Are NPR's music reviews inscrutable?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Jeffrey Dworkin, NPR Ombudsman writes at npr.org

-- One goal of NPR journalism is to make the unfamiliar more comprehensible, whether it is in politics, science or culture. Mostly, this happens. But when it comes to modern music reviews, I hear a certain dissonance. For some listeners, the music sounds harsh and the journalism that attempts to explain it, sounds equally irritating (and impenetrable).

NPR regularly reviews new music. This is good, since it takes NPR listeners out of what is familiar and exposes them to what is happening in other parts of the culture.

Too Hip for NPR?

The problem, according to some listeners, is that NPR's reviews are too hip to be good journalism. In short, some musical commentary, especially on All Things Consdered, is incomprehensible to some listeners, and I confess, to me.

Some examples:

A review of the band Wilco on All Things Considered on June 21:

These extended explorations and others, like the five minutes of abrasive dental-drill feedback drone near the end of the disc, give Wilco's music an entirely new dimension. The guitar isn't here to make things pretty. Tweedy uses savage, wild lunges to punctuate the verses and sometimes to inject a little danger into otherwise lovely songs.

A review of the band The Magnetic Fields from All Things Considered on June 9:

The songs themselves are the draw. They're disciplined little gems of composition, poison-pen letters set in the first person and caustic, coffee-shop observations propelled by not particularly heroic desires. The best of them tell about being deluded in love or not being able to let go of an old flame. And even under Merritt's dour storm clouds, they gleam.

A review of an album by Morrissey on All Things Consideredon June 4:

Morrissey has always seemed to be a walking paradox, both playful and morose, ambiguously asexual, political but hopelessly self-involved, which is why You Are the Quarry is still a classic Morrissey album. Songs like "All the Lazy Dykes" and "The World Is Full of Crashing Bores" serve up such themes in spades. But his usual inclination towards detachment ends there. And the new Morrissey, the older Morrissey, the wiser Morrissey, the Morrissey of this moment is unafraid to show a more personal side, venting his soul with songs like "Irish Blood, English Heart" about his withering sense of nationalism and, of course, the starkly brave and confessional accusation of Christianity entitled "I Have Forgiven Jesus."

'Hipper-Than-Thou?'

Presenting these excerpts outside the context of the entire review may be unfair. But for some listeners, the full reviews were incomprehensible, even bordering on a parody of "intellectual" music criticism. The reviews' tone is arch and "hipper-than-thou." They seem to tell most of us not to bother listening -- this information is not for you, but only for the people who are part of the scene.

Modern music, and especially rock 'n' roll, was always about who was "in" and who was not. Nothing is more embarrassing than older people claiming to dig the latest sounds.

This is a quandary for NPR. How does NPR reach out to a younger group of listeners without irritating its older core? If NPR's music journalism is really meant for that younger audience, then irritating older listeners is a price young radio producers are willing to pay.

NPR needs to do music reviews but they need to be written so all listeners are able to understand the criticism and the music. The reviews should give listeners a glimpse of something new, even if it is hard to understand (or like).

Cultural Outsiders

Unfortunately, I think these reviews make many listeners feel like cultural outsiders. The reviewers sound as if they know and enjoy the music. Can't they convey that to the rest of us?

Better editing would be a start.

Fortunately, not all music reviews on NPR are off-putting.

Recently, Morning Edition aired another of its series on "Intersections" -- a series on artists and their inspirations. This time, the subject was a hip-hop artist called Timbaland.

A number of listeners wrote in to complain that the sound was jarring and very un-Morning Edition-like.

I heard the story, and like many listeners, I listened on my way to work. I also found it tough to take, especially that early in the morning. But I also found the report by Neda Ulaby very interesting.

Timbaland or Timberlake?

Like some who wrote in, I initially confused Timbaland with a well known pop singer called Justin Timberlake. Some listeners may know of the latter because he appeared with Janet Jackson during her infamous "wardrobe malfunction" at this past winter's Super Bowl broadcast.

Ulaby's interview with Timbaland was about how he found inspiration in the Tolkien novels, The Lord of the Rings. It seemed an unusual combination, but Ulaby made Timbaland more comprehensible and his music more accessible.

