Heheh. I remember a certain famous Christchurch band getting a one star rating from The Press for it's second album. I thought if the one-eyed parochial town rag can manage that, we can't be too far wrong.
We have some good artists and some pretty mediocre ones too, but reviewers (and radio) I think are trying to push kiwimusic to the public, and sometimes pushing things on people can have a negative result in the long run.
My point I guess it, that we should be discerning when it comes to kiwi music, push the good bands, but don't push them just because they're NZer's.
My thoughts exactly. We have some top talent, but there are plenty of eager-beavers ready to give top marks to anything that can be classified as "kiwi music", even if it is mediocre or just plain bad (by international standards).
Finn Brothers album, anyone?
Seriously, it astonishes me that got an unmitigated 5 stars in the Herald
Especially when 'Bows + Arrows' by The Walkmen got 3.
And the Finns don't even NEED the support an up and coming band does.
I think it depends very much on where they are published. Publications like the Package and student rags have such an open door policy on who gets to write the reviews that it's almost a certainty that if you see a gushing review of a sub-par band one of their mates wrote it.
On the other hand Grant Smithies has recently written some on-the-button reviews of Dead End Beat, The Black seeds and Crumb (he didn't like any of them).
So it's not cut and dried, just treat the glowing reveiws with a grain of salt.
student rags have such an open door policy on who gets to write the reviews that it's almost a certainty that if you see a gushing review of a sub-par band one of their mates wrote it.
That's not true, I can think of at least three albums this year that required a mad scramble in order to find someone to write the review since most of the regular reviewers knew the band.
//Publications like the Package and student rags have such an open door policy on who gets to write the reviews that it's almost a certainty that if you see a gushing review of a sub-par band one of their mates wrote it.
Then again, aren't reviewers/critics just offering their own opinion anyway? I mean, ever see a movie you really liked, then read a review saying it was rubbish?
All reviews could be taken with a grain of salt, in the end, its up to you what you choose to buy - but it might pay to preview something instore before you buy it if you're not sure.
I think it's a fair point, that they are a bit too positive on the whole... it is rather absurd how relentlessly positive some of the music mags are on 90 percent of reviews.
It's the same in NZ with other arts too. I did a review of the nz comedy festival for a magazine about three years ago and I thought most of what I had checked out was really dumb and patricularly unfunny so I wrote it as such but trying to be constructive and explanatory not abusive, like we all know a review is just one person's opinion. However I didnt expect the fallout that followed. Letters to editor from the likes of Michelle D'Acourt, Radar dissing me on bfm, and to cap it off I had a phonecall from Brendan Lovegrove taking issue with the unfavourable things I had said about Ewan Gilmour's act... jesus christ, I was fearful for my life. All just becoz of a bad review. The thing is, they just expect a review to be resoundingly positive, like it's a given. the good old NZ network where everybody says "oh it's great, hilarious, fantastic album, fine show, bla bla bla"...
But surely it's better to be honest about these things.
I certainly think our comedians deserve to be taken to task at times. There are some amazing shows out there, but there is some really really bad stuff at times. Too many of them are guilty of recycling content. Sure, I can understand a bit of recycling, but to see almost exactly the same show about 18 months apart in the same town by one of NZ's "top" comedians is a bit much.
//Too many of them are guilty of recycling content.
An extremely interesting point about comedy was poited out resently, how is it that we can happly listen to a band playing the same song at every gig, but can't stand to hear the same routine?
possibly because we already got it?
ok so explain how reruns of the simpsons are still funny?
and surely, it would mean there was no market for taped shows, like the flight of the concords, or billy conolly .............. but they are funny every time......
so does this "guilt of recycling content" only apply to stand up?
//how is it that we can happly listen to a band playing the same song at every gig, but can't stand to hear the same routine?
Hmm, that's not quite right - you're not taking the parallel far enough. I saw Morcheeba and Elastica twice within three months when I was in the UK. Elastica played all the songs you'd expect from them, both times, but the second time I saw them they were just...different...they messed around with the order of the songs; played two songs they hadn't played in the first set, I thoroughly enjoyed them both times. Morcheeba played exactly the same set, all the same songs in the same order and the second time I saw them I was really disappointed.
