Speak Critique
A web 'zine featuring interviews and talks with my critic friends about reviewing and music criticism.
by John Brenner
My first chat is with Kevin McHugh, who writes reviews for Hellride Music, StonerRock.com, and others.
Kevin, how do you begin when you set for yourself the
task of reviewing a record? Do you have a routine? If so, what is it?
First of all, I request the record, or it's offered to
me. I've been reviewing for 8 or 9 years now, and it's frequently the case
that the band seeks me out for a review. If a disc arrives at my house
"cold," then I do my best to evaluate whether or not I want to review it,
given my workload. Here's a hint: As far as I'm concerned, the slicker the
promo package, the less likely it is I'll review the contents. I learned
that from long experience. I do, however, seek to give everyone a fair
shake, which can cause the reviewing line to back up.
Second, since I'm not getting paid for any of this (except for the free
review copies, and sometimes I even pay for those!), I figure it's fair that
I decide who gets reviewed and who doesn't. I'll base my decision on my
knowledge of the artist, or the quality of the label, or what the group says
on their press release or website, or simply how it grabs me on the first
spin. The vast majority of the time, I'll only review something if I get a
positive vibe from it, in some way, shape or form. This speaks to an issue
that comes up from time to time, i.e. positive reviews. I've seen some
reviewers taken to task for "only writing positive reviews." Granted, that
may affect one's credibility, but why in the world would you want to be
involved in reviewing/criticizing music that routinely causes you to write
negative reviews? Spite? Bad toilet training? Well, I suppose that if I were
stuck writing reviews of major label AOR releases, that I might become
pretty negative and sour. But the fact is, I write criticism/reviews about
heavy underground music out of choice, music most people wouldn't like and
will never hear about. But that's what I like, and I assume a certain level
of goodwill and sincerity among the musicians who release CDs in this/these
genre(s), and I've very rarely been disappointed. These folks are putting
their best foot forward, and I respect that.
Almost ten years ago I was writing back and forth to Dan of Slow Horse (find
their albums!) about negative criticism. Although Dan's a hilarious guy, he
basically told me in all sincerity: "if you can't say something positive,
don't say anything at all," and I took that seriously. If someone sends me a
CD I don't like, or if I think that their effort is some sort of commercial
come-on, then I just don't review it. Why waste my time? If a group whose
previous efforts I've liked sends me a clunker, but I believe they're still
on the level, then without malice I may point out the things about the CD
that are weak, reminding the reader to seek out their previous, better
efforts. In any case, since I assume goodwill on the part of musicians in
the heavy underground, I think it's fair that they assume goodwill from me.
I have no problem with other people writing negative reviews, and I'll read
a good singeing review along with everyone else. It's especially satisfying
if I believe that the musicians are just going through the motions, or know
better. Just because I may not choose to write about something under those
conditions doesn't mean I don't think anyone else has the right to do so.
But I always ask myself: If I were putting my best effort out, even if it's
not on the level of, say Colour Haze, Solace, Against Nature
,
Penance, Tool, or any other top drawer group, wouldn't I still want my disc
treated with respect? That's the bottom line.
That's alot of background, isn't it? The actual
procedure is that I'll listen to the disc half a dozen times without taking
notes of any sort, relying on my conscious and subconscious to begin forming
a framework for the review. At the same time, I'll read whatever written
material the band or label has enclosed, especially if it's actually
informative and not hype. After that I'll go to their website, then I'll
seek out other reviews, if there are any. At that point I'll listen to the
disc again, and begin taking notes. The finished review is often just a
fraction of the material I've amassed for a certain release.
What is your general philosophy of reviewing? That is,
what do you think is the purpose of a music critic? Of criticism?
I read all of your questions over before I started
writing, and I sense a theme here: personal opinion vs. criticism. What are
they, and what is the difference between the two? First of all, I'm not sure
if there really is much music criticism to be found anywhere these days,
since most people are no longer educated about the differences between that
and personal opinion. I'm certainly not the final authority, but I would say
that the purpose of the music critic is to first intelligently assemble the
largest pool of musical experience possible, i.e. record collecting,
concerts, literature, even becoming a musician themselves, then synthesize
the results into an aesthetic that resonates with the heart, brain and soul.
At that point, the music critic may bring this experience, with all goodwill
but with a critical eye as well, to bear on analyzing, evaluating, and
interpreting the quality of a musical performance. Truth and Beauty! It may
sound stodgy, but these concepts can be applied to music, even the ugliest
sludge. Does the music have heart? Soul? Does it resonate with your hard-won
aesthetic?
What are your goals for a given review? How do you
know when you've reached those goals?
My goal is to attempt to understand what the musicians
were trying to put across, and to communicate that to my reader(s).
Ancillary to this, and no less valuable, is to mine the underground for good
music, and to get the word out so that as many people as possible can Feel
the Love. My first measure of success is a combination of reason and
intuition: Did I cover the history? Make valid musical comparisons? Point
out the strengths? Ultimately, I get a feeling of completeness that tells me
I'm finished with the review. There are more objective ways to measure
success as well: Written responses to review threads, number of review
readers, increases in album sales, etc.
Is there a certain form to your reviews? Are some
elements of that form more important than others?
Not necessarily. The music will often dictate the form
to an extent, but there are certain elements that I always try to include:
Where the band is from, with what genre are they typically identified and is
that valid, disc sound quality, musicianship, musical highlights, and
meaningful band comparisons. Dege Legg of the late, great Sanataria
challenged me to write a review with no band comparisons. I did it, and it
was actually pretty fun, more of a literary exercise. But I also find that
it's meaningful to most people to say "If you like X, you'll like this."
Hell, it's something I look for when I'm reading other people's reviews, if
I've never heard of the band in question. It may be a reviewing cliche, but
it's also very useful.
What standards do you set for your reviews? Do you
look to models for your writing?
