record reviews don't usually bother me - it just someone's opinion & in most cases they probably reflect more on the writer than the artist being reviewed. but on the other hand most of us read reviews in the hope of finding out about the latest and the greatest so in a sense a writer, or a publication, can become a useful guide to what is hot and what is not. everett true (of the nme? or was it melody maker?) used to be my northern star for a while guiding me towards some great music. today, the internet has taken over and a number of websites offer a narrower focus than the aforementioned publications and i put a lot of stock into, e.g., pitchforkmedia. but once in a while i have my doubts. three things bother me - they don't apply only to pitchforkmedia but, hell, for the point of illustration. one. old farts that are no good. does michael jackson's compilation really deserve 8.0? i don't think anyone who wasn't a teenager while mj was at his "peak" would seriously consider thriller any good. take away all the memories you may associate with mj's music including the moonwalking in highschool and what is left? pretend mj was unknown and released any of his albums today. do you really think you would prefer listening to him rather than say modest mouse or out hud or max richter? my point is that i read record reviews to find stuff i like not stuff that may have some significance in pop culture history or in someones adolesence. i simply would never but mj's music on. because really, it is utter crap. two. old farts that are good. this really is the same complaint but i would feel terrible putting the clash into the same category as michael jackson. the clash made some stellar music no question. but did London Calling deserve a 10.0? great album but for the same reason as above i think someone's judgement may just be a little clouded by history and, as such, it doesn't signal accurately to me, or rather someone that hasn't heard the clash, how good the album is. how often do you think "i think i'll put the velvet underground on because they were so influential"? I don't know, but i tend to listen to them because i like the music. however important the music may have been in whatever social context you want to put it, it doesn't really make it better. write an article about these things - they are interesting in themselves - but don't call it a record review. three. "legends". now i'm thinking brian wilson and smile. forget the myth, review the album. C-. four. we're so damn hip we like crap. it is a tough world other people are also reviewing cool music. and you have to stay a step ahead. and it is good. pitchforkmedia, e.g., has exposed me to lots of stuff i wouldn't have stumbled upon if it hadn't been for their insistence to dig up new "more out there" stuff. but there comes a point in every hipster's life that they can't stretch any further. and the only way to stay cool is to start liking the lame. i refuse to believe that pitchforkmedia likes annie's anniemal that much (8.8) - i think it is misguided coolness. it is not a bad album but it isn't that good either. i check pitchforkmedia, and others (see links), out not because i'm curious to know what people there like but because they have shown themselves to be fairly reliable in recommending music. coolness, by its nature, is no reliable.
so i guess i'm arguing for a "veil of ignorance" method of record reviewing. Ideally, one should know nothing about the artists and simply let the music speak for itself. With famous old farts this, of course, is pretty much impossible but the reviewer should try to distance themselves from all those factors that don't really relate to whether the cd/album is worth listening to. well, enough bitching - got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning. and an hour too early as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment