Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Scandinavian Indie Digest Vol 98 Issue 10
Scandinavian Indie Digest Mon, 26 Jan 1998 Volume 98 : Issue 10
Today's Topics:
SV: I am a journalist, i seek to understand me...
SV: I am a journalist, i seek to understand me...
Re: I am a journalist, i seek to understand me...
SV: I am a journalist, i seek to understand me...
Re: SV: I am a journalist, i seek to understand me...
Re: I am a journalist, i seek to understand me...
Re: Gbg record shops
Gigs at GBG film festival
Re: Gbg record shops
Re: I am a journalist, i seek to understand me...
Re: I am a journalist, i seek to understand me...
Re: The Merrymakers
Hooray Skivhugget!
Re: I am a journalist, i seek to understand me...
Re: I am a journalist, i seek to understand me...
SV: The Merrymakers
Music Journalism
Administrivia:
To unsubscribe from the Scandinavian Indie Digest mailing list:
* send e-mail to: scan-indie-d-request@lysator.liu.se
* with the Subject: unsubscribe
To post to the Scandinavian Indie mailing list:
* use the address: scan-indie@lysator.liu.se
Digest back issues can be found in the [SID] section at the
Scan-Indie website: http://www.lysator.liu.se/~chief/scan.html
() Please take care not to include the entire digest in your
() reply, only the message(s) you are replying to.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 12:50:13 +0100
From: "Micke Rehnstrom" <micre215@student.liu.se>
Subject: SV: I am a journalist, i seek to understand me...
Per Langstrom wrote:
> seriously, isn't objectivism what you should be trying to aim at? i mean,
> you might be the only person in the world liking/disliking that certain
> band/record, still a lot of people take your opinions seriously enough to
> actually check out bands and records based solely on your subjective opin-
> ions. wouldn't a more general, less subjective, review be of more use to
> a greater number of people, as you might be the only one who can't stand
> that certain band because that's what you and your former girlfriend from
> a couple of years back used to listen to?
Like I said before - I think that a reviewer should try to make an "as
close to objective as possible (because being totally objective is
impossible)" description of how the record sounds. But when it comes to
tell whether he/she likes it or not objectivity cannot exist any longer.
Perhaps an honest reviewer should tell whether there is any particular
reason, as the one you mention, for him/her to like/dislike the band, but
that is about it. Besides, I truly hope that there are no people who buy
their records purely based on reviews. At least not just one review. Do not
_ever_ believe in 100% of what you read. And do _always_ try to get a
second opinion (preferrably your own) before buying anything. Like I said,
a review can only work as a guideline.
/Micke
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 13:03:19 +0100
From: "Micke Rehnstrom" <micre215@student.liu.se>
Subject: SV: I am a journalist, i seek to understand me...
Erik Soderstrom wrote:
> Seriously though - if reviews weren't
> subjective, the papers/magazines could just copy the info from the
> release note and print that.
Are you trying to say that those release notes are _not_ subjective? Naah,
would not think so, would we ;-). I think the readers would prefer
anything, subjective or objective, a reviewer writes to some commercial ads
from the record companies.
Besides, if the record companies could write their own reviews (the release
notes), they would probably think there was less need for advertising about
their releases: "Hell, we can advertise for free on the review pages". God
knows how many fanzines/magazines would cease to exist because of
diminishing advertising revenues.
Of course, the fanzines/magazines could make the record companies pay for
having the release notes published. But what would the readers think about
the zines publishing ads instead of reviews (which it actually would be
like)? I think this would leave their credibility right on Anders Nunstedts
spaghetti plate.
/Micke
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 13:16:23 +0100
From: "Micke Rehnstrom" <micre215@student.liu.se>
Subject: Re: I am a journalist, i seek to understand me...
(Because of my mistake, Daniels reply on my message of last night did not
reach the list. I have his permission to redirect his reply to the list.
Here it comes. /Micke Rehnstrom)
Micke Rehnstrom wrote:
> Amazing to see how many journalists there seem to be on the list :-). And I
> suspect there are many others lurking around in the shadows. Well, I am not
> a journalist. It is true that I contribute to a few fanzines: reviewing
> records and sometimes writing articles about bands I like and think deserve
> more attention. But that does not make me a journalist, because it is not
> my proffession (well, nothing is my proffession at the moment).
>
> It is true that it would be stupid to consider a review to be "the truth",
> it is (and should be) based on the reviewers personal opinion (except for
> the name of the band and the record - not much space for different opinions
> there!). Therefore, when I read reviews, I find the "is it good or bad"
> part to be quite uninteresting. My primary interest is about how the record
> sounds - what kind of music, comparisons to other artists, comparisons to
> the artists previous records etc. Whether the reviewer likes or dislikes
> the record and why he likes/dislikes it is of secondary importance to me.
> Of course, after a while, I get to know the reviewers taste and if it
> completely corresponds/not corresponds with my taste it becomes easier to
> use his/her reviews as some kind of guidelines (but not as the "truth").
EXactly. Exactly what I wanted to say.
> It is different with articles - they are not, primarily, meant to display
> the writers opinion. They are either a) describing facts, ie the "truth" or
> b) telling what someone else thinks, most of the time based on interviews
> with this "someone else". And then the reader must be able to rely on that
> the writer actually writes the "truth" or that he gives an accurate picture
> of what the one being interviewed actually said. Even if this did not
> happen in an article, I would have severe problems trusting someone who
> cannot keep CARPET PEOPLE and CARPE WADE apart (and, it should be said, I
> am also suspicious against that Sound Affects guy who claimed that the
> latest HIM KEROSENE album was their debut album).
Yes, of course. And I as well have to say that I think some of the persons in
the musicpress are a bit unreliable. The Carpet People/Carpe Wade-thing you'll
have to say was a mistake that just might happen. And Nunstedt (who, I agree,
isn't really the best of journalists) made an apology in Saturdays paper.
> Perhaps there is no real difference in the task of writing/telling it. But
> if we talk about writing articles I think there is a huge difference in the
> _value_ of doing it. Even if we disregard my opinion about OASIS I would
> have problems seeing any point in me writing anything about them. They have
> already been everywhere in every type of media, even people who hate their
> music know what they eat for breakfast and think about BLUR, and the
> probability that I would be able to tell anything that people did not
> already know would be extremely close to zero. _I_ rather write about
> unknown bands, not because I necessarily think they are better (but mostly
> I think they are) but because I think they deserve attention too. Perhaps I
> may upset someone who actually has written about OASIS but, to be frank, to
> write about them without coming up with anything that millions of people
> does not already know sounds like a terrible waste of time! Maybe the
> things I write about unknown bands are not new to their fans but there is a
> much bigger probability, than in the case of the Gallagher brothers, that
> someone formerly uninitiated reads it and becomes interested in the band.
> That is, to me, much more valuable than to just repeat what everyone
> already knows.
>
> /Micke, apologizing for this _long_ message
OK, Oasis might not be a very good example. But what I wanted to say was that
it's quite understandable that the biggest newspapers write about Oasis. Just
because it it what "people" want to read about. In fact, I think it's pretty
remarkable that the Expressen Fredag do reviews of bands like Carpet People.
Small, unknown bands that don't sell much records. In the biggest evening
paper in Sweden.It's actually not all Aqua, is it?
DANIEL - apologizing for making this message even longer.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 13:25:05 +0100
From: "Micke Rehnstrom" <micre215@student.liu.se>
Subject: SV: I am a journalist, i seek to understand me...
And after this short reply to Daniels messagen I will stop spamming the
list for now. Promise!
> it's quite understandable that the biggest newspapers write about Oasis.
> Just because it it what "people" want to read about. In fact, I think it's
> pretty remarkable that the Expressen Fredag do reviews of bands like Carpet
> People. Small, unknown bands that don't sell much records. In the biggest
> evening paper in Sweden.It's actually not all Aqua, is it?
Yes it is kind of remarkable. Even more remarkable is, perhaps, that they
did _not_ review the CLOUDBERRY JAM album which was released on the same
record company on the same day. But like you say - the big papers write
what the people wants to read. So what we should really try to figure out,
if anything, is why people actually want to read what is in those papers.
But I think I leave that to someone who has studied psychology or sociology
or something like that.
/Micke
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 15:13:23 +0100
From: Erik Soderstrom <chief@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: SV: I am a journalist, i seek to understand me...
>> Seriously though - if reviews weren't subjective, the papers/magazines
>> could just copy the info from the release note and print that.
