Concept Reviews: Classic Or Dud?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

We're talking about reviews posing as fake conversations, parodies, phony blog entries (sorry, Scott Pl.), and the like. Do we like? Do we skip over? Do we have patience? Do we bother? Do tell...

― Naive Teen Idol (Naive Teen Idol), Friday, 14 May 2004 21:13 (twenty-two years ago)

dud dud dud dud dud dud a thousand times dud. Just talk about the album, motherfucker, I don't care how clever you are.

Concepts run explicitly as "feature" pieces could be OK, though.

― dieblucasdie (dieblucasdie), Friday, 14 May 2004 21:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Obviously, it depends just how "gimmicky" the concept is.

― dieblucasdie (dieblucasdie), Friday, 14 May 2004 21:18 (twenty-two years ago)

A fine example of the form, I think.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 14 May 2004 21:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Classic! if it's funny. Dud! if it's not funny.

― scott seward (scott seward), Friday, 14 May 2004 21:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Dud. Very tacky and actually show far less consideration for the album than a standard appraisal. They often take the impossibility of subjectivity in a review to ridiculous limits and are more often than not highly self indulgent and self aggrandizing.

― myke boomnoise (myke boomnoise), Friday, 14 May 2004 21:50 (twenty-two years ago)

S'bit risky ennit. I really liked that Glenn MacDonald Life Without Buildings review that was like a random short story based around the album. A lot of the Pitchforky ones tend to just bug me though. That Jet one was OK but it was all building up the to the last line as much as anything.

― ferg (Ferg), Friday, 14 May 2004 21:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Ha, I read Daddino's review a few days ago and never noticed the gimmick! Nice work.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 14 May 2004 21:57 (twenty-two years ago)

It continues to tickle me how the tyro reviewers of ilm are even more precious about their exquisite wordsmithery than the most loathsomely precious of singersongwriters.

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Friday, 14 May 2004 22:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Meltzer seemed to fill up his A Whore Like the Rest collection with lots of his old humor-oriented concept reviews. Generally speaking, though, I like his more serious reviews (the early '70s Rolling Stone reviews and his Village Voice pieces) better.

― Tim Ellison, Friday, 14 May 2004 22:02 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't know; I can't be arsed reading full stop.

― Keith Watson (kmw), Friday, 14 May 2004 22:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Jerry The Nipper, what do you think of my Old Bombs review:

Old Bombs:Audios (Soft Abuse)

Finally, an album I can be buried with! In fact, it might be the greatest record I’ve heard this year. Here are some highlights: Scratch - Pong! - Wobble - Crinch - Wiffle - Beep - Blurt - Wuhwuhwuh - Cring - Tang! - Fwaa - Scritch - Ratatat - Ding - Worf - Ya ya - Ping! - Da twang - Tsing - Ssssss - Nick nick - Bloop - Skritcha kring - Wawa - Gnee - Sic sic twoop - Nu nu - Skritcha kring - Pap pap wawg - Swha - Booble - Dund dun d aaaah! - High twah - Mmvv - Tinkle pip - Boof! - Fwtt - Crackle - Mmmm - Ticktick - Fworsh - Buume - Skiwa kiwa - Boom la boom la - Scratch - Rrrawm - Vvrz - Bink - Shreee - Beepawop - Beepawop - Beepa tink wawa - Poop wah! - Poop wah! - Tink tink a la y lay - Bwomp - Shweee - Vwomwomwom - Heeheehee - Vroomlayninnateetee - Zeeoomph - Skrawwcheezmff - Rum a tum bleep! - Bop bopa zzz freeee! - Beep - Puh puh neh - Nehno - Pihwuhplhwuh - Cruntch - Pumpa pumpa bwvvr! - Zoooo... - Pyow - Scrahhhhshreee - Tik ka chunchun - Ninniinnin - Tong! - Crash - Wibble - Zinshree - Wawawa - Buzz - Tick tack - Twah - Breep! - Perchucka - Scritch - Flappa scritch - Flappa pum - Chee chee warb! - Plahtworch! - Dingtweenernwhee - Hey! buzz buzz - Twizz.

― scott seward (scott seward), Friday, 14 May 2004 22:14 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm publishing an illustrated comicbook "review" of Madvillainy on Wednesday, so I'll have to side with the pros. But now that I think about it, poor concept reviews tend to grate more than a normal old poorly written reviews because you get the sense that the writer has spent energy in the wrong areas and is just showing off... Kind of like my comicbook "review" of Madvillainy come to think of it.

