Reviews

You could review it without actually listening to it. I believe there is some precedent....

x0x0

If there's a big to-do about a record I'm interested in (such as with Amnesiac), I avoid reviews like the plague until I actually hear the music at hand. Then I usually go back to the reviews and think, "What the heck were THEY listening to?"

Reviews often do spoil records (not to the point that I avoid them), if only because I don't trust most reviews published in the major US media outlets about the US "hot topics". Same goes for the UK press when they're gushing about the 'Phonics or Badly Drawn Boy or Catatonia or what-have-you - after enough (poorly worded) praise, I tend to think that there MUST be something bad about it. Maybe not bad - "mediocre", really.

(Tom - do NOT let the reviewers pooh on your parade, though. Amnesiac is worth a listen, if only in Napsterized form. And NOT just because of its supposed importance within the music community.)

The only reviews I read, by and large, are written by my friends. That's it. I certainly don't read "professional" reviews. The problem is, I know that a good portion of them are paid off in some way or another, so what's the point in reading them?

Clarification: I've got Amnesiac in napsterized form and have had for ages. So it's the reviewers talking about something I'm already familiar with.

Like Ally, I (mostly) don't read reviews except for certain writers I like online. I will also read the occaisonal print review, like Ian Penman reviewing Nick Cave in Uncut recently -- a great writer reviewing a good singer/songwriter's not-so-great new album; this is more the exception to the rule these days, as there are very few writers writing for music magazines that I would give the time of day to.

As for other reviews in print, why bother? Some are paid off and the rest of the time you know the writer is going to take four paragraphs for coming up with the dullest ideas having to do with the music in the most uninspired way. Most of the time I come away with the feeling that I could have done a much better job of reviewing the album and that's not the way I want to feel: I want to be inspired, challenged and even sometimes aggravated by a review, something that will make you look at the music in a completely different light. I hardly ever feel that way reading "real" reviews, but I know I feel that way most of the time reading Tim Finney's reviews or Mike Daddino's.*

*and several others, fred, before you start sighing melodramatically again. I am just using two as examples.

He is so freakin' attention starved, he really needs some Ritalin.

Sing to her, Fred!

Funny you should mention Penman, as his reviews of the Radiohead and Missy Albums did indeed aggravate me ;) (and his Tindersticks one in Uncut).

What aggravated you Tom?

I'm kind of wary of saying cause a friend and I are planning an article touching on a lot of this stuff. It just seemed annoying the way he was so keen on one kind of context in the Missy review - this is the SOUND OF NOW, yeah yeah (w/ no mention of previous Missy albums or even Timbaland productions) - and then totally ignored that context in the R'head review, preferring a context of "oh, not as good as 'Metal Box', eh". Bear in mind I suppose that I think Amnesiac is a pop album.

It just seemed annoying the way he was so keen on one kind of context in the Missy review - this is the SOUND OF NOW, yeah yeah (w/ no mention of previous Missy albums or even Timbaland productions) - and then totally ignored that context in the R'head review, preferring a context of "oh, not as good as 'Metal Box', eh". (Tom)

Maybe he doesn't know that much about the previous albums, or rather he thinks that his readership don't - there are a lot of people listening to current r&b that weren't doing so two or three years ago...Similarly he refers to earlier albums in the Radiohead review because he knows it will make sense to his readers who are familiar with their earlier stuff.

In answer to the question. I read lots of reviews both of records that I know something about, and of those I don't. I never buy any of them though.

*ahem*

"i bought my love a chicken, it had no bones..."

Tom, not yet able to read that Uncut yet, a question, if you don't mind: Does the reviewer assess the Missy and Radiohead albums with the underlying assumption that R&B is the Sound of Now because of that genre's inherent disposibility (in the mind of the reviewer) and feel it necessary to place the Radiohead album in a historic context because of the relatively more worthwhile history and legacy (again, according to the reviewer) of album-format rock?

For Radiohead, as a general rule I've put aside any Amnesiac review that claims Knives Out is the album's best track because it's the least adventurous. Ugh.

