02:35:00.000+11:002009-04-02T02:35:00.000+11:00RA have a penchant for the editorial team to mark ...RA have a penchant for the editorial team to mark down the scores the original reviewer gave.<BR/><BR/>There are plenty of well documented and in some cases public examples of this, plus if you read the comments on some of the reviews on the site you'll find more..A fellow critichttp://www.globalunderground.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220957931635097123.post-13394693034523810442009-04-02T02:02:00.000+11:002009-04-02T02:02:00.000+11:00record reviews are a bit of a problem for me as we...record reviews are a bit of a problem for me as well. my initial writing for RA was to do record reviews. i did one (J Fine on Fxhe) and then got a bit of the way through my second before i realised that i hated it and quit. i just can't think about music the way a "music reviewer" does. <BR/><BR/>what we do at ISM is a bit different from just about any other place. instead of trying to cover EVERYTHING out there in our genres/styles of choice regardless of whether it is good and bad, we use our critical facilities as deejays to buy the same records we would normally and then just talk about them a bit. not relying on promos and the like is most definitely a big plus for what we do. essentially we have set it up so that you know what each reviewer's individual taste is thanks to their mixes and the fact that they only cover music they like. and if you like their taste, we give enough info for people to hopefully go check it out for themselves. <BR/><BR/>essentially we are each a filter. that is what i am looking for when i look for reviews of anything from music to film to books. if someone is consistent in their taste, that's all i need. they can just give a yay or nay and i will go check it out. a 9.6 from a Pitchfork writer is meaningless to me. to be honest, there's nothing a Pitchfork writer could tell me about dance music that would be of any use to me. their monthly joints written by "experts" in the genres are about the only things i ever read on there. <BR/><BR/>of course, when something that would ordinarily fall within our taste comes out and stinks up the joint, we're going to mention that, too. we are 100% behind being critical of bullshit. but we're not gonna review shit that is outside of our tastes in order to be "objective" about it or something. our opinions are valuable precisely because we are not objective. my talking about some generic Poker Flat record or some dubstep record is worthless to everyone. unless, of course, it is somehow outstanding and deserves to be played in one of my sets!<BR/><BR/>i feel like our style falls somewhere in the middle of the 2 you point out. we do provide some small amount of sound description, but also try to give it a context since the sound itself is not really the defining part of the record. i think that is a good way to do it without sitting down and analyzing a record to death. i have never found anything like that to actually increase my enjoyment of any music. all my enjoyment comes from what happens as the music moves from my ears to my soul.pipecockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11092825988675368839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220957931635097123.post-17623009519653122682009-04-02T00:14:00.000+11:002009-04-02T00:14:00.000+11:00The following deconstruction of that AC/P4K review...The following deconstruction of that AC/P4K review, the Hipster Runoff response to said review and the critical circel-jerk that followed is worth reading within the context of your post: <BR/>http://www.riffmarket.com/2009/01/re-hipster-runoffs-animal-collective.htmlraspberryjoneshttp://www.newlylostedge.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220957931635097123.post-51717125929464832902009-04-01T22:57:00.000+11:002009-04-01T22:57:00.000+11:00Nice article, up there with other work from the sa...Nice article, up there with other work from the same site, 8.6/10.daragh99https://www.blogger.com/profile/06376195624456291966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7220957931635097123.post-72895594971614344262009-04-01T19:57:00.000+11:002009-04-01T19:57:00.000+11:00@ minimill: Yeah, the scratching on APIMF is a bit...@ minimill: Yeah, the scratching on APIMF is a bit of a head-scratcher (ahem) for me too ... although I think Koze had his start as a hip-hop DJ, which might explain it.<BR/><BR/>I just read the Skull Disco review over at Pitchfork ... diminishing returns? WTF?Camhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798760041491301736noreply@blogger.com