I set the highest standard possible, to show respect
for the musicians who are setting their baby before the world, naked and
squalling. I try to write the kind of review I would want, were I putting
the record out myself. I like to think that I've established my own model,
but there are certainly reviewers that I read and respect: Chris Barnes, a
superb writer who pulls no punches, John Pegararo, another good writer with
whom I end up agreeing most of the time, Jay Snider, who goes in depth like
nobody's bidness, Dee from Stonerrockchick, whose got mad heart, Craig
Regala of Lollipop, who writes like an incoherent maniac, yet manages to
offer unmatched insight and understanding to those who can make the leap,
and Brian Varney, whose taste I don't usually share, but who has excellent
writing ability, and Mike Ballue, who comes across - in person and on screen
- as the soul of reason. Actually, I can usually get something from just
about anyone's writing, as long as they can say more than "this sucks."
Would you call yourself more of a stylist or more of a
reporter?
Good question. I probably think of myself as more of a
stylist, but I think that a reader may value a reporter more. I do alot of
technical writing in my job, and I've had sections of documents pulled
because they were too "literary." I take that as a compliment. Of course, a
good reviewer/critic is a bit of both. The facts need to be established, but
there needs to be some literary style to keep things interesting.
What audience are you picturing when you write your
reviews? Does an Internet audience differ from a print audience?
I picture an audience of good-natured, interested
music cognoscenti, who are wondering whether the latest album by X is worth
buying or not, and why. Knowing human nature that's probably optimistic, but
why not, eh? I think that a print audience would be even more dedicated to
the topic. After all, here in the 21st century any yotz can surf around the
net, lighting here and there in a superficial way, taking away nothing. It
may broaden the potential audience for a given release, which is good, but
I'm not sure that the majority of that audience has any abiding interest. I
think it takes someone with more dedication to sit down and study the
written word. Sadly, old school reading seems to be becoming an underground
activity.
Today, when people increasingly believe that any
criticism is mere opinion (that is, that opinion is merely another name for
"personal taste"), do you think criticism is even possible?
Criticism is not mere opinion, and yes, it is
possible. If you like, you might link the two by saying that criticism is
INFORMED opinion. It's true that opinions are like assholes, everybody's got
one and most of the time it's just alot of blathering of the aforementioned
"this sucks" variety. But if you can say "This sucks, and this is why" and
back it up with an extensive body of knowledge that makes valid points, then
you're on the way to criticism. That's my opinion, anyway
Is objectivity possible for a reviewer, for criticism?
Or is the ideal not objectivity but something other?
Dr. Hunter S. Thompson once said that the closest
thing he ever saw to true objectivity was the footage from a security camera
in a department store. In other words, true, complete objectivity is
impossible, because as human beings we have thoughts and experiences that
form a subjective lens through which we observe everything. Thompson's
philosophy was also that the journalist should wade in with both feet into
the middle of a story, becoming a participant, in order to communicate as
closely to the bone as possible. I don't claim unbridled admiration for the
good Doctor by any means, but I think he's right. I also think that the
objective baby should not be thrown out with the subjective bathwater. In
other words, a writer can - and should - develop standards and priorities
that may be objectively stated, then apply those standards to what is
ultimately a subjective, intuitive experience (music), and come up with
something meaningful, something that may make sense to other people as well.
What do you want your readers to know after they've
read one of your reviews?
I want the reader to know that I've presented the best
case possible for a particular album. What happens after that is up to them.
Kevin, thank you so much for the care you've taken in
answering these questions. Criticism is a topic dear to my heart (in art,
music, literature), and I'm impressed and inspired by your skillful
combination of passion and intellect in your writing.
We're off to a great start!
Here is a chat with Mal Fuller, who in
the past has contributed reviews for several Internet forums, and now
chiefly writes reviews for his forum "Gloom
and Doom" at Born In Blood:
Mal, how do you begin when you set for yourself the task of reviewing a
record? Do you have a routine? If so, what is it?
We all review records when we hear them, in the sense
that we judge them on the basis of how well they fit in to our own personal
model of the world. Maybe my answer should cover why we review records thus?
Put another way, is it possible for music to change our internal
representation of ourselves rather than just reinforce it? If it did change
us would we then seek to reinforce the new “I” just as we did with the old
one? Is a review a form of personal censorship to ensure that we only hear
what we want to hear? And if we all review records, then why do some of us
choose to voice our opinion on the Internet? Maybe if we sat face to face in
a pub we’d explore these aspects of reviewing, or writing in general for
that matter, but as for now I’ll try and keep these thoughts as background
and stick to the question.
To undertake a review is not a trivial thing. The music has to make me do
something, be it get up and wave my arms about like an idiot, or head-bang,
jump and down, laugh, or take me down into darkness, make me angry, or make
me grieve. Some albums require many listens before a review can be
attempted. Complex works, particularly technical ones, demand the same
effort on the part of the reviewer as given by the music’s creator.
Ambient-rich albums on the other hand require no conscious to sub-conscious
translation and come ready to go.
It’s at this preliminary pre-review stage that many reviewers publish their
words. Many of the brief reviews I’ve written over the years stop short of a
full blown review, and sometimes that’s all that’s needed to get a reader to
go out and make that extra step themselves. Such reviews are often helpful,
but I don’t find them fulfilling. They don’t help me explore the music for
myself. As I said earlier, writing a deep review is a selfish thing. It not
only explores the music, but also yourself.
Once you’ve reached the point where you’re ready to do a serious review on a
serious piece of music, then the frame of mind is essential. To absorb the
music requires a meditative state. How would I begin to review a new
Skepticism album for instance? The only conscious thing I would do is hit
the play button. That would be my goal. The whole point is not to think, but
to react to the music instinctively.
What is your general philosophy of reviewing?
Complete honesty is essential if you are to retain any
creditability. But for me, music is not primarily about the playing of
notes, it is a communication through sound between artist and observer,
sometimes achieved through the playing of notes, sometimes through ambience.
Some music is not meant to be deep and shouldn’t be reviewed as if it were.
It would be disrespectful to the band to do so. It may be just as effective
in making you feel good, or bad, as any complex piece of art, but you have
to match the depth of review to the depth of the music. Often, simply
providing a link to the track with the comment “lock up your daughters!” is
all that’s needed to describe Motorhead’s ‘Ace of Spades’ (especially ‘We
are the Road Crew’), although I confess to many an evening staring into a
candle listening to this album with a bottle of red wine. Some music is so
deep that it would be equally disrespectful to do anything but an in-depth
review.