This was good cultural journalism: It introduced me to an artist I didn't know. It told me why he is important and why he is an artist. I may not run out to buy his CD, but at least I can make an informed choice.

Staying Open to New Ideas

One of the characteristics of NPR listeners is that they are "open to new ideas." That's why Ulaby's reports seem to me to be a good example of journalistic inclusiveness. They do not alienate mainstream NPR listeners.

Other examples of accessible musical journalism are Liane Hansen's interviews with musicians on Weekend Edition Sunday (interviews interspersed with music) or Miles Hoffman's riffs on classical music on Morning Edition and Performance Today.
----

Hahahahaha!

― Kevin Erickson, Thursday, 1 July 2004 00:08 (twenty years ago)

well you know considering the NPR audience, maybe it all IS to inscrutable!

― Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 1 July 2004 00:15 (twenty years ago)

too too TOO

― Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 1 July 2004 00:15 (twenty years ago)

That's why Ulaby's reports seem to me to be a good example of journalistic inclusiveness. They do not alienate mainstream NPR listeners.

Sounds more like advice for running a restaurant: Don't alienate or make nauseous the customers. Good journalism must often be alienating to the mainstream. And we're not just talking music journalism here.

― George Smith, Thursday, 1 July 2004 01:02 (twenty years ago)

If your goal is to communicate something, alienating the audience isn't a great idea. Good journalism may stretch boundaries and air ideas that are alienating to a mainstream audience, but the writing itself shouldn't alienate.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 1 July 2004 01:11 (twenty years ago)

those were the most easily comprehensible music reviews i've ever read

― Symplistic (shmuel), Thursday, 1 July 2004 01:17 (twenty years ago)

1) a person who is only aware of Justin Timberlake from his Superbowl performance with Janet Jackson is a person who will get nothing from a Wilco or Magnetic Fields review, no matter how it is presented. Music-wise, such a person is living in a cave.

2) Talking with Timbaland about his favourite books is not the best gateway into his music.

3) If NPR wants to present music reviews to a general listenership, they can do so in the style of People or Blender. If they feel such styles are beneath them, then understanding their reviews will require a bit more concentration, and that is that.

Since when does "dumbing down" equal "more accessible". By that measure, maybe they should dumb down their political coverage in a similar manner.

(xposts)

― Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 1 July 2004 01:17 (twenty years ago)

NPR's music reviews help yuppies and those too cool for top forty radio stay in touch enough that they can make some conversation at dinner parties.

― teeny (teeny), Thursday, 1 July 2004 01:43 (twenty years ago)

those were the most easily comprehensible music reviews i've ever read
-- Symplistic (shmuel...), July 1st, 2004 7:17 PM.

OTM

― wetmink (wetmink), Thursday, 1 July 2004 02:11 (twenty years ago)

About yuppies: Yeah, but isn't that kind of a good thing if the reviewers are pointing them in the direction of good music?

This is just another variation on the noble art of explaining things to your parents.

― Pete Scholtes, Thursday, 1 July 2004 02:13 (twenty years ago)

Let's try to fathom what specialized vocab eludes the ombudsman:

"feedback drone"? (maybe "feedback" isn't universally known as guitar feedback)

"coffee-shop observations"? (this is admittedly vague, and might be a synonym for "casual observations")

"starkly brave and confessional accusation"? ("brave" and "confessional" are clear enough, but maybe the "starkly" is a misleading adverb meant to evoke the sound of the song rather than the quality of the bravery, I don't know)

― Pete Scholtes, Thursday, 1 July 2004 02:20 (twenty years ago)

I'm actually interested in venues like NPR or Slate.com or The New Yorker for music criticism because I think something useful sometimes comes out of (what seems to us like) over-explaining. Stylistically, I think it encourages the writer to avoid certain cliches (we all know what "angular guitars" are, even if we're sick of them being described that way; however, the general public might not understand). More important, I think it forces the writer to examine the broader context more. You can't just go around dropping the term "crunk": you have to relate it to what the general readers might be familiar with, tell how it's similar or different. Which I think can be interesting in itself, especially for certain concepts that may still be negotiable.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 1 July 2004 03:09 (twenty years ago)

(In other words, I Sasha Frere-Jones.)