I think you missed the emphasis "almost exactly the same show about 18 months apart". I enjoy particular songs just like I enjoy particular parts of a comedian's set, but I'd fully expect both band and comedian to develop considerably over two years.
// ...happly listen to a band playing the same song at every gig,
// but can't stand to hear the same routine?
// possibly because we already got it?
yep to that last bit I reckon. a lot of humour is derived from the 'didn't see it coming' aspect. Surprise is a big thing when it comes to getting a laugh. With regards to music, the opposite is true: familiarity actually helps a lot of people appreciate it more, not less.
// ok so explain how reruns of the simpsons are still funny?
I think with the Simpsons that the surprise is still there. They've got hundreds of episodes to choose from now, and I'm still amazed that I can watch a repeat that I've seen maybe half a dozen times and not really know where it's going to end up. If I was forced to watch one episode of the Simpsons over and over, I'm sure I'd tire of it pretty quickly. If Mike King (or any stand-up) had 100+ quality comedy routines, regardless of whether they performed those routines daily or irregulalry, they'd be in gigs for life.
I agree with the surpise/shock element of humour, especially in relation to stand-up. It's the juxtapositions and unexpected twists often that make it funny, plus the build-up. So if you actually know where it's going, it seems really really unfunny. Very true of the shock. A fabulous bit of un-PC-ness can be hilarious the first time round, but quite excruciating second time.
Another criticisim I was going to dish toward comedians which is interesting compared to bands is where the material is failing. A certain NZ comedian who I generally find funny I've seen a few times fail to light the audience, but is incapable of deviating from the set routine. If people aren't laughing, that means it's time to run a different series of jokes, not steadfastly sticking with it.
I know someone who wrote a bad review of Pacific Heights and then got threats from the act, the label and several other people involved with the act.
I think people shouldn't get angry about bad reviews, but take them as constructive critism.
Anyway, some people love genres of music, others don't, just cause they are reviewing the album doesn't mean they like the style everything they hear.
And too many NZ bands sound like total clones of overseas bands (I'm thinking of all those Blink 182 type bands) but still get an extra pat on the back for being from NZ. There's nothing to distinguish the likes of Goodnight Nurse from Good Charlotte or a band of teenagers from Poland who none of us have ever heard of but sound exactly like that too. If you're going to strive for an 'international sound' you shouldn't get any extra points for being local.
So does anyone have a reviewer they actually rate? Is there someone/something that you actually follow and respect their reviewing prowess?
I'm not so interested in the wicked analogies they may pull out, but their ability to consistently satisfy you with the actual product/experience they guide you towards.
Simon Sweetman [Dominion] and Russell Ballie [NZ Herald] are who I consider the best in NZ. Both pull no punches - they credit what they think is good, rip into what they think is bad - and they can get away with it because they know their stuff.
I can't remember individual names, but RIU's tend to be the most misinformed reviewers around, often getting the most basic facts wrong.
Grant Smithies' reviews suit my tastes well. I also find I get a good feel for what an album is like from his reviews, which is important to me. If anything I don't like his analogies and things!
I enjoy Russell Baillie and Grant Smithies a lot. I often disagree vehemently with them opinion wise, but they are indeed fine reviewers (a glowing 5 star review by Smithies, whether it's for the 'Slanted and Enchanted' reissue or some club-trance thing I would find terrible, is a pleasure to read).
Rip It Up has people of broad and discerning taste staffing it, but the review section is shit and suffers from trying to review too many albums, so you end up with equal column space for shit like Chingy, as you would for, say, Modest Mouse. I think this is why the facts also seem a little dodgy too, time's at a premium even on the bimonthly schedule.
