First music writing - please critique

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

OK, if I did the HTML right (probably not), this is my first piece of music writing ever. Please critique. The "in the present" typo is not mine. If the link doesn't work, the review is at http://www.leftoffthedial.com/Carlsonics_live.htm.
Thanks!

― Nick A., Monday, 28 October 2002 15:02 (twenty-three years ago)

Link doesn't work Nick.

Did you know that I've performed with the Carlsonics???

― Yancey (ystrickler), Monday, 28 October 2002 15:43 (twenty-three years ago)

Uh, shit, it works for me. Anyways, it's at www.leftoffthedial.com, and it's the Carlsonics live review.

― Nick A., Monday, 28 October 2002 15:47 (twenty-three years ago)

My thoughts, Nick: I don't care how you feel about MTV/Strokes/Hives/Stripes, etc. It would have been more interesting if you had broken down why you think the EPs fail and the live show succeeds. I got a hint of why you thought that by the way you stressed their energy on stage (and rightfully so), but other than saying that the EP sounded like the Hives, you didn't discuss the differences. I know that it's a live review, but you spent a fair amount of time talking about that strata without fully explaining it, instead talking about the Strokes etc., in a very dull context.

A style issue: you refer to a member simply as "the guitarist," yet you call the singer Aaron. Try to get all of the bandmembers' names, or just go with calling them by their instrument (The Carlsonics' guitarist is John Passmore, by the way).

Also: Crowds for shows are almost always lame, but chastizing crowds for being pretty scenesters who won't dance is lamer. Who cares what Johnny TightPants and Judy HugeTits did at the show? Tell me about the band.

Sorry for being so critical. There are some very good bits on there (that all specifically deal with the Carlsonics) that are surrounded by sections that don't do the piece justice (the peripheral shit).

― Yancey (ystrickler), Monday, 28 October 2002 16:05 (twenty-three years ago)

What Yancey said, except:

Nick, are you sure the Carlsonics guitarist isn't YOU?

― charlie va (charlie va), Monday, 28 October 2002 16:46 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh yeah and I know I owe you an email

― charlie va (charlie va), Monday, 28 October 2002 16:48 (twenty-three years ago)

Weird...that guitarist doesn't really look like me live, but you're right, in the pic he does look like me when I wear glasses. What's funny is that the other guitarist, who you can't really see in that pic, reminded me of you, Charlie (and I said so to Sarah). He doesn't really look that much like you, but just in the way he acted or something.
Thanks for the criticisms, though being an egotistical bastard I simply can't accept some of them (just kidding). I will say that I wrote this about a week ago and I'm already regretting the cliched Hives/Vines/Strokes bullshit, it's simply a poor comparison. I guess I just wanted to use that last bit about how they balance different aspects of successful rock bands without overindulging in any area, but I probably should have left the names out of it, as they weren't really necessary. I probably should have left band member names out too. I usually don't like it when reviewers do that, as it implies intimacy, which distracts from their points. And as you noted, the dig at the audience was completely unnecessary. However, I kind of like the "peripheral shit," as you put it, because a lot of times music reviews end up like Mad Libs, with just different musical adjectives plugged in ("dynamic!" "punishing!" "soulful!"), so I prefer when reviewers add these little digressions that give you an idea of their mood, attitudes, whatever. I guess this is more writing for me than writing for the audience, though - being self-indulgent. The other thing that bothers me now are the transitions between the points, they seem kind of choppy at times. But I'm out of practice with wurds from no college.
Anyways, thanks for your honest criticisms, I'm not trying to be defensive, just giving my side of what I was attempting to do, even if it wasn't entirely successful. I'm fairly proud of it overall, mainly for the fact that I actually did it, since I haven't written anything at all for at least a year and a half. Hoorah for me.

― Nick A., Monday, 28 October 2002 17:12 (twenty-three years ago)

I kind of like the "peripheral shit," as you put it, because a lot of times music reviews end up like Mad Libs, with just different musical adjectives plugged in ("dynamic!" "punishing!" "soulful!"), so I prefer when reviewers add these little digressions that give you an idea of their mood, attitudes, whatever.