What do you think is the purpose of a music critic?
Of criticism?
I critically dissect a piece of music for myself in
order to answer the questions that lurk in my mind, to fill the gaps in my
perception of myself and to see how the jigsaw piece that is me, fits into
the bigger jigsaw picture. These questions and answers often speak in the
language of emotions, and music is the catalyst.
But the purpose of the critic is also to tell others your opinion. “Why tell
others?” I think that is quite complex question and there are many motives.
One of the big ones for me is to feed the passion for Rock and Metal. It’s
what I grew up on and I want it to live forever.
When I discover a piece of breath-taking music I want to tell others about
it. The other side of the coin is when music disappoints, but then others
should know about that as well. As with all reviews, they represent what the
music has done to me. And the message is “always make your own mind up.”
Reviews are really meant for the band, but it does sometimes surprise me
just how upset and sensitive some bands get over criticism. OK, if you’re in
it to make a living, a bad review might affect you financially. But from an
artistic point of view, if criticism is judged valid then act on it, if not
then ignore it. The decision is entirely up to the artist.
What are your goals for a given review? How do you
know when you've reached those goals?
It has to be interesting. Reading it has to invoke a
reaction. It has to be honest. If you’re dealing with emotions, you have to
capture them with metaphor and images. It should never be written to a
formula. It has to be genuine and spontaneous. And I think a review has to
be personal. There is an element of the reviewer laying himself bare to some
degree, leaving himself open in order to achieve these things. How do I know
I’ve achieved all this? It’s a subconscious tick list.
Would you call yourself more of a stylist or more
of a reporter?
A bit of everything really. I get a kick out of
refining a thread to read well and be a reference source of information. I’m
a reporter in the sense that I want to report my opinion to others so that
others so that they too may explore the experience, and I’m a bit of an
explorer of the inner space.
What audience are you picturing when you write your
reviews?
When I write, who am I writing to? The young need to
be passed the guitar to see the wonders it brings, scenes have to be
undermined, followers have to be warned about leaders, and the music
industry has to be kept at bay. When I write on the Internet, I’m on
broadcast. Whether anyone wants to listen is up to them. I’ve done my bit.
Keeping it real and keeping it alive doesn’t need my help, but I offer it
all the same.
Does an Internet audience differ from a print
audience?
It’s difficult to write a book on an Internet forum.
Forums are set up to keep the message brief. It’s still possible to write
substantial posts, but still nothing compared with a book. This isn’t
necessarily a bad thing. The waffle and padding is removed and a good post
can get to the point quickly. The downside however is an Internet audience
that can take brevity too far. I’m afraid the vast majority of forums bore
me shitless with their moderators and hidden agendas, and people desperately
wanting to say something, but having nothing to say. Posts that start off
“What do you think of band X” and the replies of “They’re great” and “They
suck”. There are the “Band X might have a new alum out soon” with replies of
“Can’t wait” and “That’s awesome,” there’s the endless lists of favourite
bands that say nothing other than the name of the band, and then there’s the
“Post a picture of yourself.” Perhaps it’s unfair to compare the two
audiences. In the printed word, many read tabloids, romantic novels and
magazines with big pictures. But I think in general the attention span of
your average Internet Metaller could do with some extension. You don’t need
to be able to plough through a 500 page book to challenge your mind and if
long posts are interesting enough, and their content is of substance, those
who want to explore the issues will be drawn into reading them.
Today, when people increasingly believe that any
criticism is mere opinion (that is, that opinion is merely another name for
"personal taste"), do you think criticism is even possible?
To suggest that criticism is anything other than
opinion is to suggest art/music/creativity can be distilled into an absolute
and that the critic is the guardian of that absolute. It couldn’t get any
more ridiculous. There is no absolute "good" in music, no more than there is
an absolute "good" in anything else. Morals 1000 years ago are not the
morals of today, and won’t be the morals in a 1000 years time. If there is
an absolute then it’s man-made and constrained to current tastes. Genre
classification has a lot to answer for, but I sense its days are numbered as
more and more bands are producing albums that can’t be pigeon-holed.
Criticism is opinion and it is possible. It tells the musician what he would
have to do to his music to make it meet the critic’s needs. If the band and
critic share the same needs, the criticism may be valuable feedback. Those
needs could be emotional, philosophical, political, or commercial.
Is objectivity possible for a reviewer, for
criticism? Or is the ideal not objectivity but something other?
“Is it possible to be objective?” That’s a bit like
saying “Is it possible to be honest?” That’s a good question, one that would
take several pages to answer. What I can say is that it is possible to
perceive yourself as being so.
What do you want your readers to know after they've
read one of your reviews?
To make their own minds up.
Thanks, Mal for taking the time to so carefully and
honestly answer my questions!
A chat with Mark Marchman, of
Peacedogman:
How do you begin when you set for yourself the task of reviewing a
record? Do you have a routine? If so, what is it?
Generally, I put the disc in with that week’s "travel
pack"--goes in the car or wherever. I don’t take the liner notes, and
usually I listen to it at least a dozen or so times before I feel
comfortable enough to review it. Then I sit down and write the thing.
What is your general philosophy of reviewing? That
is, what do you think is the purpose of a music critic? Of criticism?
My philosophy is to try and separate wheat from the
chaff. Strip away all the "one sheet hype" or label-oriented / blabbermouth
babbling and just give my honest opinion whether it’s worth someone’s
dollar. Sometimes underground trends and hype can be just as clouding as
mainstream PR, so I ignore all of that and just go for "me and the disc and
my opinion."
Truthfully, most musical criticism these days is to push product, either
from a distro, a label, a flavor-of-the-minute music rag, etc. I’d rather
promote the beautiful freaks that create music for the right reasons.
What are your goals for a given review? How do you
know when you've reached those goals? Is there a certain form to your
reviews? Are some elements of that form more important than others?
