quoted 1 line>>>
- provide some context for the music, even for someone that doesn't follow
the genre. Good examples are similar artists, other works in the same vein,
that sort of thing
- give some insight as to the palette of sounds used, and some idea as to
the techniques of the composer(s)
- tell where the music fits - is it good driving music? sea shanties to
sing at the pub over a pint? psychedelia best suited for use while under
the influence? a good CD to put on before bed? music for getting into a
college girl's panties?
- provide a little history of the artist, perhaps with some insight as to
where the current work fits within their catalog
- track by track breakdowns can be excessive, but pick out a song or two and
talk about them specifically
- if it's on an interesting label, that should be mentioned.
quoted 1 line>>>
This is about the most generic way to "review" anything and also the
most depressing to read from my perspective. Unfortunately, it's also
the easiest and most mainstream way, hence probably why the writer of
this advice reviews "CD's for a paper with a 100,000+ weekly
readership"...
The end result is, roughly, an advertisement that conveys very little
insight to the reader. The reviewer attempts to express her/his
subjective experience with the music to someone else who most likely
has no relation to the reviewer. This anonymity and alienation render
the writing uninformitive and, perhaps, a subjective lie.
Are artists really that similar where their ideas and work can be
conflated in some rather arbitrary way? Has anyone not grown tired of
the "if you enjoy X, then you definately want to check out Y"
salesmanship effort that typically leads to heightened expectations
and a bitter let-down? Making relational statements is not very
meaningful from person to person, unless we know that person's tastes
and influences, which the anonymous reader/reviewer relationship does
not allow for.
Can anyone adequately describe digitally generated sounds, things that
have no bearing in reality? "The song opens with a stream of sounds
that bring to mind the high-pitched screeches my old 56k modem used to
make near the end of its life." This is not helpful, nor very
meaningful for the reader. Would I like to hear that sound? It seems
interesting, but it depends on how its used within the greater context
of the song and album.
Where the music fits? Why should we try to force music into any one
arena or environment? Doesn't this change with the person? See the
whole 'being' versus 'becoming' problem. Shouldn't we respect music
and the artist's work more than using it as background filler for
"getting into a college girl's panties"? Even the most "ambient" of
ambient music has influences on the listener - why aren't we paying
attention to this?
I dislike reviews that attempt to describe an artistic work at the
simplest levels. What it sounds like, who else it sounds like, etc.
This is basically a book review that describes the plot: it's
condensed, loses all of its nuances, derivative, and reduces the work
to nothing more than a consumable object. Additionally, no review
like this will ever be as good as listening to the tracks themselves
and making up one's own mind, even if it's a low-quality MP3 off the
artist or label's website.
If you're going to write something about music, write a serious,
well-thought and researched essay on what you believe it means, if
anything. If you're going to talk about sounds, talk about how they
influence the overall structure of the album, what they mean within
the song/album. Situate the work and the creator in the appropriate
social, economic, political, and historical climate: it's not a
creation divorced from any of these.
-r
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org