I'm sick of people slagging off my reviews on DiS.
It seems depressingly obvious that the following formula works - if you write a positive review of something that people like, they will enjoy the review and compliment it. A la my Knife, Patrick Wolf, ANtony & The Johnsons and Thom Yorke reviews. But if you write a review in exactly the same style saying that you don't like something that people are into, people will not only disagree with your verdict, but they will lay into the review as well. Which is basically completely retarded. Just because you disagree with a review does not mean it was badly written. It just shows childish hostility and a lack of understanding of hown these things work.
Also, I'm fucked off with people pouncing on any perception of weakness on the part of the reviewer. If you're reviewing someone and you haven't heard one of their albums, you might mention this in a candid sort of way. If you are reviewing a new single by someone who's career you are unfamiliar with, but you are aware of in general, your opinion on their latest release stands whether you're a fucking expert on this person or not. If people just hurl insults and abuse at peoples' writing, doing reviews feels like getting a suit of fucking armour on and going to war rather than what it actually is - expressing a perfectly valid opinion as clearly as possible.
This is why they turned off the review comments on the Plan B site. Because people seem incapable of making these simple distinctions and just lay into writers when they don't agree with them. On my Missy Elliott review, someone even said "i don't know what's happening to DiS lately" as a comment. I mean, what the fuck?? DiS is better than ever.
Basically, ripping into a perfectly candid and well-written review because you don't agree with it is completely rude, and just a bit dim. I for one like to read reviews by people that are out of their usual area of expertise.
pft.
</pissed off rant>
first person to say
"if you can't take the criticism, don't write reviews" gets a free kick in the teeth
..
I don't want to say that, but can I have a free kick in the teeth?
Uhhhm.
No?
Cheapskate
But for the record, I mostly agree with you. That's what you get for being open to comments from internet stupids.
Uhhh
On another note - are redskin peanuts fattening? I heard they are. I'm trying to eat more halthy types of snack such as celery and raw peanuts, instead of deep-fried crisps and chocolate etc. But if the peanuts make you fat anyway, there's no point.
what a rubbish post
I hated it.
I actually totally agree with you
hmph
I did actually post some spaces between those two lines for small 'comical effect'
Ah, OK.
Have a retrospective semi-lol
yep
full of natural fatty oils.
You're the reviewer
say what you like. Fuck 'em!
...
Are saying (reading between the lines here) that the reviewers opinion is the right opinion and the only right opinion?
People are allowed to criticise your review as well as you're very welcome to criticise any music. Swings and roundabouts innit?
Of course I'm not saying that.
That's not the point I was making at all.
...
What is your point then? That you dont like being picked on by the bigger boys?
pffft
fuck off
but..they've got a point.
reviewers are not above criticism. and everyone has their reviews dissected and bitched about. check out rachel's review of 'monster' and tell me that's not the same.
No, they haven't got a point.
They've got an annoying half-formed irritating quip. A point would be good.
Who is monster by again? Metric?
the automatic.
"People are allowed to criticise your review as well as you're very welcome to criticise any music."
there's the point. the presentation wasn't great, granted, but it's a point.
I don't see that point in DirtyHearts' post
But you have a point, obviously.
It kind of simplifies everything massively, but it's a point.
....
Fishplums and I pretty much made the same point.
Your "bigger boys" comment = I don't like you.
Bye!
Shame.
Anyway, I still don't see what the point of this thread is, are you looking for sympathy? Praise?? I don't get it, you're a critic but are upset when people criticise your writing/opinion.
You write about pop songs (which aren't overly important) and people say you're wrong sometimes (which isn't overly important), what's the problem?
You're hardly John Pilger so maybe you should get used to it.
The point of this thread is to express dissatisfaction and frustration
at the responses reviews are getting, and to explain why. That's it.
"Sympathy?? Praise??"
Neither. Stop projecting random motives onto me.
And not being JOhn Pilger
Ddshut up and allow any idiot who wanders past to smear your writing for no reason other than a petulant knee-jerk response to the mark you gave.
*Doesn't mean you should sit down and shut up and
(don't know what happened there, half the text vanished).
QUOTE = "Bye!"
Now saying that to someone clearly means you've lost the argument.
Another reviewer on here said that to me before coz i said something he didn't agree with. That clearly means you've run out of constructive things to say.
Anyway, shouldn't you save this rant for the pub.
.
"Anyway, shouldn't you save this rant for the pub."
Yes. Clearly a DISCUSSION FORUM is the wrong place for this.
Everything you say = bullshit.
Bye!!
@ ernie
That's why they call me...
bullshit biff.
Now go down the pub!
done.
Well...
"if you write a positive review of something that people like, they will enjoy the review and compliment it...But if you write a review in exactly the same style saying that you don't like something that people are into, people will not only disagree with your verdict, but they will lay into the review as well. "
Hmm. The thing is people tend not to criticise a review that supports their own views.