Of course, dont even get me started on some of their ludicrous review "pair-ups": pitting Radiohead and the Dandy Warhols against each other, only to bizarrely, and smugly conclude "Sorry folks, the Dandys have it."
jon bywater's review of the shaft album in the listener was good, misquotations and flawed allusions and all; i only wish he got around to commenting on the second half. his mentioning dinah washington in a review of robert wyatt earns him special points from a committed washingtonian like myself
Then there is Nick Bollinger who hosts the Sampler on Saturday afternoons on National Radio. He seems fair, he's not too harsh on stuff he doesn't like, and doesn't engage in the sarcasm of most critics. Then again, his "oh so friendly" delivery can be grating. And he has an annoying predilection for the most obsure world music possible.
Grant Smithies blew it a couple of weeks ago. When reviewing "Smile" he got all wound up on some of the silly lyrics and lambasted "Columnated Ruins Domino", the famous line from "Surfs Up" which I thought was .... well .... silly of him. Then he gave tha Feelstyle five stars. I have been trying to digest that album this week and I really can't rate it .... maybe it's just me but put it in the "it should be good but isn't" bag .... and dig out yr old De La Soul/Jungle Brothers records instead....
Slightly off topic, but talking about NZ music journalism, did anyone see the article about The Scavengers in last week's Sunday Star Times. They had a whole thing about Johnny Volume "aka John Baker". They then proceeded to talk all about how Johnny Volume was the White Stripes tour manager etc. I wonder if John Baker was aware of the fact that he was in The Scavengers. If the journalist had actually bothered to do their research, they would have found out that they were very wrong.
Clearly, in my mind at least, a print reveiw of a record release is a form of free publicity/advertising.
The people with the most resoucers garner the most print space.
This is because they are the ones most likely to be buying/purchasing advertising in the publication they wish to be reveiwed in.
Any Media owner/manager is unlikely to annoy/offend their revenue provider with less than complimentory record reveiws. This is particulry applicible in NZ, I believe because the number of "Buyers" of said space is limited.
I hope this dosent appear overtly cynical, however I have run this "theory" for the collective I organize, and the facts are fairly clear, when I want PR in form of a positive reveiw, I simply buy AD space co-ordinated with publication of review. I suppose an arguement can be raised that its a "coincedince", and the reviewers genuinely liked what they heard, on the disscussions Ive had with an extremley prominent Reviewer of years gone by, I stand by this post.
The above paragraph is not an accuusation or a whinge, or "sour grapes", just an observation from an independent publicist on the mechanics of this industry.These publications are running a business, and its a giant leap of faith in my opinion to not keep that fact firmly in the forefront of your mind when perusing any form of publicized critique.
And apparantly the deal with the Majors is even more loaded. Have free records in exchange for this great reveiw of designated artist, pretty much sums it up, some Christchurch people may well the remember the hooha around a certain David Bowie release a few years back...
Do record labels ask for their discs back after Reveiws?
Dragstrip's point on "Student" publications certainaly rings true to me, theirs some obvious cases I can think of, I think on the whole though those publications do a fine job of attempting to inform the general public of the original arts scene. That theirs "cross-pollination" or even cronyisim is unavoidable, and may not nessacarily be a bad thing, if we assume "students" are younger musicians then positive PR is more likely to be needed for Band harmony/self esteem/ establishment of identity/constructing PR kit.I make the assumption that the situation is exactly the same for the Nationwide publications in that Reveiwers can be expected to liase, and have some sort of personal relationship with theAOR people. Feel free to put me in my place if you have an opinion/facts to the contray on this.
Either way a Reveiwer in Craccum or whatever lauding his mates band is far less irksome than other forms of virtual self-congragulation some musicians seem prone too.
(such as posting long-winded piffle on music sites on Sunday evenings).
An aside, if anyone actually thinks anything in this post is vaugely accurate, redo the whole process substituting "Reveiw" with "airspace on NZ music only Radio Shows".
Ah Foal... I love your deep cynicism. You are largely correct. I've yet to find a reviewer I always find consistently on the money. I mean music isn't like cars or computers - you can't analyse and rate and compare performance and features. Music is mostly subjective - your personal reaction to it, whether emotional (makes me laugh, cry, vomit...) or physical (makes me dance, sleep, vomit). To probably misquote someone more clever than me who's name I can't remember: "wrting about music is like dancing about architecture".