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 1 July 2004 03:10 (twenty years ago)

(I mean, I *heart* Sasha Frere-Jones.)

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 1 July 2004 03:10 (twenty years ago)

I'm actually interested in venues like NPR or Slate.com or The New Yorker for music criticism because I think something useful sometimes comes out of (what seems to us like) over-explaining.

yes yes yes. jaymc i kiss you. i would add the NYT to that list. NPR works in theory, but in reality their music reviews are just sort of "meh."

sasha's column in the new yorker is really great, i think his writing has gotten even better in that format, because of the challenge jaymc explains.

p.s. jaymc we should hang out! i don't have your email addy anymore though, so email me!!

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 1 July 2004 03:16 (twenty years ago)

hey! now when people ask me "is there ANY rock criticism you like?" i can point to that post!

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 1 July 2004 03:17 (twenty years ago)

Haha.

And oh yeah, NYT for sure.

I've been super-busy lately, Amateurist, but I was actually just thinking earlier today that we should hang out, too. My e-mail below is valid! (But I will let you know when I'm free...)

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 1 July 2004 03:21 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, sasha's columns are regularly pretty good, but ...

"The fluctuation in popularity of certain genres is tracked by music magazines and summarized periodically in such headlines as “the death of hip-hop” and “the return of rock.” This is not necessarily weather you need to keep track of, if it even exists. Any good song, of any genre, is potentially a huge hit. Hoobastank’s “The Reason” (Island), for example, would have been popular at any point in the past twenty years. It is easy to imagine Meat Loaf or Rod Stewart or any number of gifted, irony-free singers performing the song, a catchall that neatly synthesizes regret and romanticism—think of your fifteenth high-school reunion compressed into four minutes. The singer, Doug Robb, opens with a talk-show apologia: “I’m not a perfect person. . . . I never meant to do those things to you.” It’s a carefully staged work, close to a ballad but with enough loud guitars to signify as rock. Hoobastank builds the song from a circular guitar figure, adding strings and CinemaScope as needed. Then, just when the song is about to settle for being simply effective, it shifts satisfyingly into an unexpected bridge section. (Never underestimate a bridge.) Widespread downloading helped push the song to No. 1 on the Billboard pop charts in May, and it also found its way into one of the final episodes of “Friends,” a series that often seemed like a high-school reunion that would never end."

ummm..... the point of the paragraph is taken, but the song? This worries me.

― lemin (lemin), Thursday, 1 July 2004 03:54 (twenty years ago)

My friends were just on NPR.

― Jordan (Jordan), Thursday, 1 July 2004 04:13 (twenty years ago)

I read that review as SFJ finding a certain amount of satisfaction in a solid, competently written song (which "The Reason" surely is); you'll notice, though, that it's the single he's the least enthusiastic about in that article.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 1 July 2004 04:15 (twenty years ago)

I really like Sasha's singles reviews in the New Yorker a whole bunch and I dislike the concept of "dumbing it down". Fuck that noise. Its some of the best-written stuff of his I've ever seen (the comparison of "yeah!" to an engagement ring box that you open and then shut, the description of Usher's singing, etc) and that's saying something. Music writing written by nerds, for nerds I see as very insular and self-congratulatory, and not all that much smarter than what one would write for say, the New Yorker.

― djdee2005, Thursday, 1 July 2004 04:19 (twenty years ago)

it takes a real man to write a laudatory paragraph about hoobastank

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 1 July 2004 04:35 (twenty years ago)

Damn fucking straight.

― djdee2005, Thursday, 1 July 2004 05:00 (twenty years ago)

can't argue with that

― lemin (lemin), Thursday, 1 July 2004 05:10 (twenty years ago)

...but the writing itself shouldn't alienate.

What, like have too much cursing in it? Or so simpleton that even the most thick and dim in the audience will understand it?