I try to write something that explains why something
is great, original, shitty, or whatever in an informative way. If I suspect
that these are the latest underground darlings or I smell the latest
mainstream groundswell PR-push, I’ll indicate that as well-–and if I think
it’s justified based on the quality of the music. I don’t think it makes
sense to ramble on over more than a couple of paragraphs for a music
review--especially for an obscure artist as people tend to have short
attention spans for that sort of thing and I try not to repeat myself over
and over in the same review. Typically, I don’t like to include tons of
history about a band, as I think that is filler and there are tons of places
online that document release dates and lineup changes. Of course, if a
guitarist or drummer left and the quality took a nose-dive, that’s important
to mention. I try to keep it brief, straightforward, and honest.
What standards do you set for your reviews? Do you
look to models for your writing?
I used to read up on the stuff that Lester Bangs wrote
and some of the old Kerrang guys that I liked. There are a lot of good
writers out on the Internet, and a lot of bad ones, regurgitating the
one-sheets that the labels send them so that they can keep getting "free
product"--which is pathetic. I still really like Geoff Barton’s writing
style; he’s probably the only writer that I go out of my way to read these
days, musically speaking.
Would you call yourself more of a stylist or more
of a reporter?
I’m an incredibly biased music fan. If I like
something and think it needs coverage, I’ll do whatever I can to shout it
from the rooftops, whether it’s a crummy cd-r demo or a big-label box set,
as long as the quality is there.
What audience are you picturing when you write your
reviews? Does an Internet audience differ from a print audience?
I picture mostly older readers with eclectic tastes in
heavy rock, punk, and weird stuff. Some young folks fit this bill as well. I
don’t think any "collectors" or "goldmine types" read the site; they’re
usually not as interested in quality and more into the Ebay side of things,
like baseball card collectors.
I think you have to smack people upside the head more on the Internet; there
is a lot more skimming and scanning than printed zines. You have to be
briefer, and to the point.
Today, when people increasingly believe that any
criticism is mere opinion (that is, that opinion is merely another name for
"personal taste"), do you think criticism is even possible?
Criticism has always been personal opinion, hasn’t it?
What you do is, find someone online or in print whose opinion you value.
Someone whose taste lines up with yours 80% of the time, or someone whose
opinions you can "translate." There was this indie rock reviewer I used to
like back in the 90s--can’t remember his name. But he turned me on to a lot
of great stuff. But I still learned that he had a passion for Scottish bands
that I didn’t fancy, and he REALLY liked Neil Young clones. So I avoided his
recommendations on these types of things, but everything else was right-on.
That’s the type of thing I think many of our readers do. Decide where you
agree, and take our recommendations in a way that makes sense to you.
Is objectivity possible for a reviewer, for
criticism? Or is the ideal not objectivity but something other?
It’s not possible, and I don’t think it ever has been.
A reviewer is filtering the music through his personal jukebox of likes and
dislikes, which isn’t a bad thing as long as it’s earnest and not
money-driven or manipulative in some way.
What do you want your readers to know after they've
read one of your reviews?
This is how we feel about this music. It’s been spun
multiple times, and here’s what we like and don’t like about it. Don’t
agree? Fine--piss off!
Thanks, Mark!
Ray Dorsey, long-time reviewer and now
blogger with his own "Ray's
Realm" blog, took the time to answer my questions:
Ray, how do you begin when you set for yourself the task of reviewing a
record? Do you have a routine? If so, what is it?
I guess I would say that my only routine is to listen
carefully to the record. By that, I mean to give it my attention. With
owning our own business, I have a little time during the day, say around
lunchtime that I give myself for listening as well as an hour or so late at
night after the kids are in bed. The only trick I have that I can pass on is
that I always listen to something more than once. Some things kind of
"unfold" on multiple listenings and, conversely, some that create a little
initial false excitement can "come down to earth" a bit another time or two
through.
What is your general philosophy of reviewing? That
is, what do you think is the purpose of a music critic? Of criticism?
The thing I probably like more than anything is
discovering a really good album and letting people know about it who
otherwise may not ever find out about it. Bands who are struggling to get
their stuff out there quite often don't have the vehicle to get their stuff
in front of people and I love to be able to help with that. I also enjoy
writing about good things that are more known, just to throw my two cents
in, I suppose. One thing I always want my readers to understand is that even
though I sort of specialize in more underground stuff, it's pretty silly to
dis something because it's popular or well-known. I've heard people say they
wouldn't listen to THE MARS VOLTA because it's popular. That's just silly.
If it's good, it's good. Be glad that a kick-ass band made it through the
quagmire and achieved a modicum of success. I think that criticism is good
when it's constructive. Everybody gets a kick out of a really funny,
slagging-type review (except the artist, I guess!), but if I see a band with
potential who, if they addressed a few issues, could really do something
cool, I try to bring that out.
What are your goals for a given review? How do you
know when you've reached those goals?
I guess my favorite thing is when a reader writes to
me and says something like, "Man, I checked out that (insert name here)
after reading the review and I ordered it...completely kicked my ass!"
That's nice. Or, when a band emails me and says "Dude, we had like X amount
of people contact us about the disc who said they read your review." That
makes you feel pretty good.
Is there a certain form to your reviews? Are some
elements of that form more important than others?
It can vary; the main thing of course is to get across
the essence of the album and what you would like people to learn about it.
It can take on many forms. Sometimes I find a story from the past, an
anecdote to open things or to set the stage for the review. Other times I
just dive right into the album. Sometimes going track-by-track can work,
other times, just a general overall sense. I try not to get boxed into a
particular thing. One thing I do that gets on my own nerves is when I start
seeing repeating patterns like, "Check out (this cut), (that cut) and (that
cut)." Kind of "pat" things like that. Sometimes it's unavoidable, but
that's one of the things I do that gripes even me. :-)
What standards do you set for your reviews? Do you
look to models for your writing?