I never take any reviews as gospel. I make up my own mind. Although having said that when I read that Phoenix Foundation Horsepower was the best NZ album since Pluto Red Light Syndorme then I was keen to hear it. Can't even remember who wrote that review and don't really care. Basically, it's interesting to see someone's opinion on something but I'd rather make up my own mind.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Technorati
Heheh. I remember a certain famous ...
Heheh. I remember a certain famous Christchurch band getting a one star rating from The Press for it's second album. I thought if the one-eyed parochial town rag can manage that, we can't be too far wrong.
We have some good artists and some ...
We have some good artists and some pretty mediocre ones too, but reviewers (and radio) I think are trying to push kiwimusic to the public, and sometimes pushing things on people can have a negative result in the long run.
My point I guess it, that we should be discerning when it comes to kiwi music, push the good bands, but don't push them just because they're NZer's.
My thoughts exactly. We have some top ...
My thoughts exactly. We have some top talent, but there are plenty of eager-beavers ready to give top marks to anything that can be classified as "kiwi music", even if it is mediocre or just plain bad (by international standards).
Finn Brothers album, ...
Finn Brothers album, anyone?
Seriously, it astonishes me that got an unmitigated 5 stars in the Herald
Especially when 'Bows + Arrows' by The Walkmen got 3.
And the Finns don't even NEED the support an up and coming band does.
I think it depends very much on where ...
I think it depends very much on where they are published. Publications like the Package and student rags have such an open door policy on who gets to write the reviews that it's almost a certainty that if you see a gushing review of a sub-par band one of their mates wrote it.
On the other hand Grant Smithies has recently written some on-the-button reviews of Dead End Beat, The Black seeds and Crumb (he didn't like any of them).
So it's not cut and dried, just treat the glowing reveiws with a grain of salt.
//just treat the glowing reveiws with a ...
//just treat the glowing reveiws with a grain of salt
And perhaps the damning ones as well?
<I>student rags have such an open door ...
student rags have such an open door policy on who gets to write the reviews that it's almost a certainty that if you see a gushing review of a sub-par band one of their mates wrote it.
That's not true, I can think of at least three albums this year that required a mad scramble in order to find someone to write the review since most of the regular reviewers knew the band.
//Publications like the Package and ...
//Publications like the Package and student rags have such an open door policy on who gets to write the reviews that it's almost a certainty that if you see a gushing review of a sub-par band one of their mates wrote it.
Guilty as charged.
Then again, aren't reviewers/critics ...
Then again, aren't reviewers/critics just offering their own opinion anyway? I mean, ever see a movie you really liked, then read a review saying it was rubbish?
All reviews could be taken with a grain of salt, in the end, its up to you what you choose to buy - but it might pay to preview something instore before you buy it if you're not sure.
I think it's a fair point, that they ...
I think it's a fair point, that they are a bit too positive on the whole... it is rather absurd how relentlessly positive some of the music mags are on 90 percent of reviews.
It's the same in NZ with other arts too. I did a review of the nz comedy festival for a magazine about three years ago and I thought most of what I had checked out was really dumb and patricularly unfunny so I wrote it as such but trying to be constructive and explanatory not abusive, like we all know a review is just one person's opinion. However I didnt expect the fallout that followed. Letters to editor from the likes of Michelle D'Acourt, Radar dissing me on bfm, and to cap it off I had a phonecall from Brendan Lovegrove taking issue with the unfavourable things I had said about Ewan Gilmour's act... jesus christ, I was fearful for my life. All just becoz of a bad review. The thing is, they just expect a review to be resoundingly positive, like it's a given. the good old NZ network where everybody says "oh it's great, hilarious, fantastic album, fine show, bla bla bla"...
But surely it's better to be honest about these things.
//I had a phonecall from Brendan ...
//I had a phonecall from Brendan Lovegrove
Ouch........... he is scary.
He wasn't too bad, his act I mean. But ...
He wasn't too bad, his act I mean. But i was scared when he rang, at the apparent bitterness... in all of them.
I certainly think our comedians deserve ...