― Pete Scholtes, Friday, 14 May 2004 22:15 (twenty-two years ago)

('Groan, where the train will divide in two...') < /coded message to JtN in lieu of scott's review>

― cozen (Cozen), Friday, 14 May 2004 22:20 (twenty-two years ago)

"Concept reviews" might be better if they're seen as "concept writing" that happens to be a review rather than a review that is tying itself to a concept.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Friday, 14 May 2004 22:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Not as risky when the album's really bad, because the reviewer's more justified in stealing the spotlight from it...

― wetmink (wetmink), Friday, 14 May 2004 22:29 (twenty-two years ago)

I like to have my cake and eat it too, I'm afraid. That Old Bombs review is silly, BUT it's also a pitch-perfect evocation of the album.

― scott seward (scott seward), Friday, 14 May 2004 22:30 (twenty-two years ago)

That Pitchfork "Daft Club" review was brilliant.

― Gear! (Gear!), Friday, 14 May 2004 22:34 (twenty-two years ago)

A DUD A DUD A MOTHERFUCKING DUD!!!

This is why rock critics are morons. Because they waste every sentence they write by trying to sound smart and funny. BUT THEY'RE NOT!!

― Mr. Snrub, Friday, 14 May 2004 22:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Mr Snrub - "A DUD A DUD" B+

Believes in reincarnation, wishes the pope had a bigger dick.

― Gear! (Gear!), Friday, 14 May 2004 22:40 (twenty-two years ago)

This is why rock critics are morons. Because they waste every sentence they write by trying to sound smart and funny. BUT THEY'RE NOT!!

Vh1 Wants Your Friend/Relative that CAN'T SING But "THINKS" They Can

― stockholm cindy (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 14 May 2004 22:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't see how a concept review is per se any more classic or dud than any other device that a writer might use to make a point. Some concept reviews are great, some are awful, most are somewhere in the middle.

As for "This is why rock critics are morons," why shouldn't a rock critic try to make their reviews smart and funny and interesting? Obviously concept reviews are just one tool that a writer might use, but it seems perfectly fair to me for a rock critic to try to be smart and funny. They're professional writers, shouldn't that be what they aspire to?

― Scott CE (Scott CE), Friday, 14 May 2004 22:45 (twenty-two years ago)

If the critic has proven to me through prior reviews that they can write seriously about what they are supposed to be reviewing, then I don't mind them choosing a concept review format every once in a blue moon. Apart from that, though, usually dud. I want a review to tell me something (anything) reasonably substantive about the work, not the reviewer kissing mirrors over his/her keyboard.

― Joe (Joe), Friday, 14 May 2004 23:00 (twenty-two years ago)

It's like, for fuck's sake beeeyotch, just tell me if Elephant or Daft Club any good or not. I don't care about your stupid pretentious bullshit.

I blame Lester Bangs.

― Mr. Snrub, Saturday, 15 May 2004 00:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Love the Old Bombs review, Scott!
Unfortunately, you only get one kick at the can with these. That's probably why they're duds most of the time ... once somebody comes up with a rare good idea, everyone else is cut off from using it because it's an obvious ripoff and/or the joke isn't funny anymore. So they have to think up something new, which is difficult.

― Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Saturday, 15 May 2004 00:17 (twenty-two years ago)

concept reviews are probably the only reviews remotely worth reading and/or writing.

but, i realize that probably most of you who choose to write for a "living" or whatever probably are unable as a matter of journalistic pose to not go there, and so i respect that. you do what you have to do. revel in it.

and frankly, i'm biased because concept reviews are probably 85% of what i write. guilty as charged. MR. DUD. (opening for mr. big someday?) ((when there's only maybe one member left... like the roadie or something.)) ((("you wish you toad!")))

seriously tho, why else would i bother to write about it? entertainment is the name of the game. not science. that's my angle. i seriously doubt there's anything remotely poignant that's gonna pop out of my ass. i leave the grand spectres of theoretical conjecture to the pros, and you know who i'm talking about. i'm not naming names because well, lil'birdies lurk and post here.

cheers,
m.