And to answer the question I still read straight reviews before I listen to a record, almost out of habit and a terrible addiction to periodicals but usually don't give them much creedence -- most of them, too, have such small word counts that they don't seem to do much more than toss off a point of reference and re-word the press release. I much prefer on-line reviews for that reason, among many others. Writers such as the ones here or Brent D. or whomever else is recognizable to on-line readers wouldn't be able to work within the structure of Q or RS or Spin or even Magnet or Uncut.

And I usually go back and read reviews after I have a record (more an approach with film reviews, however) and usually end up with that same sour experience David R. described.

Penman reviews in The Wire rather than Uncut - if the latter then the reader-pandering David Huntsman describes would be only expected, but readers of the wire meant to be more open-eared than Penman's frothy- on-the-right/jaded-on-the-left approach suggests. Though you do wonder.

NB I think Ian Penman is generally a v.good writer.

Thanks. That's much more disappointing from The Wire, I just assumed that line of criticism was from Uncut although you clearly differentiated with concern to the Tindersticks. (We can't get the current The Wire yet, either. The new Spin is here, though -- Blink-182 is on the cover! Hooray!)

Scott: re Penman's reasons to taking the respctive positions he took. No: or at least, I really really really doubt it. If anything, the problem was the opposite: which is what maybe somewhat disappointed me (bearing in mind I'd internalised-adopted IP's judgment on ANYTHING by c.1979 and would parrot every last off-the-cuff opinion for rather longer than was good for me). The sense to me was that these records — esp. Missy Elliott, the "good" one — didn't really surprise Penman into surprising himself (the pioneer anti-rockist, among other things), let alone surprising us here and now: hence his praise for one and distaste for the other rings more positionally than you'd hope for.

(Of course, he labours under the burden, as a writer, of being aware that his teenage faction totally won, after all. Made history theirs. That no one except mad ol' Methuselahs like me even remember the names of his critical opponents back when it was still extreme heresy not to think the way [re rock, re R&B] Scott wondered if IP might have been thinking.)

As to the question: I'm with what David said. Reading reviews bears only slantwise relationship to what I buy or listen to: it;s a pleasure or a pain in its own right. And if you can't write something which isn't diverting or challenging or whatever IN ITSELF (w/o crutch of being 'about something the reader's alrready interested in") then you shouldn't be writing. Fuck the record: you're the star, for 400 words, or whatever. If you can pull that off and say something about the record as well, hurrah!

But it's hard: economically, as much as anything. If you bugger it up, you don't always get asked back.

I think this is something else aggravating about that review-pair - there's no sense that IP *did* win. The opening para of the Missy review is boggling - IP taking arms for marginalised R&B against tide of guitar/laptop-based white male drywank. This is either a man addicted to fighting old battles or a man with a very dusty radio.

When it comes to the original questions -- a) it's a toss-up, b) nope.

That said, I think all my AMG work has changed me thoroughly from being a reader of reviews these days. I'm more likely to write about it and just offer up my thoughts than search out what somebody has to say, though if I stumble across something that could be of interest I'll read it over.

"there's no sense that IP *did* win": yes, sorry, that's actually what I meant, I got lost in what I trying to say. Problem is, when you win (and when you were right), it's not always a simple thing to have the perspective to work against your tastes the way may you probably ought to. (Look at me: I'm *still* fighting his battles... Don't follow leaders, kids, watch the parking meters...)

WHy do record reviewers exist? Aren't there any job openings in the local garbage collection agencies?

Very interesting thread.

I read as few reviews as I can these days in the press because its reductive narrow agenda bores me stiff ... when it comes to FT and related sites, though, I'm obviously far more likely to read *and re- read* reviews of records I'm interested in than records I'm not. Reviews of stuff I'm not interested in naturally inspire me less to re-reading and re-examination though I often like them and find them very well-written (cf Tom recently on Lloyd Cole).

