aka
Junior Member
Posts: 57
|
Post by aka on Jul 5, 2006 14:44:43 GMT 10
The discussion of course raises the issue of what is a good review....
Blind admiration doesn't help anyone nor does dissing a recording for the sake of it..an important part of successful reviewing/criticism is comparative criticism...how does the recording stand alongside other works by the artist?..& recordings by other artists in a related field?...does the recording work on its own merits?..does it succeed in what it seems to be aiming at?..
..or does it fall down for various reasons: lack of direction/...too long/...lack of energy/....derivative/...?.....
Good reviews at least try to allude to some of these issues.... (John McBeath, John Clare and John Shand come to mind..may not always agree with them..)..
Given the lack of financial resources, the quality of Oz releases is
very high ,though constructive criticism should be also welcomed...
time for a 'cuppa...
|
|
|
|
Post by plunk on Jul 5, 2006 15:23:55 GMT 10
The language of affirmation is of course more widely accessible to us all. Political correctness has endowed all of us with the ability and language to be "superlatively" enthusiastic about everything from the ridiculous to the sublime. Popular culture thrives on it, and governments manipulate it.
One of the biggest casualties is the language of criticism. People are basically not very good at it. To criticise with integrity means to remove your own agenda from the discourse - and most musicians (including me)- find that challenging.Its just as nonsensical to abuse the crap out of someones music as it is to gush over them/it. And that doesnt mean to say that one cannot be passionately for or against, its just the notion that if there is a discussion going on, then perhaps there is some responsibility that goes with presenting an opinion...expressing thought, as well as emotion.
|
|
|
|
Post by glean on Jul 5, 2006 16:22:43 GMT 10
hey i think gushing is fine. i totaly disgaree with you plunk. if something makes you feel great why should you have to justify it with comparison to ANYthing? What is wrong with "this is brilliant"? if you want this much analysis maybe take up forensic pathology
the facts are clear guys ie most reviews have STARS on the top of them and this means
1 star Crap.
2 stars Not so Crap.
3 stars Average
4 stars Pretty Good
5 stars BRILLIANT
which proves that anylytical criticism is not valued or needed in the broader community , so there ner ner ner ner ner
point proved beyond a shadow of a doubt
|
|
|
|
Post by glean on Jul 5, 2006 16:24:07 GMT 10
Post script: if you want to hear something really fucking beautiful then check out Frank's new album with the Paper Hat trio called "Conversations" it really is quite stunning frank's new album i thought it was Hopkins new album according to andrew ford? |
|
aka
Junior Member
Posts: 57
|
Post by aka on Jul 5, 2006 18:03:48 GMT 10
"(Quote)"the facts are clear guys ie most reviews have STARS on the top of them and this means
1 star Crap.
2 stars Not so Crap.
3 stars Average
4 stars Pretty Good
5 stars BRILLIANT
which proves that anylytical criticism is not valued or needed in the broader community , so there ner ner ner ner ner
point proved beyond a shadow of a doubt[/quote]"
No it doesn't......
It just shows that star ratings are a quick and easier way for a reviewer to judge a recording rather than be bothered to cogently argue or explain......'tis a star culture.....
Also the Paper Hat recording was I understand a Frank Di Sario led project that developed with great input from Colin Hopkins ( and of course Andrew Gander).....
no need to dis Frank....
|
|
|
|
Post by plunk on Jul 5, 2006 21:04:54 GMT 10
hey i think gushing is fine. i totaly disgaree with you plunk. if something makes you feel great why should you have to justify it with comparison to ANYthing? What is wrong with "this is brilliant"? if you want this much analysis maybe take up forensic pathology.
Hey everyone.glen's right! We should all stop thinking. Thats brilliant! And forensic pathology sounds very cool.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by mim on Jul 6, 2006 0:03:37 GMT 10
hey i think gushing is fine. i totaly disgaree with you plunk. if something makes you feel great why should you have to justify it with comparison to ANYthing? What is wrong with "this is brilliant" Nothing is wrong with that if it is submitted as one's own personal opinion. If it is being stated as indisputable then evidence is required to back it up. Simple as that. All the things listed by aka as being fairly essential to a good review look like some quite helpful guidelines if you want others to take your opinion seriously. Ladylex is being presumptuous to think her opinion alone should hold such weight. |
|
|
|
Post by punter on Jul 6, 2006 12:15:14 GMT 10
Tim's going to hate me for bringing it up but the most interesting (at times) discussion on this forum about criticism was on the thread covering Tim's review of Sam Keevers and Jamie Oehlers CD 'Grace'... now where is it??
|
|
|
|
Post by timothystevens on Jul 6, 2006 13:49:30 GMT 10
Nah, I don't care. That's ancient history now.
Who are you, anyway?
|
|
|
|
Post by glean on Jul 6, 2006 18:35:41 GMT 10
i dont think i dissed frank, i just posed a question
|
|
|
|
Post by timothystevens on Jul 6, 2006 19:32:04 GMT 10
But let's not confuse 'agenda' with good old 'aesthetic' or 'background' or 'taste.' Or 'sense of what music actually is, what it does, and how it can be affecting.' Because the distinction of the review rests on the sensitive employment of these things, and while they needn't be political in the manner in which an agenda might, they are instrumental in shaping a reviewer's opinion and are in that sense more or less inescapable. They are also, needless to say, subjective. I feel that sometimes 'agenda' is invoked as though there were a way of criticising that entirely denied any personal involvement, even to the point of resigning responsibility - and to me this seems rather ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by maurice on Jul 6, 2006 20:29:06 GMT 10
God, you're all beginning to sound like a bunch of namby pambies who did a jazz masters' under Dr. Phil.
All this is a result of their not being enough work around. Do you think the old men ( and the few old women) of jazz carried on like this. I'm not suggesting we act like footballers, but Jesus, this is ridiculous. What we need is more work, not more critisism.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothystevens on Jul 6, 2006 20:45:12 GMT 10
Morry. Nice to see you old mate. Only one person here actually called for more criticism, and he/she was being facetious. The point is only that when it is done, it's done well. Criticism, undertaken honestly and with intelligence, has the capacity to promote and enhance music-making, and for this reason it's worthwhile. Ideally it takes into account the social and cultural situation of the music and contributes to broader understanding of why people make music at all, and why they make the music they make. The old men and women of jazz were living at another time, so deal with it. Now watch your language and learn to spell.
|
|
|
|
Post by maurice on Jul 6, 2006 20:59:58 GMT 10
I should have added that this is also why such resentment festers amidst this big happy back- stabbing family of ours, especially against those deemed successful. There is no real cammeraderie or support in the jazz community, and if there is, it's temporary. The rest is just an illusion. We are all on our own, and the sooner we realize it and forget all that other bullshit, the better.
One more thing. Whilst there are excellent reviewers in this country, of which Adrian is probably the best, (given that he doesn't allow personal biases, personal or stylistic, to interfer with his job) there are others, particularly from Sydney, whose reviews act as a forum to advance their own self imposed hipness. I've never heard one of these guys say " i love this music, this made me feel good". This is because to express such passion or emotion is evidence that one has lost some sort of control, which would never do. This is why so many of these reviews ( John Clare's for instance) read like the egomaniacal manual for assembling an electric drill, without actually imparting any information, since he has no idea of the mechanics underlying the workings of music.
I will attempt to love you and leave you now, since the real world is out there, not in here. Have fun and good bye.
|
|
|
|
Post by maurice on Jul 6, 2006 21:03:09 GMT 10
timmie,
Thanks for the tip. Maybe it's time you left school. it's great to be able to spell, but shouldn't you be checking on your CD sale?
|
|
