Reviews discussion

I wish my reviews were half as good.

My newest reviews. Feel free to give constructive criticism. And no complaining if you don't like the rating in the first one.

Hahahaha, oh Steve Wilson, how can you constantly complain about the music industry and then defend mainstream music critics? And Lester Bangs, of all people!

Edited by Henry Plainview - September 15 2010 at 20:29

  oh, you know you're having an impact when you're criticized that articulately.. the audience is listening







Edited by Atavachron - September 15 2010 at 20:44

Wait...Steven Wilson?

That's that guy who put out Insugentes, right?  And then put out The Incident?

Right!  Oh yes, I recall now.  I have a new I-word for him:

Incorrigible.

I'm actually going to make a thread about this in General Music, I think it will be fun.

I disagree with Steven. He demands that we should have the same viewpoints as musicians when we review their music. We don't  and neither should we because we are the one the musician communicates to. Music is about communicating and you sometimes hear things you don't like to hear. Me as a reviewer from a PT record and Steven as a musician from my review. So ?  

I think ProgArchives is perfectly OK. And yes, I know that Snow Dog was being sarcastic. 

When talking about reviews in this context, I think we need to distinguish between literary works and subjective oponiated comments.

What Mr. Wilson finds lacking (it seems) are descriptions of music done by writers with either an extraordinary talent for writing or a substantial education in the art of using words and language with sophistication and finesse. With the added criteria that the writer in question has a close relationship with the type of music he or she describes.

What we have here at progarchives and most other websites (and in many printed publications as well these days) are ordinary people describing their experiences and thoughts about the music they listen to in an ordinary manner. Some are extremely talented but most are ordinary at best in terms of literary talent. Most lack the finesse and sophistication in terms of using the language and it's possibilities to create works of a quality that would sit well inside a luxury hardcover book publication.

What I disagree with Mr. Wilson about is that this is a bad thing. In between the relatively few who shout out that "this sucks" or "this rules" we're provided with unfiltered subjective opinions about music. And for most potential listeners these opinions will tell them a lot more about the music than the elaborate descriptions crafted by the old time reviewers. Less entertainment value for sure, but often much more informative. The one dimension missing is the writing that appeals strongly to the imagination. Few writers here (or anywhere else when it comes to that) creates descriptions that fires up the imagination and send you off to check an artist you never thought you'd want to explore.

On the other hand, it is much easier to find out about an artist today than it was back in Wilson's youth. To the extent that one might indeed ask if these writers are needed today. Or if their style of writing has an impact overall.

Agree with Wilson on the principle on the matter, but there's also a lot of value in the honest opinionated reviews on our site.

If it comes to finding new music and bands to listen to, PA might even be of more value then much of the so-called objective professional music writing.

Well, at least to me it does.

^

Actually 1955 sounds wonderful too Marty!!  Gimme the keys to the magic car