The "I like this album so I'm gonna sort of try to vaguely describe what some of the songs sound like" approach to reviewing records

I wonder though, how many people outside of music critics would catch what those references are. No New York was only rereleased in the past year after years of serious obscurity. Nuggets, although not quite as obscure, probably does not share shelf space with as many cd collections as some would believe.

Having said that, I'm dead guilty of this kind of lazy review when I'm in a hurry.

See, when I do lazy reviews they tend to be marked by the fact that there's little or no specific descriptions of tracks, ie I just waffle on without without being bothered to locate individual highlights

It's also pretty much required in shorter reviews. I would much rather hear how individual songs sound than about the band's history or live show or whatever else. I mean, ideally I'd get 250 words relating the band to Ty Cobb, Naomi Watts, John Stuart Mill and Satan, but if not...

* "nighttime neon new-wave, replete with spitting drums"
* "Caucasoid-funk breakdowns, vocodered refrains, and minutely orchestrated electro-kitsch"
* "four different guitar effects within its first 10 seconds before collapsing into a sleek, rumbling locomotive covered in diverse graffiti-- "Bombs Over Baghdad" meets Depeche Mode"
* "channels mellow soul in its abstracted way, quiet thunder sounds and all"
* "a heartbeat and a watery drone, a helix of chiming synths, with restful, floating vocals"

...tells me ZERO about the quality of any of these things.

(Otter, OTOH...)

I'd tell everyone to stop, but then I'd just expect a deluge of reviews comparing some record that's going to sell 1,300 copies to the Punic War. Or something that tries to "deconstruct the conciet of the live album" for 250 words capped with one sentence on the actual album in question.

The vague-song-describe review is one of the least offensive types of unpreferred reviews.

Anyway Burma man, *ssss*...you were a little high on that. The gloss got 2 U.

Guess who thought the same thing about a certain someone's opinion on onOFFon? *winkypoo*

(That line killed at the Cherry Blossom Festival.)

* the 7.7 rating
* they are said to inhabit the New Pop Moment of Innovation space of ABC and Human League

What is the critical stance on the latter? Are they in the same league as ABC and the Human League? (Is the 7.7 rating telling me no, they're not? If so, why not say it? Or say SOMETHING?)

Then, I get a bunch of descriptions. Like I said, though, there are a ton of electro/new wave indie bands and these descriptions don't give me any idea why Lansing-Drieden is extraordinary or merely very good or pretty good or "7.7" or ...

Yeah, but obviously that would be different if there was a reviewer whom you LIKED.

What does this mean?

I find I don't read reviews for information but entertainment anyway so I'd say as long as it's decent writing I'm cool with it regardless of teh technique employed to do so.

http://www.subculturemagazine.com

"nighttime neon new-wave, replete with spitting drums"
"minutely orchestrated electro-kitsch"
"The smoky, liquored "One for All" channels mellow soul in its abstracted way"
"a helix of chiming synths"

...or at least one that I knew a little better. Maybe that's my own fault. I remember back in the day reading Byron Coley and Jimmy Johnson of Forced Exposure, I had a feeling of the context from which they were coming. Sometimes a negative review would get me to check the album out.

Also, some people are better at describing sound than others. with some it is like they're trying to fake their way through an essay exam, or a term paper, that they're not prepared for.

...tells me ZERO about the quality of any of these things.

For some of us, quality lies within the boundaries of the genre.

So, when I ask where the critical stance is, it is because I don't get a sense from this review of why it's a "7.7." I get a statement about *inhabiting a cultural moment*, which I'm not sure how to interpret,* and then I get those (often vague) descriptions.

* He says that "the New Pop moment" was glamorous, progressive, and wildly eclectic. All of these are about the QUALITY of that music (he wouldn't be bringing these things up if he meant that ABC and Human League were glamorous, progressive, and wildly eclectic in ways that fell flat). And presumably he is saying that Lansing-Dreiden have these qualities. But the descriptions of the music don't tell me how (and, again, are often vague to boot).

x-post: Geir, quality often lies within the boundaries of genre for me, too, but those descriptions could easily be applied to musics that inhabit the boundaries of the genre in really inaccurate or surface level ways. Or in ways that lack any of the spirit of the original moment, to which the reviewer alludes.

