Hey, I agree with you. In the best of all possible worlds, each album you
review would be thouroughly dissected, with sufficient background
information to help anyone, regardless of their level of musical education,
nuances discussed, techniques analyzed, etc. etc.
Here's the problem - how do you do that in 250 words? Or 500? How do you
present valuable information on good music to an audience that, by and
large, relies on Clear Channel for their notions of new music?
I recently reviewed the AFX - Chosen Lords album for our paper. I was
allotted enough space for a 250 word review. When I finished my first
draft, it was nearly a thousand words, and I thought I was being economical
with the verbage.
Needless to say, I had to re-think the whole thing. There were a lot of
interesting points about that album, from it's inception, the Analord series
of vinyl, the marketing aspect, and of course, the music itself, and the
tracks chosen for the album as opposed to the rest of the 41 tracks. But I
had to choose only a couple, and try to give folks an impression of the
album, even if they've never heard of RDJ.
While your thinking on the subject is noble, you forget that in the world of
print, at any rate, you only can say as much as you can fit into the space
available. You can only get as in-depth as your time and space constraints
allow. And sure, you can talk about the obvious influence of Stockhausen,
or the nuances between a live performance and a previously recorded
version. But you know what? If your references are too arcane, or outside
of the experience of your average reader, then the overall effect is to
obfuscate rather than to clarify.
There's practical considerations, that's all I'm saying. If the ad folks
only sell enough ads for an 88 page book, then we only have 88 pages to work
with, no matter how insightful your review of the new Andrew W.K. album is,
no matter how valid your opinions on effects of mashups on pop culture, no
matter how much research you put into finding out the personal stories of
the new hip hop collective on the other side of town.
A review doesn't need to make your readers feel like they've listened to the
album. It just needs to let them know whether it's something that they
might want to check out on their own.
My .02
-Ian
On 5/11/06, Robert Stanton <robert.l.stanton@gmail.com> wrote:
quoted 18 lines I dislike reviews that attempt to describe an artistic work at the>
>
> 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.
>