>
> Are you trying to say that those release notes are _not_ subjective? Naah,
> would not think so, would we ;-). I think the readers would prefer
> anything, subjective or objective, a reviewer writes to some commercial ads
> from the record companies.
No, I was merely talking about the information the release notes usually
contain. Ie. "Three guys from Eskilstuna playing hardcore using
xylophones, marimbas and a bass." Not the "The best street version of
Nick Cave and the sad seeds since Elvis walked round the corner" parts
of it.
//Erik <chief@lysator.liu.se>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 15:20:57 +0100
From: Erik Soderstrom <chief@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: I am a journalist, i seek to understand me...
> Yes, of course. And I as well have to say that I think some of the persons
> in the musicpress are a bit unreliable. The Carpet People/Carpe Wade-thing
> you'll have to say was a mistake that just might happen. And Nunstedt (who,
> I agree, isn't really the best of journalists) made an apology in Saturdays
> paper.
I hope that's not something he'll continue to do, or the saturday paper
will be thick as a bible. Though I wish he had admitted to the fact that
he a) never listened to the "The Charlatans" album and b) never went to
see the Charlatans at the Stockholm Water Festival in 95 (was 95 right?)
but still went ahead and wrote reviews of them both. That really removed
all the cred he might once have had in my eyes.
//Erik <chief@lysator.liu.se>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 18:23:25 +0100 (MET)
From: Ola Lundkvist <d1wizo@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: Gbg record shops
On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, Jan Sundstrom wrote:
> Are you putting it online?!
When/If I get time to do it. Though I think it would be even better if
Erik could gather a guide for all Scandinavia and put it on the
scan-indie pages.
> I'm really tempted to do the works for stockholm, which really is the
> best record city in Sweden, whatever Gothenburg says ;-)
You could probably get hold of records more easily in Stockholm. Well, I
include prices in my list as well, because I doubt that record prices
are lower in Stockholm... :-)
> Us Stockholmers really should do a FAQ too. We can't let Gothenburg get
> away with the victory! ;-)
Yes, someone please feel provoked to make a Stockholm guide too! One
never knows when one needs to visit Stockholm. And then all those in
other places, that actually do have good record stores, please provide
us with info...
/Ola - incurable record collector, vinyl freak etc.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 18:40:57 +0100 (MET)
From: Ola Lundkvist <d1wizo@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Gigs at GBG film festival
The Gothenburg film festival (30/1 - 9/2) is reason enough to visit gbg.
Besides a lot of films, there are also some gigs at Kinski bar:
Sat 31/1 Grovjobb
Sun 1/2 Lee Harvey Oswald-Ensemble
Mon 2/2 Chutzpah
Tue 3/2 Mody Prudence
Wed 4/2 Svarta Safirer
Thu 5/2 Shallow Soundwave
Fri 6/2 Rotten Beak
Sat 7/2 Tyson
As I always say: Don't miss a opportunity to see Shallow Soundwave!
I have to quote the line describing them in the film festival program:
"Slayer meets Kate Bush meets Autechre"
/Ola
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 18:52:09 +0100
From: Erik Soderstrom <chief@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: Gbg record shops
>> Are you putting it online?!
>
> When/If I get time to do it. Though I think it would be even better if
> Erik could gather a guide for all Scandinavia and put it on the
> scan-indie pages.
I did save your guide and the addition posted by Joris just in case,
so if someone wants to do guides for other towns and cities - I'd
be happy to put them all up on the web. One can of course also use
the "Gula Sidorna" or "Rosa Sidorna" phone book website to get
the information needed - and in some cases they have linked a map
and placed the store/whatever on it as well there. Pet Sounds in
Stockholm is an example where you can both find the information and
where it is on the map. Perhaps a guide on the Scan-Indie site could
make use of this as well?
>> Us Stockholmers really should do a FAQ too. We can't let Gothenburg get
>> away with the victory! ;-)
>
> Yes, someone please feel provoked to make a Stockholm guide too! One
> never knows when one needs to visit Stockholm. And then all those in
> other places, that actually do have good record stores, please provide
> us with info...
I have looked for the one I received from Ludde years ago, but it seems
I have deleted it. I guess did it because I learned where to find the
stores and where to go. :-/
//Erik <chief@lysator.liu.se>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 22:00:15 +0100 (MET)
From: per langstrom <pela0011@student.gu.se>
Subject: Re: I am a journalist, i seek to understand me...
