how do you approach writing live reviews?

well, that *is* part of the live performance. sometimes a really big part.

Showmanship, energy, on-stage chemistry between band-mates, funny banter, positive crowd reaction, good visuals - these are things that can make a gig great, even if you don't think the actual songs are that strong. if the stereophonics whip the crowd into a frenzy, surely you have to acknowledge that they put on a good show? What's the point in reviewing a gig if you know before you go that you're going to write negatively about it, because you don't like the songs?

It's like going to see a film and judging it purely on actor performances and special effects and ignoring whether or not the story is actually any good.

I don't agree, I've enjoyed live performances by acts whose music i don't enjoy. There are ways to compensate for this, i think. songs that sound crap on stereo may take on new life when everyone around you is singing it back.

"Also, the Stereophonics live have neither showmanship, energy, on-stage chemistry, good visuals nor funny banter anyway so it makes this entire debate irrelevant in this case."

Heh, well the absence of these IS a fair stick to beat the stereophonics with. i'm not sure if a dislike of their recorded output is.

"It's like going to see a film and judging it purely on actor performances and special effects and ignoring whether or not the story is actually any good."

surely a more fitting analogy would be if you went to a film and gave it a bad review mainly because you didn't like the songs on the soundtrack? if all the fans who paid money to see the gig seemed to be having a great time, i think you'd have to acknowledge this in a review.

should read:

"Heh, well the absence of these IS a fair stick to beat the stereophonics LIVE SHOW with. i'm not sure if a dislike of their recorded output is."

I'm just saying that you can't remove music from the live music equation. 'Cause if you stop judging a band on its music, all you've got is a bunch of idiots onstage pretending to be people they're not. Complaining that you got a bad review live because your music wasn't hot ... well, why the hell are you in a band? Be a fashion model.

Revive because I'm attending a live gig to review on Thursday and I only have a little experience doing this, and never for a well-known act such as these. Any tips, dos and don'ts etc?? Would you generally talk about the venue or opening acts or crowd, or simply the band and how they performed? Is the retelling of personal experiences (ie that skinhead who threw his pint at me and a bunch of people, that Japanese girl down the front who pretended to be a dragon, rude barstaff etc.) always a no-no?

Depends who you're writing it for and how long it is

Depends who you're reviewing for whether you can use first person or not but with every live review just ask yourself what's relevant to the point you're trying to make about the band. If they're struggling and someone near you shouts "fuck you" at the stage, that's worth including. Someone spills a beer on you? Not so much. Opening acts are usually only worth mentioning if they either complement the headliners or blow them off the stage. Venue's worth noting only insofar as it affects the atmosphere, ie if it's particularly opulent or has ruinously crappy acoustics. A sense of the crowd reaction, even if it's only a line, is pretty useful. Jokes are always welcome. Basically, just take lots of notes, then decide at the end of the show what your argument will be and select your material accordingly. You're not trying to recreate the experience on the page - you're advancing a critical argument.

Thanks. It's a 300-word review for a fairly well known British alt/rock/pop mag. I'm looking forward to the gig as it's a band I've been following closely for some time. Shouldn't have too much trouble but any more tips are always appreciated.

300 is a good number. I agree with all of Dorian's points. If it's a sit-down show, take notes - but don't sweat it if you can't. (I only take notes for larger, more staged and hence more detailed shows, partly because I like to append set lists to the web version.) Write the first draft as soon as you get home, allowing a good hour or so. (I don't have the luxury of second drafts, being on a 6am copy deadline.) Avoid first-person trivia of no wider relevance. As far you're able, put aside personal prejudice towards the act, whether pro or anti, and judge the show on its own merits. I've been sharply critical of acts I love, and I've also praised acts I detest. Aim for balance and you'll get to the truth more readily; 100% rave reviews and all-out hatchet jobs are rarely justified and carry the dangers of being boring and/or dishonest.

Morley once wrote a 650-word review of Kirk Brandon's ears. Best live review ever.

I write a lot of live reviews, and I'm not sure if I have a method per se, since sometimes it's a band I own a ton of albums by and have seen before, and sometimes it's a local act I've barely heard of, sometimes it's a really interesting venue or event that deserves a lot of background and description, sometimes it's the same damn club I was in last week. But the way I look at it is this: if you're reviewing a record, it's the same CD available to everybody else and anyone can form their own opinion of it. If you're reviewing a live show, you're reporting from an event that the reader presumably wasn't at, and it could be a completely different experience from someone else who was there, based on where you were standing or when you got there or left, etc. So even if you don't use first person, you're still basically just documenting the things you heard and saw in those 3 hours or whatever of your life, whether you're commenting on the setlist or the acoustics or the drummer's facial hair. I rarely have a word limit for live reviews, so I can afford to go off on tangents like that, though, in 300 words you probably just wanna stick to the music.

For the larger shows, my newspaper now asks for two reviews: a word-count restricted print version (which is often chopped down further by the subs), and an unrestricted web version. I'm more than happy with this state of affairs, and will generally find myself doing around 600 words for the web, before chopping them down for print. (The only drawback is having to stay up even later on a school night.) It certainly helps me get over that "killing my darlings" feeling.

150 words!!!! I have to get all my squee down to ONLY 150 WORDS!!!

This is going to be the hardest thing ever not to just write TOTAL HEART-ON 75 times.