I certainly think our comedians deserve to be taken to task at times. There are some amazing shows out there, but there is some really really bad stuff at times. Too many of them are guilty of recycling content. Sure, I can understand a bit of recycling, but to see almost exactly the same show about 18 months apart in the same town by one of NZ's "top" comedians is a bit much.
//Too many of them are guilty of ...
//Too many of them are guilty of recycling content.
An extremely interesting point about comedy was poited out resently, how is it that we can happly listen to a band playing the same song at every gig, but can't stand to hear the same routine?
possibly because we already got it?
ok so explain how reruns of the simpsons are still funny?
and surely, it would mean there was no market for taped shows, like the flight of the concords, or billy conolly .............. but they are funny every time......
so does this "guilt of recycling content" only apply to stand up?
//I certainly think our comedians ...
//I certainly think our comedians deserve to be taken to task at times.
I certainly think some "comedians" (cough mike cough king) should have been taken out back and shot a long long time ago.
yea, i couldn't say Mike King and ...
yea, i couldn't say Mike King and comedians in the same breath without choking either Joanna
//how is it that we can happly listen ...
//how is it that we can happly listen to a band playing the same song at every gig, but can't stand to hear the same routine?
Hmm, that's not quite right - you're not taking the parallel far enough. I saw Morcheeba and Elastica twice within three months when I was in the UK. Elastica played all the songs you'd expect from them, both times, but the second time I saw them they were just...different...they messed around with the order of the songs; played two songs they hadn't played in the first set, I thoroughly enjoyed them both times. Morcheeba played exactly the same set, all the same songs in the same order and the second time I saw them I was really disappointed.
I think you missed the emphasis "almost exactly the same show about 18 months apart". I enjoy particular songs just like I enjoy particular parts of a comedian's set, but I'd fully expect both band and comedian to develop considerably over two years.
// ...happly listen to a band playing ...
// ...happly listen to a band playing the same song at every gig,
// but can't stand to hear the same routine?
// possibly because we already got it?
yep to that last bit I reckon. a lot of humour is derived from the 'didn't see it coming' aspect. Surprise is a big thing when it comes to getting a laugh. With regards to music, the opposite is true: familiarity actually helps a lot of people appreciate it more, not less.
// ok so explain how reruns of the simpsons are still funny?
I think with the Simpsons that the surprise is still there. They've got hundreds of episodes to choose from now, and I'm still amazed that I can watch a repeat that I've seen maybe half a dozen times and not really know where it's going to end up. If I was forced to watch one episode of the Simpsons over and over, I'm sure I'd tire of it pretty quickly. If Mike King (or any stand-up) had 100+ quality comedy routines, regardless of whether they performed those routines daily or irregulalry, they'd be in gigs for life.
I agree with the surpise/shock element ...
I agree with the surpise/shock element of humour, especially in relation to stand-up. It's the juxtapositions and unexpected twists often that make it funny, plus the build-up. So if you actually know where it's going, it seems really really unfunny. Very true of the shock. A fabulous bit of un-PC-ness can be hilarious the first time round, but quite excruciating second time.
Another criticisim I was going to dish toward comedians which is interesting compared to bands is where the material is failing. A certain NZ comedian who I generally find funny I've seen a few times fail to light the audience, but is incapable of deviating from the set routine. If people aren't laughing, that means it's time to run a different series of jokes, not steadfastly sticking with it.
////seen a few times fail to light the ...
////seen a few times fail to light the audience, but is incapable of deviating from the set routine.
my god that must be an awful feeling for a comedian when theyre on stage... especially when you know theres nothing you can do about it.
I know someone who wrote a bad review ...
I know someone who wrote a bad review of Pacific Heights and then got threats from the act, the label and several other people involved with the act.
I think people shouldn't get angry about bad reviews, but take them as constructive critism.
Anyway, some people love genres of music, others don't, just cause they are reviewing the album doesn't mean they like the style everything they hear.
too many nz bands are shit, but they ...
too many nz bands are shit, but they get good reviews anyway... it's patriotism i suppose...
...yes that's right, little lady. You ...
...yes that's right, little lady. You grab your Incubus albums and Tatu posters and run along now, mkay?
That's patronism, i suppose
And too many NZ bands sound like total ...
