Return of the stopgap post
So posts have been a bit intermittent lately, I’ve been writing quite a bit and also keeping my other blog going as best I can. So for now check out these two RA reviews, of a momentous release here and another worthwhile one here.
Oh and I suddenly feel the need to point out that almost all my RA reviews are positive or above 3/5 marks because the way reviewing for RA works is that I say “can I do this one” and get sent a file or piece of vinyl, and then if I think it is good I review it. If I don’t like it, I don’t bother reviewing it generally. I don’t see any point in making the effort just to slate something, in fact I try as much as possible not to write negatively because any music writer with half a brain can give a record a thorough gutting.
The language of invective is stronger than the language of praise (was it Orwell who said that, certainly somebody like that, I remember a lecturer quoting it) and it’s too easy to use that to make yourself seem more skilled. Anyway, just in case any of you thought I was doling out 3 or 4 out of 5 to every single record I get sent. In any case, what greater criticism of the other ones than silence?
Davor Ostojic wrote:
greater criticism than silence ? judging by your exquisite writing there must be a more productive approach you can take to criticism than mere silence. perhaps saying something might not mean that the quality of music surpasses your vocabulary or literary skills ? if it does not, which i strongly believe is the case, then you should write your thought, even as a music non musicologist-listener/observer, like you do now, if you can spare the time.
affirmative texts are good, but criticism goes beyond categories of good and bad, and shows you have the knowledge and the mental tools to, well, criticize. saying nothing, shows nothing.
Posted 24 Sep 2007 at 5:30 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
Some music, especially some techno, inspires nothing. I flick through countless things daily that don’t invoke any thought in me. Sometimes a record is of no more value to me than something I click on on Beatport or Juno, I instantly decide I’m not interested in it. I think plenty of writers or DJs or whatever are the same.
Is that saying something about themselves or the music? Perhaps a little of both, but either way, I don’t feel the need to prove to anyone I can criticise a record as I try and express strong positive opinions and leave the opposite side implied by omission.
But I’m not even good at that, I’m sure there are people reading this laughing their heads off at the idea that I never criticise records.
The reason I try not to is because it comes so easily to me that I know it is worthless!
Posted 24 Sep 2007 at 6:45 pm ¶
tom/pipecock wrote:
i agree, it is so difficult to criticise every single bad techno record as almost all of them are bad in the exact same manner. there are some that are particularly bad, and maybe some mention of those would be useful (troy pierce’s rmx of cybotron comes immediately to mind) and funny. maybe even a dud from a normally awesome producer could be mentioned as a warning for people who might just buy on sight. but for the most part, if criticism is necessary, it would be better on a label or artist level where you can make a more general criticism that just pointing out the flaws on every bad record one at a time!
Posted 24 Sep 2007 at 8:35 pm ¶
JBH wrote:
Totally agree i dont see the point in people going out of there way to review a record if there just going to slate it or write negatively about it. I would much rather read a nice review than read someones droaning on about how bad it is. Like you say if you dont like the record you were sent dont review it.Simple.
Btw Any word on the next RA piece? i need something good to get my teeth into.
Posted 24 Sep 2007 at 9:01 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
Hey Jamie, RA piece will be up very shortly, like this week I’d imagine.
I agree Tom yeah, if it’s like something you expect to be really good and then it sucks that’s sort of interesting. In a way it’s a bit like news or something, a good review is a useful bit of info, or a bad review that’s unexpected for whatever artist/label is also useful.
But a bad review of something nobody’s into anyway or an up and coming thing seems worthless.
Some rare common ground on that Troy Pierce actually, I didn’t like any of those remixes, but it was pretty predictable they’d be crap, it’s hard to imagine someone re-working “Clear” well for me.
I don’t mean that cos I think nobody should try, just those artists are so different to the original and the elements in it are so far from what they do.
Posted 24 Sep 2007 at 9:29 pm ¶
jon wrote:
My mammy said if you can’t say anything good don’t say anything.
Posted 25 Sep 2007 at 12:20 pm ¶
David Hargadon wrote:
Yeah I agree with the concept of not reviewing random music for the sake of it. Techno/house and dance music in general is so saturated these days that its harder to find good music than bad so what is the point in reviewing music you are going to slate, unless the reviewer finds it relevant to actually wirte a bad review then why bother.
Posted 26 Sep 2007 at 1:53 pm ¶
John wrote:
I know what you mean. Some things that are bad are bad in a really interesting way, and I get some satisfaction about pinpointing exactly what’s grating about Sandi Thom, but most things that are bad are just boring and uninspired and thus don’t inspire me to write about them, either. Also, I know when John Darnielle has written record reviews (for MAGNET, primarily), he doesn’t negatively review anything — but I always sort of assumed this was a “hey, I’m a musician, too” sort of thing.
Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 2:55 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
I guess John seems such a good guy that doesn’t surprise me.
I think if I was writing about stuff that wasn’t faceless techno (eg Sandy Thom) it might be more tempting to fling mud for sure.
Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 3:09 pm ¶
Steve wrote:
While it can be easier to give something a negative review, doing so tastefully and respectfully to those involved is an art unto itself. That Pele & Shokh single I reviewed came out on one of my favorite labels and I wanted to express my distaste while acknowledging it was but one record.
Also, there are a lot of voices boosting stuff which we might think is crap; so in my mind, it’s worth it to have your say so there’s a breadth of opinions to sample before plunking down one’s cash.
Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 9:24 pm ¶
Peter Chambers wrote:
http://dysconnector.blogspot.com/2007/08/qwerty-azerty-bohica.html
Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 3:48 am ¶
Peter Chambers wrote:
Whoops, sorry to just plonk in the link, but I wrote a long post that got deleted.
Basically, I think you should think twice before ditching your credibility in pursuit of the praise machine.
Where criticism becomes a stranger, the net effect is like the guy who wants to talk about the violence of the drug trade while you’re racking lines.
Sure, if the release is a minor or irrelevant EP, just ignore it, but if it’s a major release, it stinks and you don’t say so, then you’re being derelict in your duty as a trusted filter of culture.
If you’re always praising everything, the net effect is boosterism, kind of ‘Hooray for Everything’.
Imagine if news and current affairs people didn’t report on anything they thought might upset people… oh, hang on…
Well, imagined if the few who still did suddenly stopped?
The fact that you’re writing about music does take this out of the realm of ‘life and death’, but it’s not categorically different.
The effect otherwise is that people who are critical are seen as a ‘downer’ and need to either take their pill or stop bringing the loved up chums off theirs. This is not a stance I want to support for the music I love.
If you love the form and you find a bad example, tear it to shreds. Anything else would just be disrespectful.
“In the night of the world, all the cows are grey.”
Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 3:55 am ¶
Ronan wrote:
Hey Peter, nice blog btw.
I think certainly I would slate something in a commercial setting like it sounds like your friend was in. And I’ve had reviews pulled for being negative, certainly that’s happened.
I just don’t think bad dance 12s are ostentatiously offensive enough to warrant being torn to shreds. Most are just bland. And tearing an unknown artist to shreds is like firing a rifle into the air in a desert.
Also not slating stuff does not equate to praising everything. I praise precious few 12s, I try and choose a select few so that people can trust reviews I do, and I think some people do.
Also judging by the comments on the latest RA piece, I’ve no problem being negative or on a downer!
Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 11:49 am ¶
Peter Chambers wrote:
Ronan,
Thanks for the praise on the blog - no no, I’m not just being a smart arse.
I think the thing is that, when it comes down to it, it’s actually really difficult to say anything about indifferent music.
It’s extremely difficult to define what’s bad about something screamingly average.
Praising or panning is much easier.
But really, I mean what I wrote - too much electronic music writing has the relentlessly positive tone of a PR sheet. In fact, sometimes the reviews are indistinguishable, and this is another form of indifference.
The very fact that you’ve posted about this means that on some level you feel bad about (and know all too well) what you’re doing…. no?
I liken it to a sign I saw outside a suburban art exhibition the other day:
‘Art *does* matter’
A statement which proves that, indeed, art does not matter.
If it did, you would never need to say so.
Same as the question:
Is art dead?
is already firing up the crematorium incinerator…
I mean, nobody even needs to say
Is music dead?
But if you’re posting something that says ‘I’m not boosting’… well then…
But um, boosting does matter.
Anyway anyway
Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 1:35 pm ¶
chrisdisco wrote:
to follow on from what pete said (i should say this relates to directly to an ongoing conversation some of us have been engaged in over precisely this issue), here is one current example to think about:
the new m-nus ep by marc houle, ‘techno vocals’. this is a real steaming pile of shit. no doubt about it. BUT. it is on m-nus, perhpas the most well known and influential label right now and it is made by a big name producer. already it is 6th on beatport’s top downloads. so as a reviewer, what do you do?
a) call it for what it is.
b) ignore it.
c) excuse it as ‘ironic’, ‘playful’, ‘cheeky’.
d) big up it because it is on m-nus.
i say you gotta do (a) (i think pete would agree with me on this). but according to the logic you are setting out, and based on what seems to be standard practice amongst most of the reviewers online, b, c or d are much more likely responses.
Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 2:23 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
That’s complete idiocy, you’ve no idea why a reviewer or punter might or might not like a record.
I don’t like “Techno Vocals” at all, but nor am I arrogant enough to assume I can definitively say why every other human being that does has a different opinion.
Pete, I still think you’re misrepresenting what I said here.
Firstly I don’t “feel bad” or “know what I’m doing”, I do however know that some may think based on me giving positive reviews that my writing “has the relentlessly positive tone of a PR sheet”.
Seems I’m right on that score, in your case.
So to put the full side of the story across I pointed out that I choose what records to review, hence it’s not “relentlessly positive”, I pick 4 or 5 records from a list of 40 or 50 and then I review maybe 2 of those that, on repeated listening I find to be of really high quality.
I buy about 20 tracks every week and get sent around 15 or 20 too, I reserve praise for the handful of records that really stand out and I review those.
And if I am particularly positive about them it’s simply because to reach that point they generally need to stand out and be something special.
There are tons of labels and producers I think are shit or overrated, but as I said, I’d rather define myself by my support for great music, not by shooting fish in a barrel.
Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 2:59 pm ¶
chrisdisco wrote:
ronan, that’s a total cop out. of course one cannot definitively say whether a track is terrible or not (of course some people, presumably including the producer, must like it), but as a reviewer it is your job to give your assessment of the track. that is the very nature of reviewing.
Posted 29 Sep 2007 at 1:10 am ¶
karl wrote:
I’m afraid chrisdisco and Peter are right. Criticism is criticism, to really praise something, you have to set it against of backdrop of lesser things, otherwise everything is just great and nothing really stands out, and that’s not the case is it? So why would you want to give people that impression? Of course, you could say other critics will do that job for you, but then you aren’t really developing your own system of artistic values. You could also just contrast the great record and the lesser records within your positive reviews and get the same thing accomplished.
Posted 29 Sep 2007 at 6:05 pm ¶
Jacob wrote:
I’m sorry, but Chris, believing Ronan has some kind of duty to inform everybody about whether “techno vocals” or any song at all is shit is just silly.
What Ronan is saying here is very simple -
a) He is a busy man.
b) He has the luxury to pick and choose what records he reviews.
c) He’d rather spend his time positively, singling out records worthy of praise.
There’s no “duty” inherent in writing reviews. yeah, techno vocals is shit and rubbish, but it’s not like it poses a major “threat” to the health of the techno scene now does it? There’s always good music being made, and it’s far more useful to know what that is than for Ronan merely to confirm he doesn’t like techno vocals.
Posted 30 Sep 2007 at 10:15 am ¶
Ronan wrote:
As a reviewer being given tracks to review, of course I have a duty to be honest.
As, and this is the case, one choosing to review tracks, I don’t have a duty to pick a track I have zero interest in (eg Marc Houle) and review it.
I still haven’t heard more than 45 seconds of that Houle track yet here you are disgusted about it having wasted whatever amount of time/thought on it.
That doesn’t do anyone any good.
As for artistic standards, I know my standards quite well.
BTW it’s quite easy to review records in today’s environment, if all of you feel you want to dismantle the myth makers giving positive reviews to artists you hate, and think that’s a worthy ambition, drop me an email and I’m sure I can hook you up to give RA reviewing a go.
” You could also just contrast the great record and the lesser records within your positive reviews and get the same thing accomplished.”
Yes, or I could refuse to mention any shit records in my reviews cos they don’t merit it. Why compare a crap record to a good one when I am purposely reviewing records that are good precisely because they sound NOTHING LIKE the average ones. “Oh here’s a great new single, like that crap one but a lot less crap!”
Anyway most labels/artists would rather a shit review than no review. (how many people go and check “techno vocals” after reading these comments, anyone who hasn’t heard it absolutely will)
So don’t kid yourself that hating Marc Houle and loving him aren’t flipsides of the same coin.If you want people to listen to different tunes, praise them and support them, don’t slate what they do listen to.
Posted 30 Sep 2007 at 11:24 pm ¶
chrisdisco wrote:
i meant to use “techno vocals” as an illustration. the larger point is that if only positive reviews are published, it creates a culture of what peter calls “boosterism”. reviewing should not simply be about picking the ones you like and ignoring the rest. take movie and dvd reviews, there are a constant stream of movies coming out, but the general practice is to review the good and the bad, not just handing out gold stars and high fives.
and ronan, you are right, it is quite easy to get involved with reviewing online, but it is not easy to “dismantle the myth makers” because RA and other pages place limits on how you are able to review things. you cannot slate things. to take one extreme, but real and recent example, a friend of mine had an album review of his rejected by a prominent online zine (not RA) because it was not positive enough. so what becomes the point of reviewing if it becomes just back slapping?
