i think it's excellent, as far as bad reviews go.
Whether you actually suck or not, atleast you are taking chances and experimenting. Nicleback wins a bunch of Juno awards, but all their songs sound exactly the same.Word verf: noillas in there is no ill to try.
what do you think of the review?I'd have to agree with Denis, keep experimenting, no use just playing the same old same old. (really, Nickelback is Canada's best, for goodness sake)
pfffttt... it's the Uniter.;)
It’s very bold to place a less-than-glorious review up here. I salute you and your openness to criticism!
I think it's easier to criticise something than it is to find something constructive to say(it's a daily challenge for me!)With that said, I think it's just some bad writing, maybe he had some assumptions about the Minglers going into it...who knows. I mean, even to say that Brokenhead from 2003 was a success was a little much for me. AndI was hoping a review would entice listeners to pick up a copy, picking out some strengths, like the Grant's guitar licks, or some of the vocal harmonies....I think the writer could have picked out some of these strong parts, but that would have been work.I'll be the first to admit the sound quality isn't what you're going to get from a Beck CD or a Nickelback CD...shit, I recorded the thing at my cabin on an old tape 4-track. Or what about the album art? Collin Zipp out did himself with these images.Bad press is better than no press I guess.
It’s definitely not Pulitzer Prize material, but it is the Uniter. By that I don’t mean to bash the Uniter, I’m just highlighting the fact that they’re only a University paper – so you have to take that into account.On that note, it is also a review. I think a review has more in common with flat out criticism than constructive criticism. Plus, it’s not liable to be objective criticism either, as a big part of reviewing is injecting some of your personal taste/bias. I think that’s what gives reviewers their appeal – a sort of personal bond with their readers. I don’t think this review provides space for delving too far into the details of the music. However, part of writing a good review (in my opinion) is an ability to be lyrical in your descriptions yet succinct in your criticism – neither of which are accomplished here.In the writer’s defense, he would be hard pressed to comment positively on the sound quality considering your own admissions about the process and I think it’s unfair to fault him for that. Likewise about the album art, which I consider an afterthought of a good or bad review. If I read a review about an album and got a review of the album art I’d be a little hesitant to pick it up. In the end though, I think you’re right that any press is good press. I’d like to pick this album up and give it a listen myself; if not only to form a better opinion of this review but to support a fellow artist. =Dveri: flansuge
I meant that the sound quality is different to something more commercial. I think it sounds incredible, actually, just different,more experimental.Even if the CD does suck, I think this reviewer touched on very few facts in his review, in my opinion, reporting is supposed to contain some research, right?
Ah, I misinterpreted your comment about the 4-track as an admission to poor sound quality; my mistake. I guess experimental music will always face this kind of potential criticism in reception – from the public or from professionals. Having not yet heard the music, I can’t really make a personal judgment either way.I don’t think that this reviewer is doing a good job reviewing by any stretch. But, within the space provided I don’t see that there was much room for research to emerge (as opposed to say, a full length article). I tried a cursory internet search for “muckbucket guitar” myself and didn’t come up with anything. So I guess we could say he did enough research to justify putting the name in quotations. =PAgain, it’s slightly difficult to comment as I haven’t heard the material being reviewed. Though, it’s my thought that a review will inevitably be more personal than factual – sort of like that elusive genre “creative non-fiction”. You base your review on facts and research, but ultimately what your readers are looking for is that connection they have with your own style/bias. It’s obvious that this person’s review is very shallow in scope, but I don’t think you would have received some of the comments you alluded to earlier even if it had been more thorough. By that I mean that the facts would have been folded into, and become part of the reviewers own personal take.By the way, where can I pick up this album?
Hah! Thanks for your interest. my email is firstname.lastname@example.org, send me your address and the CD will be delivered.In regards to muckbuckets, on the CD inside I list all the people on all the instruments and refer to the 'muckbucket', but never to the 'muckbucket guitar'. Kind've makes me want one though!This is what I mean...bad reporting. I like how this new cd is 'long awaited', it makes me laugh, I guess cuz it's been five years...haha.And then the nonsensical lyrics! Half the album is made up of cover songs written by The Louvin Brothers, Fred Rose, or traditonal songs like Down by the Riverside.But yes, lots of jamming, well played instruments, and I'm a little whiney at times(like now).But still be favorite part is the success of the 2003 Brokenhead album and it's country rock driven music. huh? I think I sold a hundred copies to my friends and family.The benefit of reviewing local music is you can talk to the people involved.
You gotta roll with the punches.
Ha! As this conversation progresses I feel more and more like I'm lacking an integral part by not having the CD. I agree, the basic kind of reporting that you're talking about, if lacking, is pretty shameful.I wonder if the Uniter is accepting submissions for positions? =Pveri: Osedarth....new Lord of the Sith!
I'll leave a couple of copies at the folk exchange on Bannatyne
Post a Comment