― George Smith, Thursday, 1 July 2004 16:04 (twenty years ago)

I wish I weren't at work so I could post to this more. I worked on a review for NPR last fall (of the last Aesop Rock album, of all things!) and pretty much trying to cope with this issue all through. I mean, the problem is obvious: if a middle-to-highbrow venue like NPR is going to cover music, stuff like this (I mean, at least Wilco and Mag Fields and shit!) is probably what they should be covering; unfortunately, there's a big portion of their audience that's just basically ignorant about modern music (which is fine, you know) in way they'd never admit to. Alternately there’s a whole group of young potential listeners and writers for whom engaging with modern music is no different from engaging with modern film or theater or visual arts (which NPR as a whole has very little problem with!) --- hence this gap. I’m very much down with SFJ-style criticism, and wound up trying very hard to do an “explaining Aesop Rock to my mother” kind of piece (which, yeah, really does make you think harder and more clearly about the material), but there’s a big difference between how that works in print and how it works on radio: in print people can always turn the page. With radio it’s assumed that every not-for-everyone segment is making dials change.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 1 July 2004 16:22 (twenty years ago)

I mean, if NPR really aimed music coverage at their actual-listenership (which they often do), it would be all pretty South American girls singing folk-oriented downtempo electronica / loving profiles of nonagenarian Cuban jazz greats / 19-year-old pretty-boys who play jazz piano and do Sinatra songs. But listeners who were actually engaged with music would always clearly see the disconnect between that and NPR’s supposedly engaged middle-to-highbrow coverage of other arts and issues.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 1 July 2004 16:28 (twenty years ago)

As a listener of NPR, I think that reviews of this nature should always assume that the listener knows more than you think.

Speaking of, did anyone see Douglas Wolk's review of the Mag Fields in the Nation? - this is exactly the kind of thing we're discussing here. I read about half of it at a newstand but didn't get to the rest, what I read was really great.

― mcd (mcd), Thursday, 1 July 2004 16:36 (twenty years ago)

NB I think a possible problem (from NPR's perspective) is that they actually play and "review" the music. I can imagine more of their listenership enjoying a personal profile of Aesop Rock than I can imagine wanting to hear even twenty seconds of Bazooka Tooth.

― nabiscothingy, Thursday, 1 July 2004 16:54 (twenty years ago)

"Over-explaining" is necessary and even charming of course, but sometimes I think it encourages distortions: This Bad-Ass New Radical Band gets described on the terms of what the NPR/Slate audience might find important, rather than what This Bad-Ass New Radical Band or its audience may think is important. So you get articles that treat hip-hop as if it was all about the words (kinda like Dylan!), or it was just some brilliant post-modern gambit where old music gets recontextualixed forever and ever (kinda like the Beatles in their studio-as-instrument phase!), or it's all about mackin' and crackin' heads (like Elvis! or the Stones! but evil!), when, you know, it's all but more, too.

I also remember a New York Times Magazine article from 2002 (maybe by Gerard Marzoratti?) on Moby where it seemed like the author was forced to TOTALLY overstate Moby's abilities and reputation as a producer, a salesman, a hit-maker, as if to over-justify why an established rag would bother with a mere pop star (and why you, the discerning reader should read the piece). It screamed "THIS IS NOT A PUFF-PIECE! I SWEAR THIS IS NOT A PUFF-PIECE! NO, REALLY, IT'S NOT!"

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Thursday, 1 July 2004 17:31 (twenty years ago)

This is socratic irony in action.

Explaining something from scratch can lead to a more lucid description of that something. And, in some cases, can help identify logical flaws.

Perhaps, if the Times Magazine article on Moby was unconvincing, then there may be flaws in the argument that Moby deserves "mad" hype. Thus the article, failed as it may be, does something (other than suck.)

― ben tausig, Thursday, 1 July 2004 18:28 (twenty years ago)

i wrote on some other long-forgotten thread that one advantage of writing like this, is it obliges the author to present an *argument* in a reasonably coherent and transparent way, such that it can be (to some degree at least) tested and refuted.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 1 July 2004 18:36 (twenty years ago)

Exactly. If you assume your audience to be all-knowing (or at least more knowledgeable than you), you're more likely to attempt a meandering concept than make a point. And lord knows music writing'd be better off with more of the second.

― ben tausig, Thursday, 1 July 2004 18:48 (twenty years ago)

Wolk's piece in the Nation, for which you might need a subscriber code, I don't know: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040621&s=wolk

― Pete Scholtes, Friday, 2 July 2004 01:31 (twenty years ago)

I loved the tuba simulating the DJ scratching in Jordan's example above. (Hey, that was my school system too, and I didn't learn to do that.)