― msp, Saturday, 15 May 2004 00:36 (twenty-two years ago)

What about if it's a "concept musician" who has been written about the exact same way almost every time out since most crits think "hey, he has a gimmick/kooky history/amusing mental disorder" and beat that shit into the ground? What if it's not even an album you're reviewing, but a career, which requires a bit more finesse? I'd rather read a comic about MF Doom than yet another person just writing a "here is how Doom is much like his Marvel Comics namesake" piece, which was a good idea three years ago (word to Scholtes) and has since gotten old.

Yeah, I did a gimmick review of Madvillain, too. But I snuck a great Slick Rick joke in there so FUCK YOU.

― Nate in ST.P (natedetritus), Saturday, 15 May 2004 00:39 (twenty-two years ago)

oh shit, I mean "What if it's about" etc. etc.; my head not work good

― Nate in ST.P (natedetritus), Saturday, 15 May 2004 00:39 (twenty-two years ago)

MPS ARE YOU TLAKING ABUOT MATSO AND EDY DONT TALK SMAK THEYR KEWL

― CHIRPY (Gear!), Saturday, 15 May 2004 00:40 (twenty-two years ago)

[insert 'matso balls' joke here]

― Nate in ST.P (natedetritus), Saturday, 15 May 2004 00:43 (twenty-two years ago)

gawd i hate the word "good"

― stockholm cindy (Jody Beth Rosen), Saturday, 15 May 2004 00:47 (twenty-two years ago)

correction: my head not work well

― Nate in ST.P (natedetritus), Saturday, 15 May 2004 01:09 (twenty-two years ago)

no, no, that was for snrub, sorry

― stockholm cindy (Jody Beth Rosen), Saturday, 15 May 2004 01:11 (twenty-two years ago)

hee hee

― Nate in ST.P (natedetritus), Saturday, 15 May 2004 01:14 (twenty-two years ago)

So to sum up:

Reviewers must write what i want otherwise i'll hold my breath and turn blue. If they agree with whatever preconceived notions I already have then they are great and can be allowed to write whatever concepts they want.

However should the reviewer be audacious enough to write something that is "difficult" (because it really hurts to think and use my brain) then they are obviously bad writers and morons.

― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Saturday, 15 May 2004 01:17 (twenty-two years ago)

As you can substitute 'musicians' for 'reviewers' throughout, clearly you have stumbled across a universal truth!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 15 May 2004 01:19 (twenty-two years ago)

It's such a selfish attitude -- I don't have time to read this shit and obviously critics should sit around all day thinking about what I have time for and what I consider "good" and "bad" and how to cater to my needs. Umm... just go to a listening station or get the clips from Amazon, dude.

― stockholm cindy (Jody Beth Rosen), Saturday, 15 May 2004 01:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Cuz really you don't want to read ANY review, you only want some abstract thumbs-up/thumbs-down that disregards that the person writing the review has a whole lifetime's worth of context for what they find good and bad.

― stockholm cindy (Jody Beth Rosen), Saturday, 15 May 2004 01:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Quite correct. Now if everyone can go read my reviews please. (None of them are concepts, though, I admit. I guess the concept is "Ned reviews things.")

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 15 May 2004 01:29 (twenty-two years ago)

my admiration for j. the nipper grows by leaps and bounds.

― michael bott, Saturday, 15 May 2004 01:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I like the concept of "ned reviews things", ned.

And I feel the same about JtheN, he rocks I Love Books every day and in every way.

― scott seward (scott seward), Saturday, 15 May 2004 02:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Sometimes it works well, sometimes it doesn't. When it does, I tend to enjoy the review 10X more than I would otherwise. When it doesn't, I'd rather not read it at all. But I really don't get people who would say something like All Concept Reviews Are Always Bad Always--it's such an unnecessary limit to put on the form.

― The Good Dr. Bill (Andrew Unterberger), Saturday, 15 May 2004 02:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Dud, Dud, Dud and fuckin' Dud.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Saturday, 15 May 2004 02:55 (twenty-two years ago)

(haha, no worries, matthew: my one stunt review is probably the least favorite one of mine I've ever done!)

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Saturday, 15 May 2004 03:45 (twenty-two years ago)

what if the concept is "cartoonish unmitigated bile," Alex?

