Questions for critics, especially those at Pitchfork

worth noting, too, that the number of times you play a record depends on who you're writing it for and how long your deadline is. generally, the longer the lead time the better--at least a weeks or more, so I can listen in a more relaxed, unhurried way, and I think my response is more honest and fluently put in that respect. if it's a couple days (as with some magazines or last-minute favors at weeklies), that definitely affects it, though usually in those cases I've gotten those albums that don't need more than a couple plays to figure out where it (and I) are coming from.

I think I missed the mark on a LOT of stuff early on--I think back on some of the stuff I praised in '98 and cringe, since they're not records I'll ever play again. (a Music Club compilation titled La Colection Cubana comes to mind here, as does Grooverider's Mysteries of Funk.) worst thing about this profession, at least for me: the tendency to change my mind about stuff midway through writing about it but not saying so in the review, since I pitched a good review of the thing. haven't done it knowingly in a long time, but I definitely did in the beginning.

If I hate an album, I can't listen to it twice. It's hard enough to listen to it once, to be honest. The two worst albums I've listened to over the past few months (the self titled albums by Adema and Ian Can Dahl), as soon as they ground to a halt, they were swiftly placed somewhere where I'd never have to listen to them again (ie, Ebay)

If you like an album, you tend to listen to it two or three times before writing a review. If you're gonna praise something, you need to be a lot more thoughtful than if you're slagging it off. Also, if an album's a bit a) arty b) supposed to be good, you are more apt to give it a second listen, "just in case you missed anything".

So, to answer your question, once, twice, or more.

Folks like Michaelangelo and Douglas have it tougher because they make a living doing this, and their reviews are driven by deadlines. That's why they make the bucks! If I feel I need another week with a record before writing about it, I can do that. It’s fun writing for Allmusic when I’m dealing w/ something I’ve been listening to for years & my opinion has developed over a long stretch.

I’ve changed my opinion many times. One that stands out is my terrible review of Labradford’s E Luxo So. I panned it and now I realize I was clueless and didn’t understand what they were doing. I’m always on the lookout for a used copy of that record so I can see what I missed the first time.

Very true. My AMG reviews mix everything from stuff I've heard endless times to stuff I've had around but only heard a couple of times to wholly new things -- generally speaking, I write reviews as I (re)listen. I like Tom's point about further reviews, of course -- I'd like it even more if I could persuade the AMG to let me do just that and get paid for it again. ;-)

Mark- Wow! It's so strange that you mentioned E Luxo So. I just recently bought it and I've been listening to it compulsively. At first, I wasn't very impressed and thought it was a definite regression after Mi Media Naranja. In fact, I thought your review was accurate. But soon enough, I grew to love it (not as much as M.M.N. or Fixed:content, but close), and now I disagree with much of your review, so it's interesting to hear you've changed your mind as well.

Thanks for all the responses.

but the point I'm trying to make is that most people DON'T WANT legitimate insight into this stuff! they want to know what the records sound like

nothing personal, but I think you have it backward. people read RS to find out what the Rock has to say about his latest profit-turner, not what a bunch of pinheads who never got laid in high school (as the common perception has it) have to say about records by someone you've never heard of. whatever you think of the magazine's reviews section (and I agree with Josh--it looks a hell of a lot better than it has in a long, long time right now), it's not the magazine's profit center. when Jann Wenner talks about turning the mag into something more byte-sized, features and newswise, he isn't following it by saying, "oh yeah, we're also gonna make the reviews longer, since that's what everybody reads."

as far as turnover at weeklies and Spin: for one thing, how do you figure they're on any less of a deadline crunch than RS? weeklies have far more hectic schedules than biweeklies do. for another, monthlies have a more rigorous editing process than weeklies; from the writer to the assigning editor to their supervising editor to the top editor (the ed-in-chief, frequently), plus fact-checking and copy editing. that's six pairs of hands making suggestions and changes. not to mention that if an album is sent out near the end of the production cycle and needs to go in that issue (a Madonna album due in July for the July issue, say), someone needs to get on it and fast. again, this isn't necessarily something I like about my profession, but it's a condition of it that I've learned to accept.

I may think that’s pathetic, but I also have to say that a lot of what’s good about music writing is its innate populism--the fact that it’s about an accessible form, written in mostly accessible ways. If we can’t imagine Cynthia Ozick or Leon Wieseltier being asked to weigh in seriously on Tom Clancy, that’s more Ozick’s or Wieseltier’s problem than ours: one reason I like John Leonard is that he never seems trapped in an ivory tower, while too many NYROB types do. A friend (who also writes about music) recently remarked that when you pick up The New Yorker, you see Anthony Lane writing about movies, Peter Schjeldahl writing about art, John Updike writing about books, the architecture guy writing about architechture, ad infinitum---people who are intimate with the subject, love the subject, know the subject inside out. But when it comes to popular music, they just pluck some schmuck from the listings department or hire a novelist to do it instead of getting someone like Christgau or Marcus, people who’ve been writing about the stuff forever and know their turf. This seems as good an example as any of the ways popcrit has yet to go.

I’m well aware of Blender’s impact on its rivals--wrote for its first issue, in fact, not to mention that the compacted word- counts and fluffy angles it’s incurring elsewhere will inevitably affect my work elsewhere---but let me clarify my earlier statement: I think people read record reviews, I just don’t think they read them that deeply. This is probably a result of byte-sizing rather than what fueled it (editors cut word-counts = cause, not effect, I like to think), but as f’rinstance RS’s core readership grows older it has less time/energy/interest in reading 2000-word pieces on the new Van Morrison album, so that has some impact too.

I don't figure that, that was my point. It's all based around quick turnover and deadlines. For reviews this is not really ideal is all I'm saying. I know the reviews page isn't their "profit center" which I think just bolsters my argument. Given that, why can't that be the spot where zines take more risks or at least loosen up the quick- deadline thing a bit? I'd personally rather read reviews of the new Moby album not this week or next, but a couple months from now after folks have had time to absorb it and see what it does 'out there.' I know this is unrealistic--demand the impossible!

Ben Greenman is pretty lame, I'm sorry. There's a reason you've never read his music writing outside TNY--he's not particularly good at (or probably interested in) writing about the subject. He's also part of the whole McSweeney's crowd, which doesn't help my impression of him any, either.

more plausibly, tosches would fit in fine, but i guess he hates all music after doc sausage (except the doors obv)

remnick is a total clown as a writer AND an editor IMAO

how d'you pronounce his name? i pronounce it to rhyme with "atrocious" but only because i. he says you DON'T pronounce it like that but ii. he doesn't say how you DO pronounce it...

understood, but that in a nutshell is why anyone seeking ideal reviews looks not to Spin or RS for them, though there's exceptions.