I like peripheral shit too -- but only when it's something unusual. What you described as happening at this show I see as happening everywhere, all of the time. It would be like ending a review with, "Well, my clothes reeked of smoke because those skinny cunts wouldn't stop lighting up but it was fun anyway." That's not interesting or unique. Not that something needs to be unique by definition, but to ask the reader to turn their focus away from the music or performance it should be something succinct and eye-catching.

I seem to be an anomoly on ILM though. I don't like personal shit in reviews. I think it's lazy and rarely turns out well. I look for the Socratic method, more than anything. Which would make me a rockist, I guess. Your piece straddles a voice right between the Socratic and the personal. I'm pushing you to move towards the former, while most here will disagree. Just a way of saying who gives a shit what I think anyway. Except that you asked.

― Yancey (ystrickler), Monday, 28 October 2002 17:49 (twenty-three years ago)

You'll have your chance to call me out as a complete hypocrite later this week. I'm doing a daily CMJ diary at Neumu starting on Thursday. I'm sure it will be filled with boring peripheral shit.

― Yancey (ystrickler), Monday, 28 October 2002 17:53 (twenty-three years ago)

How do you mean "the Socratic method" Yancey? Not meant to be snide this, but I can't work out what you're onto there.

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 28 October 2002 18:01 (twenty-three years ago)

I give a shit what you think!

Your point in the first paragraph is a good one, and I'll take that into consideration in the future. I also kind of agree with you in that personal shit rarely turns out well. A lot of times, it's really embarassing, so it's probably pretty dangerous for me to attempt, since my writing experience is minimal. I guess my feeling is that since a review is basically advice from a complete stranger, you should give some evidence of your personality/tastes, so the reader can have some idea of whether they're likely to agree with you or not.

― Nick A., Monday, 28 October 2002 18:04 (twenty-three years ago)

How do you mean "the Socratic method" Yancey? Not meant to be snide this, but I can't work out what you're onto there.

The Socratic Method isn't the term that I use. It's actually Ira Robbins' term for a certain brand of writing. This typically entails a detached critical voice that presents subjective opinions as objective. An avoidance of using the "I" in record reviews or feature pieces. It's writing about music as journalism, essentially. Like Nitsuh pointed out in the NY Times DFA piece, Strauss writes a DFA profile as news, not as an entertainment article. Something along those lines. Is that any clearer?

― Yancey (ystrickler), Monday, 28 October 2002 18:17 (twenty-three years ago)

Probably interesting to only me: I pretty much only write in that detached voice. All of my pieces are that way. But I've been working on a Black Dice review for Neumu for over a month now that, for it to work, cannot be written that way. As a result, I've really struggled with it. I feel like I'm opening up too much. Too much of me is coming out in a piece that shouldn't be about me. Many other writers would be fine with that sort of thing, but, because of Ira's tutelage and my day job doing straight journalism (albeit a poor man's version), I'm convinced that it's horrible and I'm almost ready to give up on it. That just shows how uncomfortable I am with that style. That style will work for other writers, but only if their personal missives are interesting as standalone bits. This is my take anyway.

― Yancey (ystrickler), Monday, 28 October 2002 18:24 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh right OK that clears it up! I think of it as Q-style cause Q introduced it to the UK music press, but I know what you're talking about. The classicist in me was a bit baffled, was all!

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 28 October 2002 18:26 (twenty-three years ago)

OK, but I'm still confused...what would be the point of writing in this style? Most music journalism is personal opinion, but the way you describe the Socratic Method, it sounds like an attempt to disguise opinion as fact, unless of course, the piece is pure fact, which would be boring. So am I misunderstanding?

― Nick A., Monday, 28 October 2002 18:37 (twenty-three years ago)

I think there are numerous examples of where personal stuff DOES work, all over Freaky Trigger, and the fact that there's more danger, supposedly, of embarassment shouldn't really be a deterrent.