At 11.30 1998-01-25 +0000, daniel wrote:
> per langstrom wrote:
>
>> ever read a magazine called "pop"? no matter what they say, i can't help
>> _but_ getting the impression that they are indeed trying to teach me, as
>> the reader, what's right and wrong. not only do i find it dogmatic and
>> ignorant, i also find it pretty damn offensive - like i wouldn't be able
>> to figure out what i like and don't like on my own. (and, honestly, how
>> often do you see journalists state that their opinion is only their very
>> own and might not match with anybody else's? journalists assume that
>> everybody knows that their reviews and such are totally subjective, still
>> the journalists themselves never _ever_ say it! and why is that? well,
>> deep inside i think a lot of them want to be the "god of the tastes" and
>> be able to set the standards and dictate what's good and what's not, and
>> by doing so, reach the highest possible level of "coolness" and be adored
>> by the, obviously easily deluded, masses.)
>
> yes, I agree with you on that. some journos must wake up every morning with
> an urge to start a new cool movement. and that is bad journalism.
exactly.
>> btw, i totally agree with timo, reviews are a fucking joke and should be
>> taken with the biggest grain of salt.
>
> OK, great. don't even read them. don't even care about them. great.
i can't help but caring about them. reviews have become too im-
portant and influential not to be cared about, and that's what
so bizarre considering it just the opinions of one single person.
btw, i _do_ read reviews (even though it's to a lot lesser extent
than what it used to be), and i still haven't quite figured out why.
> no, objectivism would totally kill the business (and maybe that is what
> everyone wants). who wants to read a boring report on a record like "this
> record is 43 minutes of rockmusic with a singer and som guitars. Perhaps
> you'll like it". and with objective reviews, new unknown bands would never
> get any chance to come through, because sadly enough, most of these bands
> careers start of with a good review or nice article in a big paper.
what you are saying is true. i just think music journalism should be
more focused on articles about what the actual bands have to say, and
not what band this and this journalist is hyping this month. by getting
rid of the importance of reviews, journalist would, i hope, loose a lot
of the influence they have on getting a certain band signed. today, it
seems like if you as a band get a good review by a certin group of
journalists you are halfway to getting a record deal or breaking big-
time, just because of that. i find that nothing but absurd, where in the
world did all that power come from (and on exactly what basis was it
given to these people)?
per
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 21:59:53 +0100 (MET)
From: per langstrom <pela0011@student.gu.se>
Subject: Re: I am a journalist, i seek to understand me...
>>> seriously, isn't objectivism what you should be trying to aim at? i mean,
>>> you might be the only person in the world liking/disliking that certain
>>> band/record, still a lot of people take your opinions seriously enough to
>>> actually check out bands and records based solely on your subjective opin-
>>> ions. wouldn't a more general, less subjective, review be of more use to
>>> a greater number of people, as you might be the only one who can't stand
>>> that certain band because that's what you and your former girlfriend from
>>> a couple of years back used to listen to?
>>
>> I'm not even going to touch this discussion without gloves on, but I have
>> to say that it is impossible to write an objective review of something
>> unless you leave out what you actually thought of it. And then there's
>> really no point in writing the review, because it'll be more of a
>> presentation of whatever is "reviewed". The result - no one would ever
>> receive a bad or good review. ;) Seriously though - if reviews weren't
>> subjective, the papers/magazines could just copy the info from the
>> release note and print that.
>
> Good points Chief!
>
> The thing is that the subjective view of a reviewer is one (maybe the only)
> fundamental cornerstone wich holds up the whole idea of a review. There is no
> such thing as objectivity in arts. There are facts, but no objective likes
> and dislikes.
ok. notice my use of "aim at" and "less subjective". i am not saying
reviews should be 100% objective - not only is that an impossibility
for us as humans to reach out of ourselves, beyond the subject - what
i want to get across is that reviews should be a objective as possible
considering the conditions. that way, the reader him/herself would
hopefully be able to interpret the review from whatever point of view
he/she is reading it - not only be left passively reading another
person's interpretation of the same record, as is the case in most
reviews.