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Saturday, 15 May 2004 03:52 (twenty-two years ago)

That's not a concept, Matos, but rather a raison d'etre.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Saturday, 15 May 2004 03:53 (twenty-two years ago)

the nipper appreciates s. reynolds, but unlike some of his other acolytes doesn't suffer from such a pronounced and untoward anxiety of influence that he slobbers all over the master's dick.

― michael bott, Saturday, 15 May 2004 04:32 (twenty-two years ago)

to pull off the concept approach, you need writing skills beyond the rock-crit rudiments. The pressure is ON in terms of holding readers' attention once you've jettisoned the expected tropes like summary, thumbs up/down judgement, etc. In my experience (as a reader), most critics can't actually pull this off, but their failed efforts often make for more revealing insights than a "straight" approach.
Recently I read an issue of Rolling Stone for the first time in about five years and the review section read like a PARODY of play-it-safe fence-sitting pseudo criticism. No surprise there, but where would you find fictional/experimental concept-reviews these days?

― lovebug starski, Saturday, 15 May 2004 10:16 (twenty-two years ago)

...I appreciate the effort even when the results are uneven or even unreadable. At least the concept-mongers are TRYING to do something interesting. So, classic.

― lovebug starski, Saturday, 15 May 2004 10:23 (twenty-two years ago)

dud, except when done
by me or a friend of mine
then it's all classique

― An Okay Example (Begs2Differ), Saturday, 15 May 2004 12:26 (twenty-two years ago)

A.OK OTM. Starski, what are the "rock crit rudiments?"

― Scott CE (Scott CE), Saturday, 15 May 2004 15:18 (twenty-two years ago)

rock crit rudiments: musical knowledge, working familiarity w/journalism 101 basics. I'm one of those "cultural conservatives who think you have to learn to play in trad modes before you can "blow free" effectively.

― lovebug starski, Saturday, 15 May 2004 15:47 (twenty-two years ago)

I like the concept of "ned reviews things", ned.

Woo!

And I feel the same about JtheN, he rocks I Love Books every day and in every way.

Man, now you're making me feel guilty about not going there.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 15 May 2004 15:48 (twenty-two years ago)

JOIN US.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Saturday, 15 May 2004 15:53 (twenty-two years ago)

I've done it. Ten points to whoever can find my AMG concept review, and my profound apologies.

― Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Saturday, 15 May 2004 15:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Sean Carruthers Reviews the Almanac?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 15 May 2004 16:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Why is "Almanac" still not on AMG?

― Casuistry (Chris P), Saturday, 15 May 2004 16:49 (twenty-two years ago)

Here's the thing about concept reviews: I almost always feel like they're done not because it reveals something about the record, but because the writer's bored. Which is fine, I suppose, but it makes me less interested in reading the thing. So, generally, dud.

As a side thought, since you mostly see these in online 'zines and the like, I wonder if the Concept Review's more seasoned-but-still-immature uncle is the proverbial "Introductory Paragraph That Has Little-To-Nothing To Do With Whe Record Itself". Even fantastic writers are periodically guilty of these.

And, for what it's worth, Scott, I actually thought yours was interesting reading...

― Naive Teen Idol (Naive Teen Idol), Saturday, 15 May 2004 18:13 (twenty-two years ago)

I hate the way people think about the world.

― cozen (Cozen), Saturday, 15 May 2004 18:36 (twenty-two years ago)

meaning?

― Naive Teen Idol (Naive Teen Idol), Saturday, 15 May 2004 18:46 (twenty-two years ago)

naive teen is OTM. please ignore my previous comments, I don't know what I was trying to say.

― lovebug starski, Saturday, 15 May 2004 19:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Dud dud dud! I vastly prefer straightforward criticism. "Concept reviews" just seem like a desperate cry for help from writers who are slumming in criticism and want to write fiction instead.

― Matthew Perpetua (Matthew Perpetua), Saturday, 15 May 2004 21:46 (twenty-two years ago)

"While Matthew Perpetua is the acknowledged master of MP3 bloggitude, his recent forays into meta-criticism leave, like button-style mushrooms, much to be desired. Gone is the unadulterated love for flashy trashy pop and electro-nuggets; gone is the temptation to just spend all day clicking and downloading. What remains is just a plea for normalcy, for order, for 'straightforward'-ness in a world that is so much more complex than that. I wish he'd go back to the way he was...but I am afraid that he, like Radiohead and James Joyce and Dante before him, has gone off the rails like a crazy train. B minus."

vs.

