Solo CD - Backwards

[ironguts]

Hi all, I have a solo CD out now. Here is my first review!

SCOTT TINKLER/Backwards: Those Aussies are tipping the Fosters a touch too much again. A first call trumpet player makes a solo set in one take that he wanted to make as improvised as possible despite needing a bunch of preparation. A lot like those free jazz basement recordings from the 60's, you really have to be into the art of the player to want to sit and listen to this. Tinkler is up to the task but it's just going to feel too arty for most to deal with.
58 (Extreme)

Now who told him about my drinking problem???

[Gb]

is that 58 out of 100? Or out of 60?
g

[aj]

it's go'od'

[ironguts]

58 out of 100 judging by this review!

aj, you know I always go odd.

[mim]

I find it interesting that so often music is thought of from an entertainment perspective, not an art perspective. If you know you are reviewing art, you're hardly going to call it "arty". I thought one of the main points of a review is to assess, in your opinion, whether the artist achieves what they're aiming for.

BTW, I checked the site it's from. 58 isn't a rating, I think it's the number of reviews this guy "Extreme" has written for the site. I've gotta hand it to him, at least he didn't spell it XTreem.

[cartman]

Guts dude where's my signed copy godammit?

[ironguts]

Extreme is tha Label, 58 the cat number, was fun while it lasted.

C-Baby, drop by and grab it anytime, xx

[mim]

Ah, that makes more sense. Thanks for clearing that up. It's funny cos it's true.

[Kenny]

mim said:

I find it interesting that so often music is thought of from an entertainment perspective, not an art perspective.

Um. Don't people buy CDs/whatever to be entertained? And, yes, I know you mean something different by the word "entertainment". But still ...

I thought one of the main points of a review is to assess, in your opinion, whether the artist achieves what they're aiming for.

I'm interested to know how you came to believe this.

Reviewers across the genres and art forms regularly address performer/artist aims. But I reckon there's a valid argument to be made that it is largely immaterial to a reviewer's opinion of a CD or movie or book. And of even less concern to their readers and their wallets.

And how are reviewers to know what those aims are? Should every review be preceded by a one-on-one briefing between writer and artist?

Your album may be the fruit of your loons, but to most of those who may or may not buy it, it's product.

Kenny "I like it, I can dance to it; 9 out of 10" Weir

(Guts: Cool listening for Good Friday subbing)

[vickibonet]

Kenny it is so nice to know you still care sweetheart, was wondering where you've been!

Ears tuned to Julien Wilson's latest product 'While You Were Sleeping' which I find truly delightful but Mr Wilson never fails to impress. Milky Way rating for Jules and company.

[mim]

I thought someone might jump on that. To clarify, I mean PURELY entertainment, that doesn't require thought or real listening, as opposed to something that entertaining because of its quality. It is not to say that music that is art can't also be entertaining. I should probably have been more specific.

Reviewers across the genres and art forms regularly address performer/artist aims. But I reckon there's a valid argument to be made that it is largely immaterial to a reviewer's opinion of a CD or movie or book. And of even less concern to their readers and their wallets.

This is a fair point, you may be right about the readers. I'm not sure I would agree that it is immaterial, as I personally am quite influenced by what I perceive to be the artists intentions. For instance, if somebody promotes their release as a "jazz" album, but clearly from the sound of it they know nothing about jazz, I'm probably not going to think much of it (even if I can dance to it). Maybe I'm a snob. Sometimes I do feel like those kinds of hang ups get in the way.

And how are reviewers to know what those aims are? Should every review be preceded by a one-on-one briefing between writer and artist?

Obviously it can only be speculation. But I think you can usually tell if a musician's primary goal is to entertain. Music made with that goal in mind comes from a very different place, I believe, than Scott's music. (I predict a few jokes about the place Scott's music comes from...probably by Guts...)

It seems like the review is aimed at readers who are unlikely to pick up and look at an album like this in the first place. "Tinkler is up to the task but it's just going to feel too arty for most to deal with." says more about the readers than the music. I don't understand the point of aiming a predominantly negative review of Scott's album towards readers who don't want to listen to art anyway. That's like going up to a bunch of people who only watch films that star Jack Black or Will Ferrell, and telling them not to watch a film by Pedro Almodovar.

[Kenny]

mim said:

Obviously it can only be speculation. But I think you can usually tell if a musician's primary goal is to entertain.

I can tell you right now I am not in the least bit interested in listening any music that doesn't seek to entertain. In fact, I can't think of anyone I know or know of that actually listens to music that deliberately tries to be not entertaining. Yourself included.


Geez. What do ya want? An artist whose primary goal is non-entertainment? If the aim is more along the arty lines - as opposed to entertainment as per the entertainment industry - then that is entertainment. Too.

Scott's music is hugely entertaining. It's especially good for cooking to. Just like my ever growing country collection.

To clarify, I mean PURELY entertainment, that doesn't require thought or real listening, as opposed to something that entertaining because of its quality.

Thought? Real listening? What is real listening? A lot of the music I thrive on often becomes part of me through "not listening" instead of what I presume you mean by "real listening".

Mim, I think I know where you're coming from.

But ... I reckon the human mind has almost infinite capacity to absorb and take joy in stimuli without white-knuckle concentration. On the part of listeners or performers.

Ernest is not always good.

Mostly he's a very bad boy.

[mim]

I agree with all of that. But I still think it sucks when people only go to a live music venue where there's something beautiful and interesting on, and they talk through the music. They might be absorbing something, but most of the time it's only beer.

Scott's music is hugely entertaining to me. Because he creates interesting sounds and colours and none of the notes or silences sound superfluous to me. I enjoy it for the same reasons I enjoy a stimulating film. And yeah, sometimes I wanna listen to Jamiroquai and watch Grey's Anatomy. And I get immeasurable amounts of joy from all of those things.

[Kenny]

mim said:

I agree with all of that. But I still think it sucks when people only go to a live music venue where there's something beautiful and interesting on, and they talk through the music. They might be absorbing something, but most of the time it's only beer.

Oh hell - you've got baggage about beer and the absorption of same. Blimey!

Hey I hear you. But I reckon there's all sorts of ways to listen, including multitudes betwen the extremes of pissedness and reverential.

And yeah, sometimes I wanna listen to Jamiroquai and watch Grey's Anatomy. And I get immeasurable amounts of joy from all of those things.

I have no Jamiroquai and or Grey's Anatomy CDs.

Nah, I'm not saying a Zennish "not listening" only works with "undemanding" stuff. Not at all.

[punter]

Kind of depends on whether you are listening as part of a "search for meaning" or as an escape from same; an expression or reflection of the world, or a space away from it.
Is one more worthy than the other? Can you do more than one type of listening at the same time? Or is this just bullshit navel gazing?