― Pete Scholtes, Friday, 2 July 2004 01:36 (twenty years ago)

I seemed like the interviewer had never heard New Orleans Brass Band music before, which is fine, but she could have called in an articulate, world-class expert, as this MPR segment did.
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/03/11_robertsc_owls/

― Pete Scholtes, Friday, 2 July 2004 01:40 (twenty years ago)

er is douglas's review a really positive one? i know this sounds awful, but i am so tired of the magnetic fields i worry that reading another glowing review would just make me grumpy.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Friday, 2 July 2004 02:21 (twenty years ago)

I think part of the problem that Michael identifies is that using such a wide lens will only work if:

a) the article is using artist [x] as a stand-in for a much larger phenomenon (eg. Justin Case is an example of modern "manufactured pop" being good, regardless of the number of writers involved)

or:

b) artist [x] is a phenomenon all by him or herself.

A lot of really wide-lens articles end up falling somewhere in between these points, because the writer doesn't have time to actually differentiate between X and all the presuppositions that lead to X. The end result is articles that imply that Moby is in fact responsible for any advancement made in the field of dance music or pop music in the last twenty years etc.

Sasha can avoid this obviously, but he has expansive word limits for such articles. Since I doubt NPR is so expansive, I reckon that a certain amount of presumed knowledge on the part of the reader is forgiveable if it allows the writer to hone in on what X is specifically good/bad/interesting for.

― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Friday, 2 July 2004 03:54 (twenty years ago)

nine months pass...

What a neat thread this was.

This morning's NPR report on The Shins certainly went too far in the other direction -- oversimplifying =/= overexplaining. Doing music journalism as if the 90s never happened =/= making the unfamiliar more comprehensible.

― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 7 April 2005 19:16 (twenty years ago)

Context would have helped -- maybe explain how indie bands breaking through via movies or commercials has become a phenomenon in the last decade, that "selling out" isn't viewed the way it once was, at least not universally among fans.

― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 7 April 2005 19:21 (twenty years ago)

Terry Gross: No. Let's get to the studded codpiece.

Gene Simmons: Oh yes.

Terry Gross: Do you have a sense of humor about that?

Gene Simmons: No.

Terry Gross: Does that seem funny to you? Are you --

Gene Simmons: No, it holds in my manhood.

Terry Gross: [laughs] That's right.

Gene Simmons: Otherwise it would be too much for you to take. You'd have to put the book down and confront life. The notion is that if you want to welcome me with open arms, I'm afraid you're also going to have to welcome me with open legs.

Terry Gross: That's a really obnoxious thing to say.

Gene Simmons: No it's not, it's being -- why should I say something behind your back that I can't tell you to your face?

Terry Gross: Wait, it -- it -- has it come to this? Is this the only way that you can talk to a woman? To do that shtick?

Gene Simmons: Let me ask you something. Why is it shtick when all women have ever wanted ever since we've crawled out of caves is, Why can't a man just tell me the truth and just speak to me plainly? Though, if I do that -- you can't have it both ways.

Terry Gross: So you really have no sense of humor about this, do you?

Gene Simmons: Oh, I'm laughing all the way. You know, we're --

Terry Gross: Oh, to the bank, right?

Gene Simmons: Well of course. [laughs] Don't I sound like a happy guy?

Terry Gross: Not really, to be honest with you.

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Thursday, 7 April 2005 19:56 (twenty years ago)

Ha. I'll always love Terry Gross for that interview.

― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 7 April 2005 19:59 (twenty years ago)

NPR's music reviews are indefensible.

Hell, NPR is indefensible.

― Mr. Snrub (Mr. Snrub), Thursday, 7 April 2005 21:48 (twenty years ago)

What about NPR is indefensible? At very least, I'd say it's not bad. It's the best option there is for talk/news radio in this area.

As for the music reviews, you have to be a little more specific. Sasha Frere-Jones, the saint of ILM, does reviews on NPR from time to time -- are those indefensible?

― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 7 April 2005 22:29 (twenty years ago)

As a Magnetic Fields fan of a decade who has never knowingly heard Justin Timberlake, I was astonished and disheartened by Mr Bruner's assertion [July 1, 2004] that I wouldn't understand a Magnetic Fields review, and that "music-wise" I must be living in a cave. I may eventually catch up with those innovations Mr Timberlake has brought to popular music which would allow me to better appreciate my Magnetic Fields records. However, in the meantime, given the stiflingly narrow world-view reflected by several posts on this thread, I request that my subscription be cancelled forthwith.

Yours truly,
Disappointed,
A Cave.

PS. FFS!

― Nag! Nag! Nag! (Nag! Nag! Nag!), Thursday, 7 April 2005 22:54 (twenty years ago)

First of all... anyone who listens to NPR is a fag. Second of all, anyone who listens to NPR is a fag.

― Niggers Gone Wild (Niggers Gone Wild), Friday, 8 April 2005 09:15 (twenty years ago)

Shiny shiny coin! Nice gun! Here, boy!

― Momus (Momus), Friday, 8 April 2005 09:48 (twenty years ago)

one year passes...

I am currently promoting an album "Greed, Lust And Cloning" ( http://www.GreedLustAndCloning.com )and have been trying to get reviewed on NPR. Of course the publicity would be great, but most of all I am a dedicated NPR listener and I know that this dynamic, eclectic album will be of interest to those looking for unique and 'not-so-categorized' music as myself.

― John Hua, Saturday, 22 April 2006 01:22 (nineteen years ago)

It's difficult to address the music reviews on "All Things Considered" -- e.g. if i were a doctor, i doubt i'd get my medical news from them.

Terry Gross has great skill as an interviwer.

"The World" on P.R.I. has more rewarding musical segment called Global Hit; http://www.theworld.org/globalhits/index.shtml

― christoff (christoff), Monday, 24 April 2006 16:08 (nineteen years ago)

It's difficult to address the music reviews on "All Things Considered" -- e.g. if i were a doctor, i doubt i'd get my medical news from them.

Terry Gross has great skill as an interviwer.

"The World" on P.R.I. has a more rewarding musical segment called Global Hit; http://www.theworld.org/globalhits/index.shtml

― christoff (christoff), Monday, 24 April 2006 16:09 (nineteen years ago)

Global Hit? You mean "Overproduced Folk Songs of my People"?

― js (honestengine), Monday, 24 April 2006 18:09 (nineteen years ago)

na na, that's always the closing segment of The World, which is a good news roundup (interviews from around the world,mostly). The Global Hit page at theworld.org archives music samples from way back, and you can also read transcripts of what's said about and by each act (if you don't feel like fucking with Real Player, or want a clue if it might sound as good as it reads, if RP might be worth fucking with, in this case) Yeah a lot of it's Starbucksy, but there are surprises, like a Chinese punk band, the Subs, who I def want more of, and Shukar Collective, Gogol Bordello, Tom Ze, etc. The great thing about NPR is that the reviews always include bits of the music being reviewed. Ken Tucker, who used to write for the Voice, though overshadowed by Bangs etc, always gives the music plenty of room; Meredith Ochs (of the Damn Lovelys) is very kind to the Triple A, but again you can listen for yourself;Ed Ward does the archaeology; Kevin Whitehead's good on jazz. But there does need to be more hip-hop and r&b and reggaeton.

― don, Monday, 24 April 2006 19:42 (nineteen years ago)

I love the show The World, and often listen to it on my way back from class. But the music almost always bores me to tears. I wish that I'd caught the Chinese punk band or Tom Ze bits, but instead I always end up with some Maliwe guitarist singing Paul Simon inspired bits of acoustica. Must not be listening on the right nights.

― js (honestengine), Monday, 24 April 2006 20:11 (nineteen years ago)

But you can still listen to archives on the Global Hits page. Tonight they featured a Muslim pop singer, Ani, who's very controversial to some, and sounds pretty cool, for the most part.

― don, Tuesday, 25 April 2006 01:03 (nineteen years ago)

Also an excellent Ze feature on All Things Considered this afternoon, can prob listen to it(and maybe download from) their homepage.

― don, Tuesday, 25 April 2006 01:07 (nineteen years ago)

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