Says Mark S. -

Fuck the record: you're the star, for 400 words, or whatever. If you can pull that off and say something about the record as well, hurrah!

I can't say I necessarily agree with that whole-hog. Robert Christgau (herefore referred to as Xgau) is possibly the WORST example of this truism - if you're going to GRADE the damn record, you'd best talk ABOUT the record, instead of moving down the street & watching a beach ball bounce. (Granted, my brief exposure to Xgau's work has led me to this conclusion, so I might be off-base, but, damn, I can see why Thurston & Co. were so cheesed off.) However, if someone like glenn mcdonald takes 4 or 5 pages to (eventually) talk about Rush or Roxette, I'm all for it - as Josh has noted in the past (@ his site), some of glenn's best writing often occurs outside the "review" portion of his essays.

I find myself reading music writing more for the WRITING nowadays than the actual subject. If I love/hate an album, it's rare that someone's going to say something to appreciably augement/change my love/hate. That's why I gravitate towards writers like glenn or Tom, for instance - even if I think they're totally off their rocker, they make for good reading.

To also refer to Mike's (smirky & snarky) assertion re: rekkid reviewers & landfills - I had a brief e-mail exchange with the subject of this li'l essay I wrote, where I asserted that record reviews serve as a Consumer Report to give folks a better idea where they should drop their dough. The more I think about that, however, the less I believe it (given that the majority of music-related writing nowadays consists of verbal masturbation blotted dry by some press release- esque dogma).

But, hey - were it not for those spooj-driven promos I just bitched about, I wouldn't know about half the stuff I do today, so they do seem to serve a purpose of sorts. Just as much as "bubblegum pop" can be seen as a step towards bigger & better things - you know, like Tortoise. Obviously. Dur.

If no one here ever reads reviews, where on earth did you all find out about the Magnetic Fields/Neutral Milk Hotel/Miles Davis stuff that's all over the ILM poll ?? R&B radio ??? Not to mention all the extremely non-mainstream stuff that dominated the last-5-records- bought thread - I'm pretty sure Mouse On Mars aren't talk show regulars, even in Europe.

Patrick: friends!

Honestly, mostly it's friends - word-of-mouth internet hype and mailing list chat, and the odd pub whisper. Print reviews occasionally throw up something of interest, I'm not denying that: I love hype, personally. But mostly it's people I know. Of course the great thing about the fake-intimacy of the UK music press is that it turns jaded hack strangers into "people you know" too.

Penman reviews in The Wire rather than Uncut....readers of the wire meant to be more open-eared than Penman's frothy- on-the- right/jaded-on-the-left approach suggests. Though you do wonder. (Tom)

I wouldn't necessarily assume that Wire readers have greater knowledge of Missy Elliot (than Uncut readers). Uncut readers probably know more about Radiohead though (or perhaps not).

Your friends have such cool tastes. I'm jealous.

Eh. I read some reviews as objects-in-themselves about things I already know something about, sometimes I read to catch the CR style description, scanning for stuff I like. But above all, I think reviews should be about things people are already sorta familiar with, coupled with napster or radio or whatever, and act as part of the musical experience. Ultimately, I think the best thing about reviews is that good ones really do have transformative power, in terms of refiguring taste. I've argued people out of enjoying movies, so I think this is possible. I've also argued people into enjoying music, and been argued into enjoying music. Most recently, into enjoying and grooving on early R. Kelley, and other male R&B schmaltz acts. Without Tim and SR on UK Garage, I probably wouldn't like it half as much. Reviews never spoil a record for me. They can encourage me to like something, but once I like something I'm obstinate about it.

Reviews I read: when the writer flat out loves the album, I see if its something I might be into. Or when I'm looking for a good starting point on an artist with a monstrous back catalog. Or when there seems to be some buzz surrounding a new album. I guess read a lot of reviews (well, someone has to...). I avoid them when I know I will buy the album when it comes out no matter what (hello Amnesiac) and I don't want any of it spoiled (hence why I haven't napsterized it). And I rarely read reviews where the reviewer says "this album bites" ... unless its an album I adore, then I will probably start getting all in a huff.