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 4:15 am ¶
Ronan wrote:
erm…where did anyone say there are restrictions on reviewing things in RA? nobody did, you just assumed.
I simply pointed out that I personally, in as much as I have the freedom to do so, choose to only spend time reviewing records I believe are noteworthy by their quality. I choose this, it’s nothing to do with restrictions on slating stuff. If you are so randy for a bad review I slated the first release on Leena, Mobilee’s offshoot, because it was the one occasion where a big hyped operation had done something I wasn’t into (and I’m not mad on the sub-label trend), so I thought it merited writing about.
If it was my paid job to review everything I was given (like many reviewers) I would be giving all sorts of reviews, as per the movie reviewer you mentioned. Since it isn’t, I don’t.
But I am certain if I wanted to start panning stuff to hell RA would print whatever I wrote (once I didn’t libel people or have a freakout). I just don’t waste my time asking to review records I expect I’ll think are crap. Don’t have the time to do so.
As for boosterism, how many times must I point out, I am CHOOSING 2 or 3 records from a list of 60 or so on a weekly basis…if nobody chooses them they don’t get reviewed at all, this happens 50 or so releases every week.
And as I already said, most labels would prefer the bad review than none at all.
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 3:54 pm ¶
Peter Chambers wrote:
Man, is there a word limit on comments? I keep trying to post and it doesn’t come up, then when I re-post it says I’ve already posted it.
I feel negated!
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 9:10 pm ¶
Peter Chambers wrote:
Man, this comments thing is definitely not accepting my comments for some reason… maybe they’re not interesting enough? Grr…
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 9:19 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
I have to rate each one before it appears.
But don’t worry I give them all 5/5, even the ones that are absolute fucking bullshit
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 10:43 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
serious answer…no idea why they’re not appearing, I’m not deleting them anyhow, they definitely got 5/5.
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 10:47 pm ¶
tom/pipecock wrote:
basically i think you could make these people happy if you just pan something every now and then. personally, im more into dissing entire labels or an artist’s entire catalogue, especially if theyre deified for no good reason. criticism is important, but it doesnt need to be in equal amounts, especially when youre already acting as a filter by choosing the records to review.
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 2:55 am ¶
chrisdisco wrote:
my comment about RA was based on my own experiences reviewing for them and from others i know who haved reviewed for them.
and i hope pete can post the comment he is trying to, as i think it summarises what we are arguing well.
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 3:50 am ¶
Ronan wrote:
if you have a prob with RA, contact them. if you think they only take positive spins on things then read my column from last week.
as for “what we are arguing”, I think to suggest there is unity between your position and Pete’s is to flatter yourself.
I see Pete making interesting comments that I don’t necessarily feel are rebuttals of anything I’ve said (eg the art analogy)….and you…well I don’t know what you’re doing. I gave up on you once you decided that disliking the number 1 record on Beatport is somehow interesting or going against the grain. Anti-hype is just as boring as hype, and usually concerns the same narrow scope of music.
Yes yes it was just an example…of course. But it was the first thing you tried to use to back up your argument.
To Tom: Yeah I agree with you. I’m not sure why it’s necessary to pan something especially since it’s blatantly obvious I hate tons of stuff, can’t anyone feel the hate? I’ll have to start eating sugar in higher quantities. If people want to read me panning stuff go over to ILM and read the house/techno threads for occasional pans.
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 10:00 am ¶
Ronan wrote:
oh and my spam filter seems to be zapping a lot of pete’s posts…not sure why.
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 11:53 am ¶
tom/pipecock wrote:
it’s funny to see you talk about how many tunes you buy and get sent each week! maybe i’m a picky guy, but i am lucky to find 1-2 records per month that i need to have that are new. even counting much older used joints, i doubt that i get more than 20 records per week ever! by your estimate, you’re getting double that every week. for me, it’s easy to pick things to review because there’s just so few things that i like, and of those most of them aren’t getting reviewed or talked about in other publications. for me to pick things to pan, all i’d have to do is go to juno.co.uk or beatport and start listening. panning the #1 is easy. panning the entire top however many they have up there might be more difficult, but if i had the time i bet i could do it
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 7:30 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
I don’t doubt it!
I guess, whatever you think of it, there is quite a lot of stuff being produced in the vein of the music I play.
Mind you when I say I get sent stuff, a lot of those might not be good. I’d say in a given week I like maybe 10-15 records.
That’d be a good week really.