I suppose I do, through osmosis, really. It's like
being a musician. If you listen to music and don't live in a bubble, the
work of others will surely affect you. From the old days, I really used to
admire Ron Quintana (the guy who named Metallica!) who put out Metal Mania
(SF) in the '80's. He could give you the entire essence of an album in a
couple words. Like for IRON MAIDEN - "Somewhere In Time," his review was
"Gods!" For some POISON album it was "Glam fags put out an album!" All you
needed to know. I don't have that kind of talent. :-) Bob Muldowney (Kick
Ass) was another I really respected. He was as brutally honest as anybody
I've read....and funny. Of current writers, I have to say that I have a ton
of respect for what Mark Marchman has done over at Peacedogman.com. He has a
fantastic staff, really good writers who each have a sort of specialty but
also are knowledgeable enough to review things outside of that. Mark himself
has really shown himself to be an excellent writer over the years, with a
directness and wit that I like a lot. Another good writer currently is
Sleazegrinder, over at his site. Very funny but also very true and again,
able to give you that essence of an album. Another guy from the old days is
Geoff Barton, who was a big proponent of the NWOBHM over at Sounds in the
old days. He's still going with Classic Rock Magazine, doing articles and
reviews for them. To get a feel for his still-sharp style and command, check
out his review of the new TO-MERA disc in the latest CR.
Would you call yourself more of a stylist or more
of a reporter?
I just look at it as talking about what I'm listening
to and sharing it with people, I guess.
What audience are you picturing when you write your
reviews? Does an Internet audience differ from a print audience?
It's funny, I still have people from the old printed
zine days. The thing that it's done for me is to open me up to a whole new
generation and group of people. Let's face it, making a couple hundred
copies of a printed zine and trying to get them out there is a real uphill
battle...albeit a fun one. WIth the site, you put it out there and people
will check it out.
Today, when people increasingly believe that any
criticism is mere opinion (that is, that opinion is merely another name for
"personal taste"), do you think criticism is even possible?
Well, I guess it really is opinion. I'm hoping that
people who have come to the page will glean something from it that they can
use in some sort of positive fashion. Maybe they get a sense of my taste and
that helps them tell if they'll like something or not. Maybe a band will get
something out of what I say. It has happened, so I'd say it is possible.
Is objectivity possible for a reviewer, for
criticism? Or is the ideal not objectivity but something other?
My main thing is that I listen to the albums, several
times and then write honestly what comes into my head after that. That's
really all I can do. I don't think about objectivity per se, just listen and
write honestly.
What do you want your readers to know after they've read one of your
reviews?
I'd like them to get a feel for what impressions I
have of the record and why. Then, they can take this info and basically
react to it however they want. Hopefully it'll help.
Thanks, Ray!
Also on tap is John Pegoraro, of
StonerRock.com:
John, how do you begin when you set for yourself the task of reviewing a
record? Do you have a routine? If so, what is it?
Nowadays I begin with a deep, deep breath. After that,
it's at least three listens and then I start mentally composing a lead
paragraph based on my initial reaction to the music or the band's history. I
used to have a corporate job that allowed me the luxury of writing reviews
all day, but that ended years ago, so most of my writing is done on the
weekends (although I can still listen to music at the new gig, which helps
greatly). I gave up on previewing albums on my commute in and out of the
city, as it's only 30 minutes in each direction and on the way home I'm
usually dead asleep. Working out gives me an hour to digest music, and the
natural rhythm of exercise helps keep me focused. My wife and I just had our
first kid, so how I work going forward is still yet to be determined. I do
know that “sleep when the baby sleeps” isn't going to cut it for me.
What is your general philosophy of reviewing? That
is, what do you think is the purpose of a music critic? Of criticism?
What's the saying--writing about music is like dancing
about architecture? Maybe so, but the art of writing (or dancing, for that
matter) is something that takes as much practice, effort, and natural talent
as that of composing/playing music. Since taking on the job as editor at
StonerRock.com, I've dealt with scores of good-intentioned people who think
reviewing albums is going to be this sort of effortless task, something that
can be knocked off in under ten minutes. When all the stars are aligned, it
can seem that way, but more often than not it's going to require a level of
dedication that most aren't ready to give. And because of that, those good
natured people quickly fade away.
So that said, my general philosophy is above all to write well. I wish I
could say I do that all the time, but I'm caught between quantity and
quality. There are definitely reviews of mine that thud lifelessly to the
ground. But I take my job seriously--I don't half ass it. Those failures are
noble ones.
As for criticism, I came into this racket knowing fuck-all about music. I
was a “mainstream metalhead” growing up, sticking to the basics and what was
pimped on MTV or in rags like RIP, Metal Edge, and the like (third tier
thrash bands like Vio-Lence were about as extreme as I got). Veering off the
beaten path didn't happen until I was in college, when I was introduced to
left-of-center groups like The Melvins, Harvey Milk, and The Jesus Lizard
and learned that there was more to life than just metal. So to think I'm
some sort of barometer of quality is laughable at best.
If I really like something, I'll let you know. But at least half of what I
review falls under the “it is what it is” umbrella. To me, it's neither good
nor bad--it just is. But that's also because I've heard a couple hundred
bands like it, and that makes my perspective more than a little skewed. The
typical reader isn't coming from that place, so if said reader is hungry for
another doom/stoner/post-rock/hardcore/garage band, here's something that
may be up your alley.
I suppose I could gain some “credibility” by shitting all over those bands,
but then I'm on the way to being another jaded critic and writing reviews
becomes another fucking thing I have to do. Where's the fun in that?
What are your goals for a given review? How do you
know when you've reached those goals?
Like I said, it first has to please me. I can't
regurgitate the same adjectives. I can't just say that it sounds like more
established bands. Like Kevin stated in his interview, it has to have a
personal touch. And it has to be honest. At the 2006 SHoD, I was talking to
a guy who runs a record store in the Seattle area. He buys wholesale from
All That Is Heavy based on my reviews. That's a hell of a responsibility,
and I don't want to abuse that by putting him--or anyone who buys an album
because I spoke highly of it--in a position where it's all a bunch of wasted
money.