So your reviewing style might well, in fact, be rubbish, but if you're being nice about 'obvious' stuff like Thom Yorke then peopel will just say "Yeah, nice one" and won't really care about how the review is.
Of course people could just be being cuntish.
My suggestion would be to do a glowing review about James Blunt and see what people say, just as a 'Litmus test'. ;-)
And
I'd have said your Missy review is entertaining but sounds lazy and off-hand. You sound like you really didn't even want to face listening to it, let alone reviewing it, so I guess I can see why the Missy fans would get irate.
You seem to be under the impression that I was inviting you to add to the review criticism?
Talk about missing the fucking point.
Well
I, like DirtyHearts, wasn't really able to see clearly what your point was. So far as I could see you were wanting to rant about something that pissed you off without anyone coming back against you.
Feel free to use your blog for that. ;-)
However, your initial posts reads like you saying your reviews are well written and 'good', because no one complains about the ones that are positive.
Well I was disputing that must necessarily be the case and following up to point out that I didn't necessarily think you could defend the Missy one as a brilliant but negative review. Like I say, I found it entertaining and enjoyed it. Of course it'll piss off her fans, but why do you care?
If you can't understand my point, the problem lies with you.
Ah I've read again
So you'd just prefer people criticised your reviews without resorting to insults or glib one-liners?
So if I had written:
"That's entertaining but sounds lazy and off-hand: You sound like you really didn't even want to face listening to it, let alone reviewing it."
as a comment under your review would that have been okay?
I'm not trying to needle you here, btw.
Basically, yes.
Spending time writing reviews only to have someone go "you're well wrong you are, you don't know what you're on about, and you're stupid, and this website is rubbish" is very frustrating.
It doesn't engage with anything or say anything or accomplish anything other than a petulant BLAH. And I dislike seeing my reviews underlined with other peoples' petulant BLAH.
That's it.
Point decoded.
best is
"lazy review"
when it clearly isn't
and you point out why
and they still disagree
This is a very internet specific phenomenon.
Writers being basically open to attack from all comers. And when you say anything back, people say "well, just take it" and you are made to feel petulant for responding at all, like you should just absorb any criticism, no matter how unfounded, and not say a word or feel a thing. Well, fuck THAT! I mean, it's the online equivalent of some print journalist getting mobbed and shouted at by a bunch of people in the street for marking some album low.
well magazines
still GET letters of complaint about reviews
they rarely get passed on to the reviewers though
Woah
It sure would be cool if that happened to the dudes who write for Spin and Rolling Stone. I'd have a torch.
This is a terrible thread
I used to love DiS. You don't even know anything about your own taste in music.
Can a DiS writer with some knowledge please re-write this thread? Thanks.
:P
I'll rewrite your face for you, TAFKAC.
Hey I was gonna call you for a drink this week btw.
But then you thought
Nah, I won't bother?
No. I realised I'm pretty brassic until Friday
And ordering iced water in pubs isn't much fun is it.
surely
you can afford cordial
Actually my cheque has cleared.
So yes.
do
do you write for any print?
2p
I kind of agree with John up to a point. I mean a reviewer should probably be open to constructive criticism but what is the point of criticising a review which lays no claim to objectivity unless it contains any blantant factual errors (or the person writing it is blatantly an irritating poser)?
At the end of the day, reviews are kind of entertainment, they're not vitally important scientific papers which need to be peer reviewed before publication.
I can't believe I just used the phrase
"At the end of the day". I'm turning into a football commentator
That's a post of two halves
Alright Ronessa
its better
when the bands themselves send you hate mail, i already have a quietly impressive collection (almost one for each review) filling a special folder in my email inbox.
I don't have any band email.
Just a slightly concerned one from a review in which I published (by another writer) wishing death on all of the Charlatans.
the best
is when a band tries to get you sacked
you're a critic John
so you should be open to criticism however childish the response was written.
t'interweb is full of immature, self-righteous tossers who think that their opinion is gospel, you of all people should recognise that John.
is it not much easier to say "you're a cunt" rather than "I do believe that I would question such a statement and remark on the validity" ?
and considering most people are stupid, not hard to fathom really is it?
i know what you mean
just deal with it.
Ahem
As a writer of reviews myself (although not for DiS) I think that by doing so you put yourself up to be shot at.
I regard reviews as a means of informing the reader about whether x artist or record exists and expressing a hopefully well reasoned argument as to whether they/it is any good.
If I do my job properly, then even if the reader disagrees with my views, they can at least see where I am coming from or be entertained by what I have written.
But this is difficult to achieve and die-hard fans are always likely to pick holes. As is their right.
I like to receive positive feedback, but I can't complain if I get negative reviews. If the bad comments are basically of the "Radiohead Rool" or "Manix forever" variety, I don't pay them much mind.