Fluxblog OTM

― Begs2Differ (Begs2Differ), Sunday, 16 May 2004 00:09 (twenty-two years ago)

"Concept reviews" just seem like a desperate cry for help from writers who are slumming in criticism and want to write fiction instead.

maybe. who knows?

i still think this totally ignores the wide range of reasons why someone reviews records.

sure, allmusic.com and the trouser press guide are probably best as fairly straight forward dissections. same with most consumer trade rags. if consumer reports compared a toyota to a pizza, we'd be pissed off.

but in the wide realm of music writing, which can work on a cd review level, isn't anything truly game?

metzger and bangs were referred to above and i don't get it. that was their voice. that's how they chose to communicate. where's the fuckin concept? how is this slumming?

i joke that i'm a rock poet, not critic. that's often my device. it's license to put on the poet hat and fuck journalistic trap if i need to.

am i slumming it to be inspired by music?

is a fiction writer slumming it to write nonfiction about music?

classic or dud... it all depends. you people throw words like "immature" around like teenagers. watch how you toss that.
m.

― msp, Sunday, 16 May 2004 02:31 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't see many of these around anyway, since the dull-ish consumer guide approach is the one that's preferred by most editors (and looking at the replies here I'm guessing most of the audience go for it => 'we get the press we deserve' sounds right!).

I'd love to read a mag that is a mix of the straightforward and concepts, and the 'tied to their lives' type reviews too.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Sunday, 16 May 2004 11:35 (twenty-two years ago)

"The essence of rock & roll is the three minute single...everything else is just navel-gazing." : "Record reviews should just say whether the record is worth buying or not...everything else is just navel-gazing" :: rock music : rock criticism

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Sunday, 16 May 2004 11:50 (twenty-two years ago)

That review that Ned linked to is classic.

― daavid (daavid), Monday, 17 May 2004 03:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Does that Morely review of Air's "10000KHZhz" in Uncut some time ago that expressed everything in percentages count?!?!?!?!

― Old Fart!!! (oldfart_sd), Monday, 17 May 2004 14:41 (twenty-two years ago)

When a concept review is good I tend to forget its a concept review.

Therefore, blatant concept reviews = dud.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Monday, 17 May 2004 14:46 (twenty-two years ago)

For instance Jess's letter to Kelis came off more like a letter to Kelis that just happened to tell me what he thought of the album than a critic trying to write a "concept review" in the form of a letter to Kelis.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Monday, 17 May 2004 14:47 (twenty-two years ago)

ok, I realize my first post was basically a roundabout way of saying "if it works, good, if it doesn't, bad" but it's just like "experimental" music where if its effective I don't really think of it being experimental.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Monday, 17 May 2004 14:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Does Jess's Kelis article work because it's not actually attempting to be a review of Tasty? Or maybe does it work because the open-letter format allows Jess to make all the same points he'd make in a more conventional style but ALSO add a touch of intimacy?

Most OTM on this thread: Casuistry and JBR.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 17 May 2004 16:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Hopefully form redeems content here...
http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/pscholtes/2004/05/19#a831

― Pete Scholtes, Wednesday, 19 May 2004 17:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Aaaaaand there's this.

― Nate in ST.P (natedetritus), Thursday, 20 May 2004 00:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Nate, that's hilarious! I could actually enjoy reading more reviews written in that language... Delivery is so key.

― Pete Scholtes, Thursday, 20 May 2004 04:20 (twenty-two years ago)

some of my fav. concept reviews aren't that funny at all, but instead are better at capturing difft. sorts of subtle emotional nuance and pulling off the sap.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 20 May 2004 13:24 (twenty-two years ago)

oh and pete and nate i heart both yr. pieces even tho i'm no fan of the album itself rilly.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 20 May 2004 13:26 (twenty-two years ago)

also dq's k-brill yes piece was a concept review, no? not to mention ep's em review for pfork!

i mean most reviews i remember are a little concepty in difft. ways i think, tho -- even if they stay within the general confines of the review form addressed to the reade as opposed to epistulatory, etc.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 20 May 2004 13:31 (twenty-two years ago)

also potentially classic -- reviews which lie through their teeth about everything except the quality of the album itself.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 20 May 2004 13:31 (twenty-two years ago)

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