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 11:21 pm ¶
chrisdisco wrote:
in terms of flattering myself, well unfortunately i am very aware that i lack the same ability with prose that pete has (read his blog, it is excellent), but my comment was based on extensive conversations pete and i have had on this issue. i am not trying to suggest that reviewers should be ripping people for the sake of it. despite being australian, the tall poppy syndrome doesnt exactly get my rocks off. the point i was trying (and perhaps failing) to get across is that in only providing positive reviews and blackslapping, it helps create an uncritical culture. in this regard, i think pipecock’s comment on about criticism in the right amounts is spot on.
Posted 03 Oct 2007 at 4:47 am ¶
Ronan wrote:
if you’re going to fling around accusations like “backslapping” you should really have some actual points or examples to back them up.
I’ve already explained, I choose what to review from a large list, I then listen to it and give it a review based on how I rate it. It’s a pretty honest process, there’s no “backslapping” involved.
If I’m ambivalent about it (and this, rather than HATE is usually the case with the bad records, as I have a decent idea of what I hate and don’t ask for it to review) then I don’t tend to review it. The records I don’t review are not usually terrible, just bland or don’t inspire me to write anything.
Nor are they ever on M_nus or similarly big labels, if they were, sure I might pan them. Especially if I’d been anticipating the release, eg that Leena review which is up on RA if you want to read it.
As for an uncritical culture, I hardly think one reviewer can be blamed for an uncritical culture, not least when I spend hours every week deciding what records I do rate and do want to include in the podcast, here on the blog, and perhaps in the column one day.
The fact I am thinking a lot like this about what I like, why I like it, and which records really are valuable doesn’t often leave me much time to focus on music I don’t like.
So I don’t. I’ll leave that to someone else. Though there are few techno reviewers whom I’d say illuminate my choice of buying records by negative criticism. In fact there are none.
But even when giving negative reviews practically all the time when I worked in print, as a result of being forcefed albums I had no interest in, I never really believed what I was doing was achieving anything, except having a bit of a laugh occasionally.
I still think plenty of stuff is crap…but I really don’t get animated and furious about crap dance music as most of it is in fact bland rather than offensively awful.
Posted 03 Oct 2007 at 8:54 am ¶
tom/pipecock wrote:
one thing i can say is that there are a lot more things out there to be critical of than just specific releases. in our short time online, my blog has dropped criticisms of dance journalism, the choices made for the “kings of electro” compilation, stupid “collector” record packages, mp3jaying, as well as a straight up negative review of aril brikha’s album specifically because of how unusually bad it was for someone we had high expectations for (one of the reasons i pointed out earlier in which a negative review is very much called for).
my background is heavily rooted in both hiphop and punk music where criticism is far more common than in dance music. obviously, the main reason i started my blog was to try to big up the stuff i like, but it was also to add that element of criticism to the mix. and i think people are definitely responding to that element, as they are with some other blogs who have been critical of things in dance music.
Posted 03 Oct 2007 at 2:47 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
Almost every post that has over 30 comments here is one that criticises something…people like criticism.
I still don’t think that that makes it best though. People like lots of stuff!
Posted 03 Oct 2007 at 3:00 pm ¶
tom/pipecock wrote:
my main point though being that people are so used to the black-slapping good-old-boys network that criticism is still quite novel, and as such tends to make people who have been yearning for balance very happy.
i didnt realise how bad it was initially in dance music, it was only when dubsteb started getting huge and it was one of the ammunition people who was writing almost all the articles about it! i was truly flabbergasted, and people seemed to not know at all that these articles were being written by someone who had money to earn from the records they talked about being sold. and now that beatport exists and things are forever available, any bad reviews of those tracks eats into potential profits. there’s way too many reasons to be suspicious of people who are too nice in their coverage.
i will say this about your criticisms: theyre mostly aimed at pretty easy targets. a criticism of a revered dance figure is alot more interesting than a criticism of the black eyed peas
Posted 03 Oct 2007 at 3:43 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
Well I don’t think I even criticised the Black Eyes Peas to be honest.
I still think a lot of people reading this will be laughing at the idea that I don’t criticise things, or use easy targets.
I can think of a few quite well respected artists I’d like to tear into critically, but despite a string of 12s they aren’t even making a decent career I doubt. As such it doesn’t feel right.
Posted 03 Oct 2007 at 3:47 pm ¶
Stef wrote:
‘a criticism of a revered dance figure is alot more interesting’
Not really, the media has always worked along the lines of building someone up and then knocking them down. It’s just another cog in the machine.
Posted 05 Oct 2007 at 10:33 am ¶