As for the readers? I hope that they'll draw something from what I've banged
out, but I can't factor in whether or not they'll like the review because
“they” are a wide and varied group with no common taste. I had one person
publicly call me out on one review, calling it lazy and uninspired, on the
same day that someone else sent me a message saying I had put into words
exactly what he was thinking. Who's right? (It's a trick question--it's
obviously the person who thought I did a good job.) Regardless, I won't
pander to either those who dig what I have to say or those who don't.
Is there a certain form to your reviews? Are some
elements of that form more important than others?
I'm a strong proponent of the traditional
structure--you need a beginning, a middle, and an end. The beginning
generally is the trickiest because that's what needs to draw in the casual
reader. The middle is the meat, the most important part, but without a good
ending that ties everything together, it's like eating an open faced
sandwich upside down.
Within that form, I use whatever tricks I can to get the job done and not
feel like I'm just repeating myself. Sometimes it's a mess of over-the-top
metaphors and the usual “riff-heavy”/“doom-slow”/”bong-tastic” phrases,
sometimes it's the writer's crutch of “Sounds like this band mixed with that
band, and with a touch of this other band.” I'll call out favorite tracks
and ones that fell short. Unless it's an EP, I won't review an album song by
song--it's boring and unnecessary. A review shouldn't be any more than five
paragraphs, unless you're trying to make some sort of Important Statement.
And to address the white elephant in the room,
StonerRock.com has long had a reputation for giving only positive reviews,
and that's always been unfair and unfounded. We are, however, polite. I
personally can't stand that snarky, holier-than-thou, casually dismissive
style of reviews. Since I have the final say over what gets published on the
site, I tell my writers they're free to dislike an album, but they have to
explain why in a reasonable and mature manner.
What standards do you set for your reviews? Do you
look to models for your writing?
My standards I think I've beaten into the ground--well
written, informative, and something that Mom and Dad would approve of you
dating.
Writing's an art, so I draw inspiration from those whose styles I admire. In
terms of critical writing, I've always enjoyed the NY Times movie reviews,
so Janet Maslin and AO Scott are two influences. I keep up with my
peers--primarily Kevin McHugh, Keith Bergman at Blabbermouth, the Hellride
and Peacedogman crews, and my writers (some of whom are much better at this
than I ever was). Martin Popoff goes without saying. Basically, my models
are those who can dance about architecture and keep you watching, along with
my ever growing list of favorite authors.
Would you call yourself more of a stylist or more
of a reporter?
I use the “Who/What/When/Where/Why” formula for my
lead paragraphs, and that's a journalistic trait my wife taught me, but my
love of adverbs and flowery descriptions makes me more of a stylist. I've
tried writing a novel or two, which probably says everything you need to
know.
What audience are you picturing when you write your
reviews? Does an Internet audience differ from a print audience?
My ideal reader is someone who enjoys both reading and
listening to music. Said person isn't coming to me to find any answers, but
to get some new ideas and directions. They want to discuss and share
music--with open minds. It's not a competition over who knows more; it's
about finding new bands that turn you on.
The greatest thing this job has done for me is it
forced me to further broaden my horizons. While having a staff allows me to
pawn off the stuff I really don't care for, I still can't stay in a comfort
zone. I keep looking for merit in music because I love music, and my ideal
audience shares that same belief.
As for internet vs print, can I be a snob and say the latter has higher
standards? Better dancers and the like?
Seriously, though, I think the internet is a great tool--this particular
doofus owes his second career to it--but its emphasis on the now, on the
immediacy of information, can work against it. It's easier to dismiss a band
because you can dip your hand into the stream and pull out ten more right
away. I've seen too many albums fall by the wayside because of that constant
influx.
Today, when people increasingly believe that any
criticism is mere opinion (that is, that opinion is merely another name for
"personal taste"), do you think criticism is even possible?
Isn't that what it is? Isn't criticism personal taste
gussied up with some fancy-pants language and an air of intellectual
superiority? That's not to dismiss criticism--that sort of heady debate
definitely has its place and without it, we'd eventually just be spinning
our wheels--but in the end, a critical essay on the validity of stoner rock
is something you'll either agree or disagree with, depending on how many
Dozer CDs you own.
Is objectivity possible for a reviewer, for
criticism? Or is the ideal not objectivity but something other?
I think it is, to a certain degree. I said earlier
that the majority of what I review is, objectively speaking, good for what
it is. Personally it doesn't do much for me, but if you're a fan of said
genre, give it a shot. There's still a bias there, but it's not the main
thrust.
What do you want your readers to know after they've
read one of your reviews?
I do this because I enjoy it. I owe much to the genres
I ramble on about, and I want to share that with you. What you do with it is
up to you.
John, thanks for answering these questions!
Here are Will Broadbent's
(Peacedogman.com) answers to my questions:
Will, how do you begin when you set for yourself
the task of reviewing a record? Do you have a routine? If so, what is it?
I usually listen to each disc a couple times. I try to
find what sticks out to me and make mental notes for what I will be writing
later. A lot of times, especially if it's a group who I'm not very familiar
with, I'll log on to the Internet and do some research on the artist while
I'm listening to their record so I will be able to provide some background
details on them in the review if necessary. I leave the disc playing as I'm
typing out the review, as well.
What is your general philosophy of reviewing? That
is, what do you think is the purpose of a music critic? Of criticism?
My philosophy for reviewing is simple: honesty. I
think that is all people should be looking for when reading a review. I
listen to a ton of music, and watch tons of films, and I never let what
someone might have said in a review color my own opinion on something. I
think when someone takes what one reviewer says as gospel is a HUGE mistake.
However, I do enjoy reading reviews, as I like to see things from different
angles, from time to time.
Trying to come up with an answer to the question--what is the purpose of
criticism--is a pretty huge endeavor, but I think it all must come down to
the individual. I think a lot of people in the world today will subscribe to
a belief, even something as insignificant as a movie or music review, so
that they can feel like they "belong" to something, in a sense. If everyone
reads a review for what it is/should be, an honest opinion from one
individual, then that would be perfect.
What are your goals for a given review? How do you
know when you've reached those goals?