My secret agenda with all this, of course, is that I don't like "creative writing" reviews.

i do want to see CF when they come around. but i'm lame.

Ha ha Drunks with Guns . . . one day a few years ago I was randomly punched in the head by a total stranger who was hiding in the bushes. It was in Oakland and I was walking home from the liquor store and this dude just jumped me and punched me and the Drunks With Guns song "Punched in The Head" just became my anthem all over again. What a band.

Yeah, I'm with that. I'm listening to all this random Load stuff and perhaps I should break out the wine.

another dram later and I am now reviewing an album by a band that is either called Ava Inferi or Burdens! I don't really know because there was no one-sheet! the lead-off track on the album is called "Ava Inferi" too so that's a probable vote for "the band is called 'Burdens'" but as we all know it's great when a band has a song that is also their name! This is like the goth version of Traffic, which means it has a girl instead of Steve Winwood and less blues. It's like Without Face minus any semblance of a budget, I can personally guarantee that nobody on the whole planet besides me will like this album. well, fuck you, whole planet! because I used to be goth and I am still gother than all you fuckers, even on my worst day. This album is awesome!

http://www.villagevoice.com/music/9941,seward,8972,22.html

i miss drinking :(

Hey!

I was having a bad day, I actually don't wish that I lived in Chapel Hill instead, that was just a hurtful lie

there are no Locopops in Chapel Hill

xpost yeah don't worry it is still pretty

You'd really love Richard Meltzer, then! He pretty much invented the pointed exclamation points after every sentence!

God bless you Scott Seward.

What does this mean?

-- DJ Mencap (lackofinteres...), May 23rd, 2006.

I'm sceptical about reviewers taking on styles that they don't like or aren't that familiar/experienced with. Most reviewers will want to tell you that they are being objective, right? I guess I'm sceptical that most of the hundreds of reviwers out there have the perspective to tackle all the various styles of pop/rock music out today. Thus, I think a lot of them are making a quick subjective opinion. This I would rather do for myself.

Don't be so sure.

(a) "objective opinion" is a chimera
(b) deadlines explain "quick"

Surely the purpose of a review is to attempt to communicate the reviewer's subjective experience of the record to the reader? Using descriptive language to evoke the reviewer's perception of the aesthetics of the record is a perfectly valid way of achieving this - even if the record in question was made by a conventional rock band. Rejecting description in favour of fuzzy genre terms is condescending towards your audience and carries the implication that 'usefulness' = consumer advice.

double, hahaha.

2) deadlines explain "quick"

Alternately, "What is the maximum number of times I can listen to this god-awful album before I shoot myself in the face with a caulk gun?" explains "quick."

TS: reviewing drunk vs. blogging drunk

It's just making me long yet further for the day when there's a "journal of popular music" and we can all write pieces explicitly for people who have already heard what we're discussing. Alternately, blogs.

I think we perhaps agree more than I thought, but I have to object to this statement. There is no such thing as a straight description of the sounds. Perception - and certainly its representation through words - is as subjective as anything else. I gain as much from reading someone else's description of the sound as I do from their description of the emotions the music instilled in them - especially when I've already heard the work in question.

Oh, and:
It's just making me long yet further for the day when there's a "journal of popular music" and we can all write pieces explicitly for people who have already heard what we're discussing.
Eppy OTM for this.

Lately I find that with any CD review length less than 250 (for the most part anyway) I’m increasingly less likely to single any one track out for special attention – just try to give the reader a general sense of what the thing as a whole sounds like. Recently I did three ~200 reviews for two different papers in which I did actually single out 2-3 tracks per record for description – only to have said descriptions gutted in favor of, I guess, space.