Who's Listening Anyway?

Anne's Approach

Jumping into Kris Vire's article, "Critical Condition" from TimeOut feels like getting up to speed in a chat room -- trying to figure out each persona's stance on the topic at-hand. If you don't know the writer/critic/blogger from personal experience, it may be hard to fully comprehend their stance on each question posed by Vire, the moderator of sorts.

Amongst the banter by the cast of characters, one proclaimed Blogger and music critic stands out -- Anne Holub, editor of Gapers Block.com's music blog "Transmission". Her comments in regards to the conversation of having an "ongoing relationship" with a critic may ring true to the reader. In her opinion, she finds that finding a critic that "gels with your beliefs" or can "convince you of thinking otherwise" is something that she deems trustworthy in a critic, and something she herself can find compelling about a critic, or writer of any sort. This is what brings the readers back wanting more from a selected writer.

Finding a critic (blogger in this case) in today's blogosphere that seems worthy of your time can be a daunting task. Anyone can do it, but it's like finding a contact lens in a haystack. It can be done, but one may just rely on the top results.

A usual occurrence

(Google search): music critic, good. (Search)

(Result): About 6,540,000 results (0.19 seconds)

(click): "I'm feeling lucky". 

Think of how much confusion there is about the whole "critic" vs. "reviewer" debate and try to find a critic who turns out to be a reviewer and vice versa. And, add to that the whole "amateur" and "professional" aspect of worthiness and you can find yourself glomming onto a blogger, or blog that feels like they gel with your personal taste. You follow that person, and you stick with them and give them a chance. This must be similiar in the way a reader may look for a critic on the newstands; pick a magazine, or newspaper and search for the first article to come up. Right?

Holub relates the finding a perspective of a critic that you take a likin' to, similar to arguing your point with "good friends" who you may or may not agree or disagree with. The underlying communication is their own perspective and opinion and that's what makes it entertaining and "fun", and gives you the opportunity to give your side of the story.  That debate in your head with the critic can be what hooks you.

Holub seems to understand the underlying message of the overall topic in this forum; writing for the masses has grown with the advent of the web, and criticizing the content that spews across the interweb through "casual conversation" found on these sites can turn "serious journalism" into a dying craft.


This is what makes any form of art or expression an ongoing form that won't die -- the acknowledgement that the form has been tainted by amateurism, and that the improvements lie in the eyes and minds of those who want to continue to keep it alive with class and integrity. Whether it's working for the man and making a good living doing it, or killing your wrists for a blog -- the devotion to the art form of writing, and writing as a critic is what really matters.

Holub may be a hack, a wonderful music critic (or reviewer). One can't tell by this article alone how she writes as a blogger for Gapers Block. But, her words ring true in the song and dance of this discussion.

SOURCES CITED:

http://chicago.timeout.com/articles/features/25801/critical-condition/2.html

The Good and the Bad: Two critics review Arcade Fire's new "The Suburbs" CD

In this first lesson/blog of selecting two reviews that are one being an example of a "good" review and the other selected as a "bad" review, and learning more about the process and terms of writing critically or researching "critics".

I decided to choose two separate reviews of the latest release by The Arcade Fire, "The Suburbs" (Merge, 2010) from two well-known online music publications and try to distinguish what works, and what is lacking for me (I must say I am biased, being a fan of the Canadian Alternative rock band). The two sources are online articles by Rob Sheffield of Rolling Stone, and the David Marchese of Spin Magazine (each, by the way, are aptly named the title of the album and artist). 

Now I must say, what I'm looking for in terms of "good" and "bad" reviewing skills by each of these writers is not just a juicy, wet-my-lips kind of write-up -- making me want to either go out and download this from iTunes and spend the money (because that's what I do -- in my inkling of support for the bands that I enjoy in this time of deficit with the economy and how the "interweb" has made it SO easy to snagg some tunes with your broadband device of choice in the matter of seconds) -- but I am looking for an article in which the author may add some interest, fun (yes, I said fun -- I do enjoy the rants and like a little piss 'n vinegar to a review), and incite to what they -- as a critic -- are feeling and hearing from the album as a whole.

Most of the time,  I can look at an article and read between the lines that this reviewer is the type of guy/gal who only listens to the "hits" on an album and goes on and on about the latest release of "Band X's" newest song that has already over-saturated the "market" by getting played over and over again on the local radio stations. When the reviewer adds special attention to "song X", that instantly puts a bad taste in my mouth. I have found, through the years, that this is the song that one will least like on the album (if said "one" listens to the whole album more than five times), and we can skip that part and let me hear more about the album as a whole -- give me something I can chew on about those "other" songs tucked away past the virtual Side-B midway point of the CD (I think it still rings true that labels kinda "weigh" the songs on albums/records/CD's nowadays -- remember tapes?). I enjoy a review that can relate something that they have found in a particular song on an album (or many songs for that matter) that shows the artist's depth and growth as an artist.

So, getting into these two reviews!
Most reviews these days seem to be too short. While this may be the sign 'o the times or the standard of quick Album/CD reviews,  the content of the online, short form review should keep you coming back for more. Otherwise, the reader loses interest, and may not take to the words that have been commissioned by their employer. In the least, a review should attempt to describe what the artist has put together on a latest release. At least devote a little time in describing whether

This is the case of Sheffield's review in the Rolling Stone article. For the first two paragraphs, Sheffield references AF's previous releases -- which is setting the basis for his article, I understand this -- but he only really reviews the latest songs on the latest album in the second to last paragraph and doesn't hint to certain aspects of this album that should be mentioned (e.g. this is a 16 song concept album). One paragraph!? Simply, that is a bad review in my book. It just seems that the author has just gone through the motions and didn't really put much effort into the article. Granted, most Arcade Fire fans understand what to expect from their music - their anti-establishment, religious overtones, and heavy-hearted sob stories, but c'mon!

In the case of the "good" review in this instance, the article by Marchese delves deeper into the review and really gets to the root of the album, describing beautifully in his own words what he is taking from the album.  I really get a sense of the theme that AF is trying to portray in their latest release, and his review intrigues me to read the whole article. This is what is primarily why I deem this article praise-worthy. Marchese gives the reader the good and bad, describes what the artist is trying to accomplish on the album, notes the influences in what he hears and what he thinks the artist is pulling from, and tells it in storied fashion.

The difference between these two reviews is like hot and cold.

SOURCES CITED:

Sheffield, Rob.  "Arcade Fire: The Suburbs", RollingStone.com, August 3, 2010, http://www.rollingstone.com/music/reviews/album/17385/182695


Marchese, David.  "Arcade Fire: The Suburbs: In a hopeless, heartless world, rock's righteous collective rides in to save our souls (again!),  Spinmag.com, August 11, 2010,


http://spinmag.com/reviews/arcade-fire-suburbs-merge