I try to give a general overview of the record, and
maybe mention a few strong points. I know this might be hard to believe, as
I've trashed many a group in my time as a music reviewer, but I really try
to focus on the positive aspects of whatever I hear. I've reviewed stuff
that isn't my personal cup of tea, but if something is performed well for
its genre, you must acknowledge that.
I try not to provide TOO many details, as I think it can be tedious if a
reviewer dissects each track and everything about the band. At Peacedogman,
we deal with many underground groups that a lot of readers have never heard.
I'm writing for potential music buyers, and if the music is good, I really
want to sell them on the band. People looking for some new, good music to
listen to, aren't going to care if a band switches to a triplet feel three
minutes and 30 seconds into track number seven, they are going to want to
know what specifically makes the music special. I also try to make my
reviews as entertaining as possible. I'm always looking for a clever way to
turn a phrase in order to make things more interesting.
I think that I meet my goals, but I'll never know for sure, as I very rarely
get any feedback on what I do. Occasionally, a friend will compliment me, or
some one will write the site to complain if I trashed a certain band, but
usually, I'm in the dark.
Is there a certain form to your reviews? Are some
elements of that form more important than others?
I think that a good review should be like a good
story. It needs to have a beginning, middle, and an end. When making my
initial listens to what I'm reviewing, I'm also thinking about some kind of
hook I can use that will enable me to write about the band or music for two
to four paragraphs. So I usually start off with that hook, go into what's
strong about the record, peppered with some band history, and then find a
way to bring it all together in the concluding paragraph. I think all of
these elements are of equal importance in my writing.
What standards do you set for your reviews? Do you
look to models for your writing?
There's lot of reviewers and writers who I aspire to
be as good as, but fail miserably. I think the other writers on the
Peacedogman site are all top notch. I also look to Ray Dorsey, John Pegoraro
at stonerrock.com, and Kevin McHugh at Hellride. Sleazegrinder (www.sleazegrinder.com)
is probably my biggest hero in the world of rock criticism. That guy never
fails to be clever and insightful in his writing.
Another model in writing would be the early Marvel comics scripted by Stan
Lee. He was the ultimate "company man," who didn't go to bat for his
artistic collaborators, but his over the top, soap operatic exposition and
his endless alliteration were certainly influential.
Would you call yourself more of a stylist or more
of a reporter?
When I hear the word "reporter," I think of someone
important saying something important. That's not me. What we do isn't
important in the grand scheme of things, so I will call myself a "stylist,"
(not that there's anything wrong with that!)
What audience are you picturing when you write your
reviews? Does an Internet audience differ from a print audience?
I definitely think a print audience differs from an
Internet audience, especially when considering the website I write for. I
picture the Peacedogman readers as really hard-core, intelligent, rock 'n
roll grail seekers. While a print reviewer might be able to speak in more
general terms, I think that we have to really speak with authority about the
bands and genres we're dealing with to please the audience we're catering
to. Placing a new release in the proper context of current stuff that's out
there, and, if it's an established band, that group's career, is important.
A reference to SUNN 0))) will probably go over the head of most readers of
Rolling Stone magazine, but I know most Peacedogman readers will know what
I'm talking about when I drop their name.
I feel you either have to really know your shit, or at
least be able to pretend that you do really well!
Today, when people increasingly believe that any
criticism is mere opinion (that is, that opinion is merely another name for
"personal taste"), do you think criticism is even possible?
I think I might have answered this with the second
question. I don't believe that there is a universal "good and bad" in terms
of something like music. Every band that exists has a number one fan.
Everything is personal taste in our business. I think criticism will always
be possible, as everyone has opinions. Certainly, the Internet has turned
everyone into a critic. You can't go anywhere without being assaulted by
someone's opinion on something.
Is objectivity possible for a reviewer, for
criticism? Or is the ideal not objectivity but something other?
I think objectivity is possible. It's very hard, but
it's possible. As I touched on before, there are certain genres I might not
personally care for, but if something is good at what they are striving to
do, that can't be ignored. For these cases, I try to write around my
problems with the genre and really focus on the positives.
What do you want your readers to know after they've
read one of your reviews?
I want them to come away marginally entertained by an
honest review, and hope that something I said piqued their interest. If it's
a good band I'm writing about that deserves attention, hopefully they will
seek out their music. If it's a band that I happen to trash, hopefully
they'll see that I don't know what I'm talking about, and seek out the music
anyway!
Thank you so much, Will!
A new installment, by way of Chris
Barnes of Hellride Music:
How do you begin when you set for yourself the task of reviewing a
record? Do you have a routine? If so, what is it?
That’s a good question, there, Johnny boy. I actually
haven’t ever processed the idea of having a routine. I think nowadays, with
work, family, and filling store orders being the dominant forces in my life,
the music actually has to really inspire me either good or bad in
order for me to put fingers-to-keyboard. Reviewing music is a love/hate
relationship to me. The process of accurately picking words to describe what
I feel while listening to music is a labor-intensive, often painful process.
Words are descriptive tools, and I can’t count the number of times I hit the
toolbox and come up a hammer and screwdriver short. It’s a rare, celebrated
occasion when I get it right. Those fuckers don’t often capture the plethora
of emotions bouncing around my skull. I have to get it right, or the whole
process goes to hell. I can tell you this, if I do get the words
right, there’s no feeling like it. All that kinetic energy lighting up
various combos of synapses in Old Man Barnes’ head ceases and I get a
feeling of release and catharsis second only to an orgasm. It’s even better
if I can re-read the review and not think I sound like a complete jackass.
Now that I think about it, there are a couple of unwritten rules I follow
when it comes to reviewing.
·I never listen on a sunny day in the car. I get too distracted. Sunny days
are for NPR, Howard Stern, or whatever is on talk radio. I don’t know why
this is.
·Driving at night is the best place for me to listen to an album, especially
Doom Metal albums. My concentration and mood are in tune. Again, I don’t
know why. Maybe it’s a circadian rhythm thing, and hormonally, I’m a better
listener at night. To music anyway. My wife would beg to differ on any other
form of listening.