David, on my part, when I read the Wire four years ago I knew nothing about Missy Elliott and would, in fact, have been disgustingly snobbish about R&B generally. In fact I'm one of those people who is listening to contemporary R&B now but wasn't interested two or three years ago (I was an undie hip-hop purist then, as you know). So I can sort-of-see where Penman's coming from, with the difference that Wire readers are more likely to have ignored Missy in favour of what could be classified as "avant-garde" (I know I used to, and I suspect Tom did to an extent), while Uncut readers would probably have ignored her in favour of more straightahead rock.

FWIW most Uncut readers would surely know more about Radiohead than Missy Elliott, and they're probably much less likely to have been turned off by "Kid A" than the Q readers who voted "OK Computer" best LP ever.

I find now that the impact of a good review is considerably less than when I first started listening to music. The main problem is that in the 20 years or so (uh oh) of listening and reading about music the media has proliferated so much. Back in the early 80's you only had the NME,MM and Record mirror. Now as well as dozens of different magazines, you have newspapers and the online sources adding there tuppence worth. It wouldn't be too difficult to find a positive review of pretty much anything which is now released.

Some magazines (Mojo/Muzik) are rarely critical about anything, it's as if they don't want to offend. I can't imagine that i'd now buy something unheard of on the basis of a review. Unlike the mid 80's when you could read a review and think wow I must listen to this e.g Psychocandy.

The other thing is after years of bitter experience (and spent pounds), you realise that they're often wrong.

Depends on the forum, really. When I know that a particular magazine or website, etc, reviews records that are generally to my taste, I tend to take a look at all the reviews looking for information that grabs me somehow and makes me want to learn more. More generalized things I just ignore the majority of the reviews. Reviews in bulk don't really spoil a record for me if the record is really good, even if the reviews are bad. In general, figuring out the reviewers is a nice little puzzle, and if you can crack a few of them, you can actually glean useful information about records before you get a chance to listen to them, and make that determination whether they're worthwhile. One reviewer in our local free rag is such a goddamned crank that every time he slags a pop release it's almost a guarantee that it will be fairly good. Strangely, the things that he raves about are generally also fairly good. Weird.

I like reviews where they put the little stars at the end. That way, I just skip to the one- or two-star reviews and read those. Most positive reviews are result of editorial pressure, or the reviewer wanting to get more free stuff, or being afraid of being left out of the next big thing and looking obsolete.

Ian Penman - search & destroy? Search - the demolitions of Frank Zappa and Damo Suzuki. Destroy - the 'wordplay' that makes reading him a 'pun-ishing' experience

is the general anti-reviewer bias here because you know about music, quite possibly much more than the reviewer. but what about when you knew less stuff? what about new kinds of stuff now, that you don't really know about?

i put a lot more store in friends, and ILM types, than in 'music journalists', because the majority of music journalism i find unhelpful and dull (The Wire excepted), but the negative thoughts here seem to be directed at journalism per se rather than individual journalists and publications, as though music journalists are inherently bad ('y'know, they don't even pay for their own music, the soulless automatons, ugh!!))

Tons of interesting issues spinning out here - let's grab a couple of them:

1. Mark S. suggests that music reviewers should 'work against their tastes' - what does that mean and do you think you agree?

2. Gareth brings up the paid/unpaid dichotomy and the music-for-free thing? Does the fact that I pay for a lot of the albums I review make my criticism 'better'?

In reply to Gareth: yeah, when I didn't know anything about music I used to follow NME guidelines slavishly. It worked OK, actually, and I liked doing it.

tom: no, the fact that you pay for yr records (like i do) doesn't make yr criticism any better than someone who gets them free. writing is what is important, not how someone gets something.

the point i was trying to make, is that this seems to be the general feeling among people, and i don't understand it (there's been a lot of anti-journo crit here along the lines of how they get records rather than what they say about them)

― gareth, Tuesday, 5 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)