|
|
Post by alimcg on Apr 14, 2006 20:21:41 GMT 10
I think that very few journalists could be bothered going as far for their craft as a musician putting out an album or fronting a concert. I think a lot of journos are just lazy, or too concerned with deadlines and getting pissed after work. Actually, that sounds like a lot of musos I know.
|
|
|
|
Post by thierryf on Apr 15, 2006 21:25:03 GMT 10
Music Journalist[def] One who cant write , writing for people who cant read, about people who cant play [Frank Zappa]
|
|
tam
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by tam on Apr 16, 2006 0:12:30 GMT 10
Music Journalist[def] One who cant write , writing for people who cant read, about people who cant play [Frank Zappa] That's fantastic |
|
|
|
Post by ladylex on Apr 19, 2006 11:20:56 GMT 10
Perhaps the quality of writing is a direct reflection of the quality of music. Give the journalists something worthy of great words and they will write them, or else get cut down here. If I reviewed the output of many of our "finest" players I would write with a tepidness (or is that tepidity), as yet unheard of. I dont believe that journos reviews/words always reflect the act/group/music. Im of the opinion that if something is REALLY bad, then why bother contributing words to it? I don’t believe in generating negative vibes with mean words – criticism yes.. but purely negative words .. no. That might seem petty – but my saying is Death By No Media. HOWEVER: its really hard to find music that is completely ‘bad’. It can be badly performed, produced, written, sung, whathaveyou… but usually there is SOMETHING positive SOMEWHERE. But IMO journos just dont have the class musos have. lol Really.. journos dont have the respect they SHOULD have for musos. But musos dont have to respect journos. Why should they? Journos are just fleas lol *wink |
|
|
|
Post by alimcg on Apr 19, 2006 16:31:55 GMT 10
Should we then compliment people who put out crap music with good album covers, and ignore the rubbish on the disc?
I think you'll also find that most critics don't have enough knowledge of their subject to give a constructive review, and so give it the lowest common denominator treatment, or they go for a cheap laugh. How about reviewing the reviewers here. Let's start a thread...
|
|
|
|
Post by ladylex on Apr 20, 2006 10:22:52 GMT 10
I was referring more to the musical aspects rather than such image based and image driven drivel.  Ive already been 'reviewed' here. lol Some people generally know very little about music anyway |
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Apr 20, 2006 19:41:12 GMT 10
Some people generally know very little about music anyway That's true, wouldn't you agree, AJ? |
|
|
|
Post by aj on Apr 21, 2006 0:05:56 GMT 10
c'mon kenny, just cos someone's leading with their chin, you don't HAVE to throw the punch !  |
|
|
|
Post by alimcg on Apr 21, 2006 11:32:06 GMT 10
It'd be alright if the knowledgeable reviewers got all the work, but they don't. My pet hate is reviewers who manage to turn a review into something all about themselves (seems to be most common amongst concert reviewers). Sure, they've got to write from their own experience and point of view, but I've read reviews where, by the end, I've forgotten what they were reviewing.
|
|
|
|
Post by alimcg on Apr 22, 2006 23:37:03 GMT 10
In Friday's Age was a prime example of another thing that shits me. A review of The Blind Boys of Alabama/Afro-Cuban All Stars that had been made so short as to render it of little use. Neither group has more Melbourne shows booked for the near future, so it's hardly put in as "publicity", and we're left with a review that doesn't have time to actually review the show. The editors really need to take a good hard look at themselves and do things properly. If it means cutting one review so another can be realised to its full potential, then so be it. And it's not as if either of these bands are lacking previous reviews - it's not as though the paper is doing them some great favour. If it were a young, up-and-coming band perhaps it would be understandable, but these bands need either full and frank reviewing, or none at all. Come on sub-editors, pull your fingers out.
|
|
|
|
Post by mim on Apr 23, 2006 2:55:02 GMT 10
It'd be alright if the knowledgeable reviewers got all the work, but they don't. My pet hate is reviewers who manage to turn a review into something all about themselves (seems to be most common amongst concert reviewers). Sure, they've got to write from their own experience and point of view, but I've read reviews where, by the end, I've forgotten what they were reviewing. Alimcg, read this! Fuckin classic. markprindle.com/davis.htm |
|
alison
Junior Member
oobleeedoooobleee ah ah
Posts: 98
|
Post by alison on Apr 23, 2006 3:06:22 GMT 10
now THAT is some hilarious shit, Mim!!! I only read the first couple posts on that site (because it's 3 am) but I will definitely visit it again. funnyfunnyfunny
|
|
|
|
Post by alimcg on Apr 23, 2006 13:44:22 GMT 10
The best line has to be "If you have 63 minutes of free time, build a cat or something; don't waste it on My Funny Valentine." I think I'll go build a cat right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by mim on Apr 23, 2006 17:39:22 GMT 10
I like "Miles Davis forewent the traditional instrument case in favor of an orphaned boy's large intestine, a practice that I find lamentable."
|
|
|
|
Post by captain on Apr 23, 2006 22:03:10 GMT 10
MarcH had a thread on this a while back - there's some real gold on there, the perfect remedies for pretentious jazz musos.
|
|
