emotional distance

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
when writing about music, i wonder is emotional distance preferred by most here? i just read the new pieces on tangent and the excitement they sparked in me(2 of the 3 subjects i was previously oblivious to) has never been matched by any of the "objective" blogs i read. or perhaps is it that tangents brilliance is an exception for "fan" sites?

keith, Sunday, 28 January 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I can't speak for everyone here, but when I write my reviews, I go by whatever I'm feeling at the time. This month, I did one review that was about 90% objective, another that was 75% subjective. There is no consistent style; the mood I'm in dictates the nature of the review.

So to answer your question: no, I don't prefer emotional distance ;)

Snow Dog, Monday, 29 January 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

This is a very interesting question. but I'd like some examples of which weblogs or sites you think are 'objective' - certainly that's not an aim with mine, for example - so is it possibly just a difference in style that attracts you to Tangents?

I think a big difference between FT and Tangents is that Tangents is about carving out ones own definition of pop, whereas FT is about reacting to and loving/hating pop as it is: is that what you mean by objective-subjective perhaps?

Tom, Monday, 29 January 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

This kind of 'emotional' publishing can be really ordinary outside the 'free' press of the internet though...

For example, 'the FACE' relentlessly subscribes by this over-excited next-big-thing we-are-so-street-wise vibe in every single music/band feature that it covers (or anything else). This type of sensationalist coverage becomes increasingly tiresome, especially when it appears so contrived week after week. In comparison, I suppose that honesty is the best bet with any review, the work that you put in then will be the closest reflection of your actual opinion. I can't help but always notice that the best fan sites on-line continuely outclass the 'official' webpages, and I suppose that is testament to the fact...

Michael Dieter, Thursday, 1 February 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I have a soft spot for The Face's "next big thing" obsession though... if only because they're about a hundred times more likely to be spot on than the NME ever were. The *notable* difference is that The Face wait until their hype subjects have actually released stuff (or in the case of say Destiny Beyonce, actually fully established themselves) before they start falling over themselves, rather than just being convinced by self-promotion alone. The other thing is that most of their "next big things" actually do do something at least partially new.

I learnt about Basement Jaxx from The Face, and The Beta Band, and The Stanton Warriors and M-Dubs, and Layo & Bushwacka, and a whole raft of others, so I appreciate their position. Besides, isn't it sort of healthy to be forward looking? Not to such an extent maybe, but it's better than Mojo.

Tim, Friday, 2 February 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I agree about The Face, Tim. Really, what magazine puts Daft Punk on the front cover and then for 8 pages fabricates a robot-fantasy that functions as a advertisement for the new album. Brilliant, utterly non-objective music-journalism. Anyway, when Melody Maker went to the dogs around '95, The Face and i-D, to a lesser extent, eased the pain real well. Imagine: good music, no shite indie bands, awareness of the existence of Basic Channel plus ace fashion spreads.

Omar, Friday, 2 February 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.