to me, a reviewer should be more of a person who informs people that
this and this band has a record out, and in comparison to the band's
previous records or other band's records (in the somewhat same vein)
or whatever, it sounds like this and this. what the reviewer per-
sonally thinks about the record is rather insignificant, if he/she
must say something he/she should, as informative as possible, try
describe what the band sounds like. sure, if the reviewer thinks the
band has an exceptionally good sound, but is lacking songs with ear-
catching melodies, he could mention that. but, as such an opinion
may apply to him/her _only_, it shouldn't be the emphasis of the
review.
per
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 00:20:33 +0100
From: Erik Soderstrom <chief@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: The Merrymakers
Just wanted to say that I saw a Merrymakers video (for "Saltwater Drinks")
on TV8 a few minutes ago, and it was great. Funny stuff - cool and weird
effects, and loads and loads of guitar-filled happy summer pop. Leslies
mixed with HappyDeadMen and Andreas Mattsson (Popsicle) mixed with
Janne Kask (Brainpool) with soothing backing vocals. The new album
"Bubblegun" is out tomorrow and I'm going to buy it. Just what I need
to stay sane 'til summer. ;)
//Erik <chief@lysator.liu.se>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 08:34:09 +0100
From: "Barczinski, Reiner, WAC" <Barczinski@celanese.de>
Subject: Hooray Skivhugget!
How is this possible? Why do german mailorders need more than a week for
national orders, when I can order in Sweden on wed. 6 pm and get hold
the ordered CDs in my hands on sat. 10 am?! Oh, it's great! So I got 2
pcs Hedningarna (which I already knw and for that I am happy with), 1
piece of Garmarna (thanks for the hint, they're what I've expected), and
last, but of course not least, Bob Hund (2). I can't say "Brilliant" or
so already, because I just listened to it once, but I can say, that I
really like them, and they sound ver nice at first listening ... yes!
Not more to do than to visit them in DK, eh ?
And, no, I'm no journalist, as you can see ... ;)
Reiner
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:47:14 +0000
From: "johanna.hillgren" <johanna.hillgren@swipnet.se>
Subject: Re: I am a journalist, i seek to understand me...
>>>> seriously, isn't objectivism what you should be trying to aim at? i mean,
>>>> you might be the only person in the world liking/disliking that certain
>>>> band/record, still a lot of people take your opinions seriously enough to
>>>> actually check out bands and records based solely on your subjective opin-
>>>> ions. wouldn't a more general, less subjective, review be of more use to
>>>> a greater number of people, as you might be the only one who can't stand
>>>> that certain band because that's what you and your former girlfriend from
>>>> a couple of years back used to listen to?
>>>
>>> I'm not even going to touch this discussion without gloves on, but I have
>>> to say that it is impossible to write an objective review of something
>>> unless you leave out what you actually thought of it. And then there's
>>> really no point in writing the review, because it'll be more of a
>>> presentation of whatever is "reviewed". The result - no one would ever
>>> receive a bad or good review. ;) Seriously though - if reviews weren't
>>> subjective, the papers/magazines could just copy the info from the
>>> release note and print that.
>>
>> Good points Chief!
>>
>> The thing is that the subjective view of a reviewer is one (maybe the only)
>> fundamental cornerstone wich holds up the whole idea of a review. There is
>> no such thing as objectivity in arts. There are facts, but no objective
>> likes and dislikes.
>
> ok. notice my use of "aim at" and "less subjective". i am not saying
> reviews should be 100% objective - not only is that an impossibility
> for us as humans to reach out of ourselves, beyond the subject - what
> i want to get across is that reviews should be a objective as possible
> considering the conditions. that way, the reader him/herself would
> hopefully be able to interpret the review from whatever point of view
> he/she is reading it - not only be left passively reading another
> person's interpretation of the same record, as is the case in most
> reviews.
>
> to me, a reviewer should be more of a person who informs people that
> this and this band has a record out, and in comparison to the band's
> previous records or other band's records (in the somewhat same vein)
> or whatever, it sounds like this and this. what the reviewer per-
> sonally thinks about the record is rather insignificant, if he/she
> must say something he/she should, as informative as possible, try
> describe what the band sounds like. sure, if the reviewer thinks the
> band has an exceptionally good sound, but is lacking songs with ear-
> catching melodies, he could mention that. but, as such an opinion
> may apply to him/her _only_, it shouldn't be the emphasis of the
> review.
