Rolling Music Writers' Thread

Conceptual reviews - C/D?

just don't

just don't even try

1% of conceptual reviews may work but THAT MEANS 99% DON'T AND ARE THOROUGHLY WORTHLESS.

so don't.

but sometimes its the only way for me to write about a viking metal album. and have fun.

Do you like it when people subvert the music review, playing around with its form or trying to entertain the reader

If the "people" is Scott Seward (or a few other people), then yes, almost all the time. (But if it's other other people, not so much.)

I hate conceptual reviews. Wouldn't run 'em as an editor, and will never write one.

Actually, I don't even really know what "conceptual" means, in this context. You can do all sorts of things, and write about all sorts of things, in the course of a music review. And if you're an interesting writer, you will. And you'll write about the music, too, and if the non-music stuff sticks out like a sore thumb, a good editor will let you know. (If you're not an interesting writer, your review will probably be boring, regardless.)

The trouble with a lot of "conceptual" reviews is that they can be an elaborate displacement activity for engaging with, and reporting back on, the actual music.

Sure. But that doesn't mean that writers with interesting things to say about the actual music should avoid them -- or rather, that the "conceptual" vs., uh, "regular" review battle isn't a false dichotomy in the first place. (Truth is, I almost never read Pitchfork back in the old days, and still don't now. I tend to gravitate toward critics I actually like, many of whom are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. So my stance on this issue might be shaded by that fact.)

xhuxk, I know I've mentioned this to you before, but your willingness, even eagerness (as I saw it) to publish format-busting reviews in the Voice actually kept me from pitching you for years, because I had the impression that it was "house style" and that anything I wrote would be re-edited until it was like that.

That, and the fact that I didn't see you publishing anyone interested in treating metal as anything but a punch line.

You obviously didn't look close enough (both for the non-funny metal writing -- Erik Davis comes to mind, right off the top of my head, but there was plenty, and being funny is hardly always the same as making fun of the music anyway -- and for writers who wrote more "straight" (including jazz guys, Gary Giddins for starters.) Actually, I got some complaints (from Sasha Frere-Jones, for one) that my section covered metal too much. And I sure as hell wasn't going to edit out all of, say, Scott's and George's jokes. But that doesn't mean they don't take loud rock seriously, either. (And so do I. But sorry, it's also funny, a lot of the time.)

In other words, it's the "anything but" that you're really wrong about. I have no idea who that would apply to. Scott and George and Dave Q never treated metal as only a punchline. They treated it as music worth taking apart and figuring out and analyzing, too. (Frank Kogan, on those occasions when he wrote about metal, probably didn't even joke very much; that's not really his style. And I'm sure if I went back and looked through seven years of Voice issues, I could come up with plenty of other examples.)

Well, this was a decade ago - I'd only been writing about music for money since '96, and I took myself and metal much more seriously.

"Music Journalism Faces Shake-Ups, Shake-Downs and High Tech Show-Downs in 2010" by Jason Gross

http://www.popmatters.com/pm/tools/print/135739

haven't read this yet, but i will

"addenda": http://www.popmatters.com/pm/post/135835-/

Music Journalism Faces Shake-Ups, Shake-Downs and High Tech Show-Downs in 2001

i still wanna put out a zine! i said that on here. i'm getting to it! there just don't seem to be enough hours in the day. i can never get enough done.

this is my favorite quote on here:

"Like wow, the Jesus And Mary Chain helped you get through high school. You and America, buddy."

i just love that image of the entire country relying on the jesus and mary chain to get them through high school. in a perfect world...

Have any of you writer types taken long breaks where you didn't write at all or very much? If so, did you find that you had trouble getting back to churning out quality copy when you came back?

Does being an editor for nine years count?

I don't think so unless you also stopped writing your own stuff, which certainly wasn't the case when I was an editor...

ha, i love how that popmatters thing has a whole "correction" about my work history / benefits situation, despite both the original and the update coming entirely from someone's imagination.

omg lol

the benefits of fact checking

xp I definitely wrote a whole lot less when I was an editor than before or after (which I now regret, since in those days the Voice would have paid me for individual pieces on top of my salary, and I could have saved the money.) But nah, I've never stopped writing completely.