·Thrash Metal albums are best reviewed on a run or on a treadmill workout.
It’s the litmus test for Thrash. If it can power me through a run, it’s
good. If it doesn’t, it isn’t. No established criteria, it’s just a visceral
feeling. It clicks or it doesn’t.
·A cocktail sometimes helps to loosen the words a bit when I’m actually
writing. I’m not a beer guy, too many useless calories. Clear alcohol is my
game. Too much is worse than none at all though. All writers have gone
through the feeling that they have written something brilliant while under
the influence, and the next day under the scrutiny of the sober eye, it’s
all sloppy crap. Nothing chaps my ass like the feeling that I’ve just wasted
a bit of life time writing sloppy crap.
What is your general philosophy of reviewing? That
is, what do you think is the purpose of a music critic? Of criticism?
The true purpose, for me anyway, is complete and utter
honesty. Lies are generated unavoidably in every other aspect of my life
just in the course of keeping a career and family intact, although I really
do try to keep it to a minimum. I hate it, but it is a constant in life.
Reviewing music is the one place within my existence where I don’t have to
compromise honesty. And that feels really good to me, to be able to have
that space. There’s an overwhelming sense of freedom there, this space where
I don’t have to answer to anyone. A lot of folks never get that opportunity
in their lives. I feel very fortunate in that regard. What I write is all
me, unwaveringly honest, all the time.
As for the purpose of the music critic, man that is another good question,
John. Music is an extremely powerful force in my life. On a personal level,
criticism means writing, and writing means the catharsis of emotion that
music (and life in general) inevitably creates in my head. It’s sort of
selfish, I guess. As to the reader of the review or the creator of the
music, I don’t really know what the end user gets out of it. It’s up to the
person reading to assign meaning, ultimately. If I have influenced the
reader in some way, good or bad, that’s icing on the cake. I’m thrilled to
get responses to my reviews, whether people relate to it or they think it
sucks or if I’m off base or if I’m dead on. But all that’s secondary to the
core purpose of putting my feelings to words in an honest way. I’m a selfish
bastard, I guess.
What are your goals for a given review? How do you
know when you've reached those goals?
The goal is to put the feelings that have been
generated as a result of the music to words as accurately as possible in an
honest fashion. The Word is a tricky sumbitch. Just when I think it’s doing
the job I want it to do, WHAM! the whole review derails irreparably in a big
useless heap of smoking frustration. As to when I’ve reached this goal, I
can’t put it to words really. It just feels right when I proof-read.
It hits the spot, like I’ve nailed what I’ve set out to describe. It’s a
good feeling. There’s only so many words and I’ve managed to use the right
combination to describe what is largely indescribable. It’s like the Hindus
feel about Brahman. To describe is not only impossible, but inappropriate.
Is there a certain form to your reviews? Are some
elements of that form more important than others?
No, not really…I mean, other than intro, body,
summary, ending. And many of my reviews circumvent that traditional
structure. I do tend to personalize reviews, though, and I know that
irritates some people. I’m not a musician, so I don’t have that background
to use as reference. My thing is all gut, because that’s all I have. So it’s
mostly how the music affected me, or my family, even the cat. The cat gets
the brunt of things a lot. You should see my review pile. Lots of loud,
weird stuff.
What standards do you set for your reviews? Do you
look to models for your writing?
Well, it has to be honest and I have to feel good
about it after writing it. As for models, it hasn’t ever been other
reviewers. I fear that they’ll unintentionally affect my style like an
insidious virus. It’s mostly writers– Charles Bukowski and Henry Rollins are
two of my favorites. They have vastly different styles but there is one
thing in common–not a word is minced or wasted. Their writing is Spartan and
lean, every word chosen for maximum impact. Cormac McCarthy writes like that
too. I also like Kerouac’s style, because he didn’t filter anything, the
words came to paper with little forethought. Sometimes he’d go on for a
paragraph without any punctuation. He wrote like his friend Neal Cassady
reportedly spoke–enthusiastically, for long periods of time, without any
breaks.
Would you call yourself more of a stylist or more
of a reporter?
Another good question to make me think. A bit of both
I guess. I report on the music using words mashed together in my style. If
you go by the premise that a reporter is supposed to remain unbiased, then
just disregard everything I said. I don’t know. I just write.
What audience are you picturing when you write your
reviews? Does an Internet audience differ from a print audience?
I don’t really think about an audience, actually. It
keeps me honest that way, so I don’t have to think about who I’m
unintentionally (or intentionally, depends on the mood and day) going to
irritate, annoy, or enlighten. It’s mostly personal catharsis and an
unending journey to capture the feeling of words perfectly in balance with
the music and the emotions generated in me as a result. Chasing the literary
drag on, so to speak.
Today, when people increasingly believe that any
criticism is mere opinion (that is, that opinion is merely another name for
"personal taste"), do you think criticism is even possible?
Man, I can’t even think about that. I’ll blow a gasket
and never write again, and then I’d be truly fucked-up. The writing keeps me
sane. I put tremendous pressure on myself to perform as an employee,
husband, and father. There are two ways I clean the pipes–physical exercise
and writing. I need those two, otherwise I’d be more angry, jaded, and
fucked-up than I already am. No good can come of that. Best not to think of
those heavy topics for me. Let the people with real intellect tackle that
one.
Is objectivity possible for a reviewer, for
criticism? Or is the ideal not objectivity but something other?
Objectivity isn’t possible for me. I have a hard time
believing that anyone can be completely "objective." We’re humans, and are
cursed with intellect formed innately by genetic blueprint, but honed
through life experience. As a result, every bit of information we receive is
processed through a framework and filtered through our own genealogy and
experience. No bit of information gets by without judgment. Some are better
than others at turning that off, but the switch never gets completely
thrown. Ultimately it’s futile and must be incredibly frustrating for people
who’s jobs count on them to be "objective." Fuck that. Say what you mean, do
what you say, but be professional about it.
What do you want your readers to know after they've
read one of your reviews?
That it was written with honesty in mind, that I
really put some effort behind it, and a huge thanks for even reading it in
the first place.