And too many NZ bands sound like total clones of overseas bands (I'm thinking of all those Blink 182 type bands) but still get an extra pat on the back for being from NZ. There's nothing to distinguish the likes of Goodnight Nurse from Good Charlotte or a band of teenagers from Poland who none of us have ever heard of but sound exactly like that too. If you're going to strive for an 'international sound' you shouldn't get any extra points for being local.
So does anyone have a reviewer they ...
So does anyone have a reviewer they actually rate? Is there someone/something that you actually follow and respect their reviewing prowess?
I'm not so interested in the wicked analogies they may pull out, but their ability to consistently satisfy you with the actual product/experience they guide you towards.
Simon Sweetman [Dominion] and Russell ...
Simon Sweetman [Dominion] and Russell Ballie [NZ Herald] are who I consider the best in NZ. Both pull no punches - they credit what they think is good, rip into what they think is bad - and they can get away with it because they know their stuff.
I can't remember individual names, but RIU's tend to be the most misinformed reviewers around, often getting the most basic facts wrong.
Simon's stream of ...
Simon's stream of consciousness/conversational style gets on my nerves.
Grant Smithies' reviews suit my tastes ...
Grant Smithies' reviews suit my tastes well. I also find I get a good feel for what an album is like from his reviews, which is important to me. If anything I don't like his analogies and things!
// Simon's stream of ...
// Simon's stream of consciousness/conversational style gets on my nerves.
god..then you must want to kill me.
I enjoy Russell Baillie and Grant ...
I enjoy Russell Baillie and Grant Smithies a lot. I often disagree vehemently with them opinion wise, but they are indeed fine reviewers (a glowing 5 star review by Smithies, whether it's for the 'Slanted and Enchanted' reissue or some club-trance thing I would find terrible, is a pleasure to read).
Rip It Up has people of broad and discerning taste staffing it, but the review section is shit and suffers from trying to review too many albums, so you end up with equal column space for shit like Chingy, as you would for, say, Modest Mouse. I think this is why the facts also seem a little dodgy too, time's at a premium even on the bimonthly schedule.
Of course, dont even get me started on some of their ludicrous review "pair-ups": pitting Radiohead and the Dandy Warhols against each other, only to bizarrely, and smugly conclude "Sorry folks, the Dandys have it."
jon bywater's review of the shaft ...
jon bywater's review of the shaft album in the listener was good, misquotations and flawed allusions and all; i only wish he got around to commenting on the second half. his mentioning dinah washington in a review of robert wyatt earns him special points from a committed washingtonian like myself
Russell Ballie hated our album and ...
Russell Ballie hated our album and called us "misogynists" but thats crazy talk.....I love tits.
You've got nice ones too!...
You've got nice ones too!
thank you.....although they are ...
thank you.....although they are starting to sag in my twilight years
John Tim here from Jezebel Sundae. ...
John
Tim here from Jezebel Sundae. Whats with the drawn out tour dude seems a bit funny.
i'd say graham reid from the herald is ...
i'd say graham reid from the herald is usually pretty good also
Then there is Nick Bollinger who hosts ...
Then there is Nick Bollinger who hosts the Sampler on Saturday afternoons on National Radio. He seems fair, he's not too harsh on stuff he doesn't like, and doesn't engage in the sarcasm of most critics. Then again, his "oh so friendly" delivery can be grating. And he has an annoying predilection for the most obsure world music possible.
Grant Smithies blew it a couple of ...
Grant Smithies blew it a couple of weeks ago. When reviewing "Smile" he got all wound up on some of the silly lyrics and lambasted "Columnated Ruins Domino", the famous line from "Surfs Up" which I thought was .... well .... silly of him. Then he gave tha Feelstyle five stars. I have been trying to digest that album this week and I really can't rate it .... maybe it's just me but put it in the "it should be good but isn't" bag .... and dig out yr old De La Soul/Jungle Brothers records instead....
i know 1 person whose judgement i ...
i know 1 person
whose judgement i trust
implicitly
all she says is
yes
or no
reads like a poem ;)...
reads like a poem ;)
gracias niño soldado...
gracias
niño soldado
i like this friend of yours...
i like this friend of yours
they like you too...
they like
you too
Slightly off topic, but talking about ...