>
> per
Sorry, but then it wouldn't be a review and in my eyes something very
unimportant and meaningless. A review is someone telling you whether
he likes or dislikes something. Then it's up to you to decide whether
you like or dislike what he's writing. But I could agree on you on one
thing. Throwing in some information on how the record sounds, who's
produced it and stuff like that, is sometimes pretty important. That
together with an opinion makes a review a job well done.
Daniel
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:58:31 +0000
From: "johanna.hillgren" <johanna.hillgren@swipnet.se>
Subject: Re: I am a journalist, i seek to understand me...
>> no, objectivism would totally kill the business (and maybe that is what
>> everyone wants). who wants to read a boring report on a record like "this
>> record is 43 minutes of rockmusic with a singer and som guitars. Perhaps
>> you'll like it". and with objective reviews, new unknown bands would never
>> get any chance to come through, because sadly enough, most of these bands
>> careers start of with a good review or nice article in a big paper.
>
> what you are saying is true. i just think music journalism should be
> more focused on articles about what the actual bands have to say, and
> not what band this and this journalist is hyping this month. by getting
> rid of the importance of reviews, journalist would, i hope, loose a lot
> of the influence they have on getting a certain band signed. today, it
> seems like if you as a band get a good review by a certin group of
> journalists you are halfway to getting a record deal or breaking big-
> time, just because of that. i find that nothing but absurd, where in the
> world did all that power come from (and on exactly what basis was it
> given to these people)?
yes, I agree. that power is absurd, and I for one don't have a clue where
it's come from. I play in a band called fidget and to a certain extent I
think we've experienced this scenario two years ago, when suddenly everyone
started to write nice things about us. and we had just done a demo with four
song. ok, I still think the demo was good, and that we deserved a bit of
attention, but the circus around at the time was quite bizarre. the media
exposure led to a buzz about our showcase in stokholm, where all record
companies was to see us for the first time. and there was twelve companies...
why the heck was there twelve companies. just so that they could watch each
others back, and have a look at this band everyone writes about and therefor
has to be good. we felt strange and never really thought they were there for
us. they were there just for the sake of it, and just because Expressen
told them to. and that is kinda bizarre, isn't it?
daniel
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 12:47:39 +0100
From: "Micke Rehnstrom" <micre215@student.liu.se>
Subject: SV: The Merrymakers
Erik Soderstrom wrote:
> Just wanted to say that I saw a Merrymakers video (for "Saltwater Drinks")
> on TV8 a few minutes ago, and it was great. Funny stuff - cool and weird
> effects, and loads and loads of guitar-filled happy summer pop. Leslies
> mixed with HappyDeadMen and Andreas Mattsson (Popsicle) mixed with
> Janne Kask (Brainpool) with soothing backing vocals.
And if we are to mention some more "international" references THE BEATLES
and JELLYFISH seem to be the most popular ones. I have still not heard any
of their new material myself but these are the names that are brought up in
every review of the record. And I guess that would also be a good way of
describing how they sounded 4-5 years ago, I guess (especially their "hit"
- "Andrews store", was it?). The vocalist from JELLYFISH has helped produce
and play drums on the album. So it seems as if they are still the same
band?
Like I said, I do not have an opinion about their new material yet. But
what I can remember from having seen them live a couple of times some years
ago "Andrews store" (correct title?) was well above the standard of their
other, quite lame, songs. Quite embarrassing to see them live too, many
rock n roll cliches. I particularly remember once when the
vocalist/guitarist were standing with his back towards the audience and
then turned around to run to the edge of the stage and suddenly realized
that the edge were about 1.5 metres away (I was quite amazed that he
managed to remain standing, though :) .
/Micke
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:45:00 +-100
From: Mikael Fant <mikael.fant@swipnet.se>
Subject: Music Journalism
Regarding the debate on music journalism. I think I'd like to put another
angle on the debate by asking "What can we demand from a music journalist".
And I think the crucial point is whether they're amateurs (doing it for
the fun of it or doing it as a missionary, to make other people discover
this and that great music which it would be a sin to keep to oneself), or
professionals (possibly doing it for the above mentioned reasons, but also
getting paid/earning a livelihood from it).
My point is that an amateur can write whatever he bloody well wants, be
utterly incompetent, or totally niched (f.x. in the indie-genre) and
whatnot, and CAN'T BE CRITICIZED for it. You can maybe pity him/her, if
they're really off the mark, but they can't be criticized. They're just
stating an opinion. Reading an amateur-text is like talking music with a
friend. Non-committal.
