Re: Arbitrary Stars (Was: Re: Repost: 50/90)
We journalists are not in the music business, we're *covering* the music business. Well, at least that's how the oft-referenced Greg Kot positioned himself during a panel at lat year's (?) SXSW. Neal Weiss A good read between the lines quote, I might add. I've seen more journalistic credibility from the small, local music newspapers than I see in such "acclaimed" journals as Rolling Stone, Country Music, Guitar, Jazz Is. It's as though the journalists/reviewers are starry-eyed "groupies", much in the tradition of Circus magazine or that old Tiger Beat. One very good example is Rolling Stone. Except for Christgau who occasionally enchants with his bursts of analytical insight, I'm often left with complete wonderment as to whether or not the reviewer really liked the album in question. They tend to teeter the line of like/dislike and the innuendo is often that he or she didn't like the album but that they just do not come out and say so. I liked RS better when they had the guts to print a boot to Exile On Main Street. You just don't see that much anymore in the way of honest opinion. I cannot give much credibility to Mr. Kott for example, who seems to attach a "neutralized barb" to his wiriting and then happily wanders back into mainstream appeal. It just gives me the impression that he doesn't want to make any enemies and at the same time he cloaks his true feelings. That is not reviewing and it is not honest. What I also think is that some time ago some of the critics who became noteworthy for their insight strove so valiently to be perceived as intellectually aesthetic that they over extended their "brilliant" and nuanced opinions with the general population to the point that people no longer perceived their written perceptions as valid. A critic in my honest opinion is writing for the public, not for the recording industry or the artists. Did all of this change around the time that Landau abandoned the credibility ship and joined the country goes pop twaing Or is it deeper than that? I suspect that it is. Tera
Re: Arbitrary Stars (Was: Re: Repost: 50/90)
In a message dated 2/27/99 3:29:26 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I cannot give much credibility to Mr. Kott for example, who seems to attach a "neutralized barb" to his wiriting and then happily wanders back into mainstream appeal. It just gives me the impression that he doesn't want to make any enemies and at the same time he cloaks his true feelings. I'm pretty sure Kot is not one to cloak his true feelings. He puts his reputation on the line for some offbeat choices. I respect that. Also, he's been good about covering "stuff we like" as long as it's been around. Seems to like it, although he did tell me once that he does make a point to include at least one negative thing in every review in order to insure his credibility. That stuck with me as a question mark. It was in the context of a sort of off-hand coaching session in front of a loud stage and behind a couple cold ones, so probably would benefit from elaboration on his part. Disclosure: I don't talk to him much, and only at shows, but he has been super supportive and helpful to li'l me, with no particular need to be. I like that in a person. Linda
Re: Arbitrary Stars (Was: Re: Repost: 50/90)
In a message dated 2/27/99 3:29:26 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A critic in my honest opinion is writing for the public, not for the recording industry or the artists. Sometimes I think the best criticism is the stuff you write for yourself, trying to figure out why you feel what you feel and think what you think. The rest is consumer advice, not a bad thing in and of itself, in fact useful. I see a parallel there with music, kind of. Linda, still learning
Re: Arbitrary Stars (Was: Re: Repost: 50/90)
At 09:14 PM 2/25/99 -0500, you wrote: Howdy, Jeff Weiss says: According to Grant Alden, writers do not control the "Star System." Editors make those decisions. That makes no sense. How does that prevent a reviewer from writing a review that is accompanied by a star rating that has no relation at all to the text of the review? Sadly, it doesn't. Welcome to Corporate rock and roll. Jeff Miles of Music mail order http://www.milesofmusic.com FREE printed Catalog: (818) 883-9975 fax: (818) 992-8302, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alt-Country, rockabilly, bluegrass, folk, power pop and tons more.
Re: Arbitrary Stars (Was: Re: Repost: 50/90)
For the one publication I write for that uses the star system, you can give as many stars as you want, but the editor reserves the right to change that. Editors pretty much get to do whatever they want with your stuff, it seems. I even had one change my point of view. . .once. But it wasn't on a review. And it's true the writer has absolutely nothing to do with the headline. BTW, speaking of absolutely perfectly ideal editors, I just got the new ish of No Depression. How could we not love an aesthetic that puts Hazel Dickens and Paul Westerberg in the same magazine. . .let alone Steve Earle and Del McCoury in the same band! Linda