Slightly off topic, but talking about NZ music journalism, did anyone see the article about The Scavengers in last week's Sunday Star Times. They had a whole thing about Johnny Volume "aka John Baker". They then proceeded to talk all about how Johnny Volume was the White Stripes tour manager etc. I wonder if John Baker was aware of the fact that he was in The Scavengers. If the journalist had actually bothered to do their research, they would have found out that they were very wrong.
Clearly, in my mind at least, a print ...
Clearly, in my mind at least, a print reveiw of a record release is a form of free publicity/advertising.
The people with the most resoucers garner the most print space.
This is because they are the ones most likely to be buying/purchasing advertising in the publication they wish to be reveiwed in.
Any Media owner/manager is unlikely to annoy/offend their revenue provider with less than complimentory record reveiws. This is particulry applicible in NZ, I believe because the number of "Buyers" of said space is limited.
I hope this dosent appear overtly cynical, however I have run this "theory" for the collective I organize, and the facts are fairly clear, when I want PR in form of a positive reveiw, I simply buy AD space co-ordinated with publication of review. I suppose an arguement can be raised that its a "coincedince", and the reviewers genuinely liked what they heard, on the disscussions Ive had with an extremley prominent Reviewer of years gone by, I stand by this post.
The above paragraph is not an accuusation or a whinge, or "sour grapes", just an observation from an independent publicist on the mechanics of this industry.These publications are running a business, and its a giant leap of faith in my opinion to not keep that fact firmly in the forefront of your mind when perusing any form of publicized critique.
And apparantly the deal with the Majors is even more loaded. Have free records in exchange for this great reveiw of designated artist, pretty much sums it up, some Christchurch people may well the remember the hooha around a certain David Bowie release a few years back...
Do record labels ask for their discs back after Reveiws?
Dragstrip's point on "Student" publications certainaly rings true to me, theirs some obvious cases I can think of, I think on the whole though those publications do a fine job of attempting to inform the general public of the original arts scene. That theirs "cross-pollination" or even cronyisim is unavoidable, and may not nessacarily be a bad thing, if we assume "students" are younger musicians then positive PR is more likely to be needed for Band harmony/self esteem/ establishment of identity/constructing PR kit.I make the assumption that the situation is exactly the same for the Nationwide publications in that Reveiwers can be expected to liase, and have some sort of personal relationship with theAOR people. Feel free to put me in my place if you have an opinion/facts to the contray on this.
Either way a Reveiwer in Craccum or whatever lauding his mates band is far less irksome than other forms of virtual self-congragulation some musicians seem prone too.
(such as posting long-winded piffle on music sites on Sunday evenings).
An aside, if anyone actually thinks anything in this post is vaugely accurate, redo the whole process substituting "Reveiw" with "airspace on NZ music only Radio Shows".
Ah Foal... I love your deep cynicism. ...
Ah Foal... I love your deep cynicism. You are largely correct. I've yet to find a reviewer I always find consistently on the money. I mean music isn't like cars or computers - you can't analyse and rate and compare performance and features. Music is mostly subjective - your personal reaction to it, whether emotional (makes me laugh, cry, vomit...) or physical (makes me dance, sleep, vomit). To probably misquote someone more clever than me who's name I can't remember: "wrting about music is like dancing about architecture".
Sorry... I meant "music is mostly ...
Sorry... I meant "music is mostly SUBJECTIVE". But you knew that.
.. and I meant to hit "reply to post" ...
.. and I meant to hit "reply to post" and not "add comment". But you knew that too.
i felt the same but was argued away ...
i felt
the same
but was argued
away from that stance
I never take any reviews as gospel. I ...
I never take any reviews as gospel. I make up my own mind. Although having said that when I read that Phoenix Foundation Horsepower was the best NZ album since Pluto Red Light Syndorme then I was keen to hear it. Can't even remember who wrote that review and don't really care. Basically, it's interesting to see someone's opinion on something but I'd rather make up my own mind.