And if in my review I am trying to be provocative, then I can't fuss if people are provoked.
What I certainly don't expect is to be feted for my deathless prose or to have my dick sucked in gratitude for my pearls of wisdom. It's essentially a vanity exercise anyway.
I understand it can be annoying
and it's happened to me. Personally, it's never bothered me. If you're happy with your review and your editor is too, does it really matter what some kid who's put "Miss Elliott" into google and stumbled across DiS thinks? I'd say no.
you do realise
that there is such a thing as a wrong opinion. if your justification for your opinion on a record uses flawed logic or is based on an incorrect premise, then your review can be criticised; it doesnt mean your writing style is bad, it just means your opinion is not properly supported by what you have written.
this isnt a personal criticism on any of your reviews by the way, just a general point you seem unaware of.
So you think reviews can be wrong.
Something of a given, but also problematic in itself, as a subjective opinion can never really be wrong.
how
can there be a 'wrong' opinion.
even if i say JOHN BRAINLOVES HAIR IS SHIT that opinion isn't wrong just because i've not seen him, isnt it just that its not an informed opinion?
Well, you're not necessarily wrong,
but I'm still having you killed...
release the hounds.
The hounds of love.
WOAH OH OH OH OH OH
THROW THEM IN THE LAKE.
sorry
going to have to report you to the RSPCA.
i think a subjective opinion can be wrong.
if someone were to say that they hated all hip hop, and that the reason behind this was that the music is of black origin and so couldnt be good because black people cant create good music, then that would be a wrong subjective opinion, because the premise it is based upon, that black people cannot create good music, is an incorrect one, because it in turn is based upon the premise that ethnicity affects ones ability to create music.
all opinions are based upon some form of premise, and some premises are simply wrong, therefore some opinions must also be wrong.
That's an extreme example.
What about if the premise is "I find this formulaic, cynical, shallow and objectionable"?
well, if that were the case
then you would need to apply those standards to everything you listen to, and you would have to provide a valid reason why one band is formulaic and another isnt; i actually object a lot of the time to describing bands as formulaic, because it tends to be a cop out way of trying to justify why one likes one band and not another that sound extremely similar, and is often used without any realisation of the implications of declaring it as a flaw...
think about it; by saying being formulaic makes music bad, you've just declared pretty much every blues song ever written to be bad? i dont think its remotely unfair to say that most blues songs follow, to a greater or lesser extent, a formula. does that make them bad?
and you're right, it was an extreme example, but i was just trying to make the point that an opinion can be wrong.
Um.
I don't agree with your first paragraph at all. It's silly.
"a subjective opinion can be wrong"
no it can't.
innit
it can't
but it CAN be so badly expressed that it's as close to wrong as makes no odds.
Well, by now you probably know how I feel about this.
www.myspace.com/smoketeer
I think reviewers are victims of this ludicrous online review surfeit as consumers.
Personally I find the prospect of writing a review about something I have little or no knowledge or interest in to be utterly ridiculous! If someone gave me a commercial hip-hop release (or any hip-hop, for that matter) and asked me to review it, I would politely decline while wondering why on earth they had asked me to review it.
Of course you will get moaned at if you review things about which your audience are better-informed than yourself! Particularly if you admit as much in the review! There's an irrefutable logic to this.
If I wrote a review of one of the avant-garde bands that you liked and I opened the review by saying I knew very little about the band in question nor its context, then you'd be quite right to ask why I had even tried to discuss its merits and failings.
I do agree that any criticism should be well-thought out and not just "this is shite" etc. But let's face it - DiSers love saying "this is shite!"
I feel a "real music" debate coming on
feels like diarrhoea
Mmm...
I've spent at very least 50 hours arguing about reviews, reviewers, and the if music is 100% subjective.
Anyway, decent articles that are well worth reading:
http://www.cokemachineglow.com/feature/article/criticism-peter.html
http://www.cokemachineglow.com/feature/article/amir_review.html
Just to add my two pennies worth...
while I can fully understand Brainlove being pissed off, at the end of the day if you're gonna criticise an artist, or a record, or a live show, that someone else finds quite appealing, then you've got to be prepared to accept criticism yourself. I suppose when you're a reviewer, you've got to accept that you're gonna get reviewed too!
However, there are one or two who regularly post on the forum who seem to have little vendettas against certain individuals for no apparent reason other than they might have criticised a band they once played with (Hello BJD!) or because you've criticised (one of) their favourite band(s) at some point.
As for whether subjective opinions i.e. reviews, can be wrong, it depends on what you are saying. I remember the NME review of 'Definitely Maybe' some years back where the reviewer said in not so many words Oasis wouldn't be around a year from now. In that instance, he was obviously very wrong. Just giving your opinion as to why something is good or bad though hardly justifies a public flogging.
You should speak to a physician.
But you may not agree with his diagnosis.