I took last week off because I was out of the country on assignment, and it's been a little weird getting back into a rhythm. But I've never stopped writing for any serious length of time in the last 15-16 years.

Yeah, see, I ask because I have been pretty much retired for several years and tonight I have to review a show for a fairly large outlet and I hope I don't suck.....

Did it. Don't think it sucked but I could be told otherwise.

Hey - can anyone point me to some live reviews they've particularly enjoyed? Seems to be a bit of a dark art compared to cd reviews.

much prefer writing live reviews compared to album reviews, myself.

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/2011/02/_lady_gaga_madi.php

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/blogs/pop-life/highlights-from-all-tomorrows-parties-the-perfect-rock-festival-20100908

much prefer writing live reviews compared to album reviews, myself.

Me too. I respond well to the immediacy/urgency of having to file a live review straight after the gig; the pressure energises me.

yeah i love writing live reviews, and they present a set of challenges and pleasures totally different from album reviews

I've enjoyed live-review-via-Twitter lately, which is much different than a formal review but is a great way to get the impressions together in one place.

I enjoyed writing live reviews although getting them done and going to my dayjob the next day was often tiring. I wish my review of Haitian Sweet Micky for the Washington Post was not hidden in their paid archive now that he just got elected President of Haiti.

It's been archived for awhile I should say.

I've enjoyed live-review-via-Twitter lately, which is much different than a formal review but is a great way to get the impressions together in one place.

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, April 5, 2011 10:38 AM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark

lol @ the twitter exchange right after this post

http://twitter.com/#!/NedRaggett/status/55279463725928448

Quite so!

Indeedly doodly!

i didn't want to post it in the thread, but there it is.

#shotsfired #raggettseesall

Me too. I respond well to the immediacy/urgency of having to file a live review straight after the gig; the pressure energises me.

― mike t-diva, Tuesday, April 5, 2011 2:11 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah, totally. it's also always nice to rediscover that yeah i can bang out decent words in a short space of time when i have to, absolutely no scope for procrastination or staring at a blank screen for 4 hours. they often come out pretty well too.

I have never really enjoyed doing them! Guess I'm alone in that. (Then again, I might like going to see live music less than most critics do, too.)

Anyway, I'm pretty sure my favorite live review I ever wrote is also my favorite Live review I ever wrote. (Okay, probably the only one, but still):

http://books.google.com/books?id=I4irI6O3Ko8C&pg=RA1-PA46&dq=Live+Philadelphia+Chuck+Eddy&hl=en&ei=WzObTdbkDdHPgAflwJ2BBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Live%20Philadelphia%20Chuck%20Eddy&f=false

i really dug your south by ssouthwest gig reviews, chuck! totally entertaining. most live reviews are zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Thanks, but yeah, live reviews are the most boring subset of music writing, always have been. I never liked editing them much, either. Really, what always seemed to work better for me is to talk about live shows in the course of longer essay pieces or features about the act in question; I've done that okay a few times in my life, I think.

greg tate springsteen thing you put out is, like, the most recent review i can even remember that i really enjoyed.

http://www.villagevoice.com/1999-08-10/music/tear-the-roof-off-jungleland/

LIVE review that i really enjoyed.

So, I just moved apartments and I have TONS AND TONS AND TONS of old magazines with my clips in them. If my name was in a mag, I just tossed the mag on a pile in my office. Well, the pile is huge and I'm not really sure I need it.

I keep telling myself I'll go through with an xacto knife and cut out all the whiney pages, but we all know that will never happen. (This is like those people on Hoarders who are like "I can fix all these broken toasters and sell them" When, exactly?)

This is especially complicated because now all those CMJs and SPINs are basically digitally archived on Google Books and Village Voice is pretty good with its digital archiving too. If I need to reference an old article, 100% of the time just go to the site. Should I just throw all these out? Should I keep them in case Google Books or the Voice site dies?

For a while I used to scan all mine, but it soon became a pain in the arse.

wrong thread, whiney:

The Bragging Thread