Is it useless to write a negative review of an album that's relatively unknown?

This phrase looks uncomfortably familiar...

Yeah I know, it was a review of my band's record. Good to know that someone reads CMJ, I suppose.

Obviously, the writer (and his ego).

"Shakey yeah? wow, well we defended you on the CMJ bulletin boards.. if you care.. "

Awwwww - sweet!

But anyway, are reviews supposed to help an artist, or are they supposed to inform a reader?

Incidentally, that Negro Problem review REALLY makes me want to hear the record.

The Negro Problem record is great, and that review is even more obnoxious than I remembered it.

I bet the band came up with their name precisely so that sentences like this would appear. I like them already!

However...it REALLY irks me when music critics review albums and don't discuss the music, y'know, like they're like "well, he's a guy with a KFC bucket on his head, and he's not Slash, so we give this album 1 1/2 stars, and we're not gonna tell you jack shit about the music". [that's a paraphrase of RS's recent review of Buckethead's Electric Tears album, btw]

Basically...give it a bad review if you want, but at least make sure it's a bad review BASED ON THE MUSIC. Please.

One of my editors always says: We should choose the records we review after two criteria: Is it well known? Isit any good?

Agree?

---------
go.to/stevek

As far as Pitchfork is concerned, a lot of the stuff they review sells less than 5000 copies in the states. But that's their demographic. If their audience is trying to discern good unknown artists from bad ones, it helps to have negative reviews that guide you away from stuff that isn't any good.

well half of that criteria is right anyway.

seriously, pointless slags against frankly insignificant (but diamonds to their mums, im sure) bands really get on my tits. its like picking on the weakest kid in the class just cos you can. it gives some music writers a chance to vent their pent-up artistic and (possibly sexual) frustrations in a way that (sigh of relief, commissioning editors) doesnt rock the precious consensus.

here's an idea: instead of wasting yours and your readers energies by squandering pagespace/webspace/braincells on covering a bad album by a bad band, why not cover a good album by a good band?

for fucks sake its not as if there's not enough of them around.

discourse is really important, but it should be constructive and useful. disses can be great fun, and immensely illuminating, but they should always try and say something that hasn't been said before (for instance, because a band's entire media coverage is otherwise composed of pr hype or rock n roll myth). they should bring something new to the table. contribute. keep things moving.

thats what all good criticism does.

Most totally unkown bands would be happy to just have their names in print and hopefully, if they believe in what they're doing, they'll know that you're wrong anyway.

This album must have been made for you! The title denotes the colour used on the walls etc, you see. (And the review would necessarily be better than the current, music-based one.)

it's only worthwhile to write/print a negative review of an unknown artist if the REVIEW ITSELF is prima facie interestingz
Douglas, I think that's the best point made in this whole discussion.

I mean, it's gotta be okay to revew what you thought would be the Next Big Thing, even if it is a disappointment. As long as you do in an entertaining/interesting manner.

Here's a question for you: where I'm from (Denmark), nobody knows Swizz Beatz. I seriously thought he would reach a broader audience with his new solo album. Should I review his new record, even though i think that it stinks like hog's breath?

Why do people review demos?

Another thing: Say you write for a publication that runs mostly lesser-known records. If you then say that you won't write negative reviews of lesser-known bands (ie most of the ones you're covering), nearly all the reviews in your publication will be positive. I think when that happens, people will be less inclined to trust your opinions. The negative reviews give the positive ones credibility (and vice versa).

That's cool, but why not just write them an email?

That seems a little weird to me. When I write about music, I'm entering into a dialog with listeners, not bands.

Fuck, I just got another not-too-happy email from a band over something I wrote... This was super positive too!

Don't you mean a monologue?

Do you mean a monolgoue?

Do you often discuss yr reviews with people who've read them?

Do you have a particular reader in mind?

Ideally, no. What I really hope for w/ all music writing is that it'll spur a discussion -- this is why I'm so jealous of the FT/ILM "Article Response." I hate it when a review or article gets posted & then disappears down a hole (as most of them do.) Just "having my opinion out there" is not enough for me. I'm more interested in learning than teaching.

Do you often discuss yr reviews with people who've read them?

Not often, but sometimes. People write me w/ questions or comments. Then there are music boards.

Do you have a particular reader in mind?

Yes, but it varies w/ where the piece will run.