― Ronan (Ronan), Monday, 28 October 2002 18:41 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm kind of wary of using FT as an example because while I like a lot of the personalised writing on it I don't think any of it would change somebody's mind about personal writing in general.

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 28 October 2002 18:43 (twenty-three years ago)

well amy philips to thread really!

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 28 October 2002 18:45 (twenty-three years ago)

No, you're not misunderstanding. It's just being forceful with opinions, the same way people are here (witness Darnielle's rant against people refuting arguments with, "Well that's just your opinion, man."). It's writing in a strong voice. It's following the AP style guide. It's structuring the piece so that the writer gets the final say. I dunno, it's just standard writing. Here's a good, recent example from Ira:

http://www.salon.com/ent/music/review/2002/04/30/costello/index.html

― Yancey (ystrickler), Monday, 28 October 2002 18:45 (twenty-three years ago)

I know that there are plenty of examples of great pieces of writing in a personal style. I gladly acknowledge that. My point is just that (on a broad level) I prefer the detached voice. I'm just wary and cynical about record reviews becoming diary entries. The people who best exemplify this writing style -- Bangs, Meltzer and Powers, among many -- were all good at it. Writers have been rightly inspired by that trio, among many others, and are imitating it (I have too, but in different ways) with some boring results.

And yeah, Amy Philips. What's weird: She does her coy Voice pieces (which I'm 50-50 on), and then she writes straight reviews for CMJ. And I actually prefer her Voice stuff. Anyway...

― Yancey (ystrickler), Monday, 28 October 2002 18:51 (twenty-three years ago)

Tom, do you mean because FT doesn't do buyers guide type reviews ever?

― Ronan (Ronan), Monday, 28 October 2002 18:52 (twenty-three years ago)

I think I like the personal voice, not because it can give great personal insights into writers I don't care about, but because it isn't a "strong voice" - I like my voices weaker, more open-to-question and porous. I like my criticism suffused with ambiguities and doubts!

(This is why stuff I write gets misinterpreted as slag-offs on fan message boards so often too!)

Ronan - actually FT has plenty of stuff which reads exactly like that Ira Robbins. But FT as a zine is mostly written by people who like the personal voice for people who like it - I don't think there's anything mind-changing.

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 28 October 2002 18:55 (twenty-three years ago)

Crowds for shows are almost always lame, but chastizing crowds for being pretty scenesters who won't dance is lamer. Who cares what Johnny TightPants and Judy HugeTits did at the show? Tell me about the band.

Since when is the crowd at a live show 'peripheral shit'? Are you just supposed to ignore them? Isn't the act of going out social in and of itself - and isn't that the great strength of the live experience; the interaction between music/'performer'/the collective?

I can think of too many dance parties where it would be inconceivable to understand or talk about without considering the PEOPLE that brought the event to life!

― Michael Dieter, Tuesday, 29 October 2002 05:17 (twenty-three years ago)

Since when is the crowd at a live show 'peripheral shit'?

Well, it's an indie rock show... crowds at those sorts of shows nearly always act in the manner Nick describes. It may not be peripheral, but his description of the crowd at the show is hardly surprising and thus not really necessary.

― charlie va (charlie va), Tuesday, 29 October 2002 05:46 (twenty-three years ago)

I can think of a Arab Strap concert just last week where the (mostly white male) crowd response of whooping and cheering on Aidan's tales of misogyny, alcoholism and one-night stands significantly tainted my 'appreciation' of the show...

In any case, the crowds at 'indie rock' events have been radically varied in my experience - why make so many 'rock crit' rules if there's something to talk about that you might find interesting or different?

― Michael Dieter, Tuesday, 29 October 2002 06:03 (twenty-three years ago)

Point taken about it being unsurprising in the actual review tho...

― Michael Dieter, Tuesday, 29 October 2002 06:07 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.