But as soon as a person is doing a job and getting paid for it, you can
demand that he should do a GOOD job, and music journalists aren't an
exception. The consumer should always crave a good product, whether it's
a frying pan or a pop magazine he is buying.
With this in mind I think you can demand the following from a professional
music journalist:
1. HUMILITY. A music journalist (in fact all critics, art, film, etc)
should always remember where his job is coming from. Weren't it for the
bands/musicians he would be out of a job. Criticism is a spin-off effect.
Creation comes first. Music (art, film) criticism is not an independent
artform in itself, as many critics seem to think, overrating their own
value and importance.
2. RESPECT. With humility in mind a music journalist should treat the
object of his criticism (i.e. the band/record) with respect. For instance
I think you can't review a record without listening to all of it AT LEAST
five times. The critic must give his work a sound base to lean on, and
must give the bands, etc a lot of chances. A lot of music doesn't give
itself away at the first hearing. (In my youth it took me a year before
I could appreciate Joy Division, but they're still on my top ten all
time favourites.) This makes me a bit suspicious towards critics that
churn out loads of reviews every week. I think the maximum should be
about 5, possibly 10 reviews a week. And sometimes it's bleeding obvious
that the critic hasn't listened to the record hardly at all, f.x. a
reviewer slagging off the latest Frente! album on account of it being
too PSYCHEDELIC? Another example of lack of respect is the absence of
corrections in papers/magazines. It's OK to make mistakes, everybody does
it, but how to handle it? If a daily paper makes a mistake in facts or
in spelling names, etc. the day after there is a little notice saying
"Excuse us so very much, but this and this were wrong, it should be
that and that." This very rarely happens when the fault in question is
concerning music. (e.g. Carpe Wade/Carpet People). Being right about
facts (or in any case correcting oneself) is really the most fundamental
form of respect towards the objects of criticizm.
3. AN OPEN MIND. If you can't approach a record/band with an open mind,
you shouldn't review it. I wouldn't review the latest Ace of Base-album
or whatever, because I would do too poor a job about it. And any music
journalist with any self respect should know when NOT to review something.
I mean if you don't like playful/utflippad/experimental music you shouldn't
review Mercury Rev, OK. This is why oneliner reviews such as "This sucks
bigtime" about the latest Van Halen are crap. And you really shouldn't
review demo-tapes if you're not really interested, haven't got an
enthusiasm about what's happening out in the rehearsal rooms, it isn't
fair towards the bands.
4. COMPETENCE. If you criticize something you should know about it. A
lot! You can't like Eva Kvanta review a Sugar record and start off by
saying "Bob Mould once was in a band called Husker Du, which I've never
heard". She and a lot of other critics are even snobbish about NOT KNOWING
ANYTHING. Another horrid example is a review of a late Pere Ubu album
(post-reunion), where they were described as "Influenced by the Pixies".
Yeah, and the Beatles were very influenced by Oasis as well, eh? Also, a
music review should be 10% stating your opinion, and 90% describing the
music, not the other way around (Sadly forgotten by most critics overvaluing
the importance of their opinion). And in describing music, there, sadly,
is no other way than with comparison. So you're a poor music journalist
if you're too niched, and can't hear similarities and influences from out
of the niche/genre in question. Because the musicians themselves are often
far more open than the critics. Even if you're a hip-hop critic, you should
be able to hear when listening to Afrika Bambaata, "hey, he's borrowed that
from Kraftwerk". I've even seen a review of Bob Hund's Ett fall..., the
reviewer complaining that it didn't sound really like a Bob hund song
(Him not knowing it was a cover). You're not worth your salary if you
don't know A LOT about music. A football player should know alot about
football, shouldn't he/she. A lawyer should know a lot about the law.
This is in my opinion what you can demand from a professional music
journalist. There are a couple that meet with these standards, but
they aren't very many. The sad truth being that the amateurs are often
much more "professional" in their attitudes than the tired, cynic and
uniterested professionals. Sorry for the dry tone and length of my
letter, but I feel a lot about this...
And you journalists can pin up the above list in your offices and read
it every morning...;-)
Micke Fant
------------------------------
End of Scandinavian Indie Digest Vol.98 #10
********************************************
