930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: Celeste on December 22, 2004, 11:13:00 am
-
Case in point:
http://www.bigyawn.net/cdreview.php?id=205 (http://www.bigyawn.net/cdreview.php?id=205)
Other case in point:
http://www.bigyawn.net/cdreview.php?id=190 (http://www.bigyawn.net/cdreview.php?id=190)
I'm not that fond of the "Van Lear Rose" album, and I'm not a huge fan of Ringenberg, either, but you can't call a page of some snot nosed indie hipster wanna-be's rant against country a music review.
Just because you little twats "[n]ever gave Johnny Cash a second concern" doesn't mean true music fans with a little bit of depth don't seek out music beyond what the pseudo hip/indie rags spoon feed them...and don't align yourselves with Rick Rubin, you're not in his league (not that I think he's all that, I just think you're so NOT all that that)
To refer to Jason Ringenberg as "this Ringenberg guy" just shows that the writer has no music knowledge, depth or backgroun at all.
To say country music is a "genre known for its self-loathing" also reflects a lack of real background, as well as a lack of perception that there are other genres that could much better fit that decription.
Big Yawn is a club of second-rate wanna-bes who have no depth of knowledge and commit the worst crime of all: closed-mindedness.
Until you guys can actually get knowledgeable writers with some real insights, your site will never be a respectable place for music info.
-
Then why don't you e-mail redsock and become a contributor? Oh wait, that would take effort. :roll:
Also, every writer has an e-mail address listed on the review page...so why not shoot off a rant to them?
-
Ouch
-
Why would someone want to contribute to something they have no respect for? :roll:
Originally posted by Random Citizen:
Then why don't you e-mail redsock and become a contributor? Oh wait, that would take effort. :roll:
-
Originally posted by Random Citizen:
Then why don't you e-mail redsock and become a contributor? Oh wait, that would take effort. :roll:
I don't purport to be the person expert enough or knowledgable enough to write good music reviews. I just know a well-written one or a badly-written one when I see one. And, furthermore, writing is part of what I do for a LIVING and I get PAID for it. I don't really care to do it for free in my spare time.
Originally posted by Random Citizen:
Also, every writer has an e-mail address listed on the review page...so why not shoot off a rant to them?
I like to go to the man in charge. Plus I'm sick of the hot-shot attitude like some folks on here are so in-touch and know so much about music, when you don't know shit.
-
I never got that feeling from this board. The board's tastes seem to be pretty middle of the road.
Originally posted by Celeste:
Plus I'm sick of the hot-shot attitude like some folks on here are so in-touch and know so much about music, when you don't know shit.
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
I like to go to the man in charge. Plus I'm sick of the hot-shot attitude like some folks on here are so in-touch and know so much about music, when you don't know shit.
Then again, why don't you e-mail redsock? Last time I checked, he's not in charge of the 9:30 Club message board.
Frankly, if you want to bitch about something, I could care less. It's the nameless, "some folks who..." bullshit that weakens your argument. Instead of going to the source, i.e. the writers of the reviews, the editor of the webzine, or the webzine's messageboard.
And if you're a writer for a living, I'd hope you write better prose for your employer than you do in this thread.
-
If you have no respect for something, then why do you care if you think it sucks? And why do you bother wasting a moment of life bitching and whining about it? I know you're entitled to an opinion...and so is the person that wrote the review. You might disagree, but that doesn't mean the whole site is crap. Read around and expand your horizons.
-
wow
-
Originally posted by Random Citizen:
Originally posted by Celeste:
I like to go to the man in charge. Plus I'm sick of the hot-shot attitude like some folks on here are so in-touch and know so much about music, when you don't know shit.
Then again, why don't you e-mail redsock? Last time I checked, he's not in charge of the 9:30 Club message board.
Frankly, if you want to bitch about something, I could care less. It's the nameless, "some folks who..." bullshit that weakens your argument. Instead of going to the source, i.e. the writers of the reviews, the editor of the webzine, or the webzine's messageboard.
And if you're a writer for a living, I'd hope you write better prose for your employer than you do in this thread. [/b]
I said writing is PART of what I do, and as a matter of fact, I got a message from someone telling me my post was well-written...
I'm not trying to win an argument ("bullshit that weakens your argument") I'm just reacting to a website I feel does a disservice with its reviews. We talk about albums and shows on here rather than e-mailing the band or the label, don't we?
Maybe Big Yawn should position itself more up front as closed-minded and anti-music, instead of "Oxygen for the music-starved mind"...what does that mean anyway? You don't need "oxygen" when you're starving, you need FOOD...and rating music with ZZZZs kind of implies that it puts you to sleep...so I guess the LOWER Big Yawn rates an album, the less likely it is to put someone to sleep? That makes sense since the ones they seem to like are run of the mill indie drivel, while anything outside of their little circle of comfort they rate lower.
-
This forum board has been used numerous times to promote Big Yawn events, and promote Big Yawn itself.
Since this is the case, why is it not a legitimate thing to do, if you have a criticism of Big Yawn, to criticize it on the same 9:30 Board on which it has been promoted ad nauseum?
If someone has a personal problem with a certain writer or editor, sure ot would make sense to email them personally about it. But if you have a critique of something out there on the web, particularly something that gets mentioned here endlessly, why not critique it here?
Why don't the writers for Big Yawn just email their music reviews to the artists they are critiquing, instead of putting them out there on a webzine?
Originally posted by Random Citizen:
Originally posted by Celeste:
I like to go to the man in charge. Plus I'm sick of the hot-shot attitude like some folks on here are so in-touch and know so much about music, when you don't know shit.
Then again, why don't you e-mail redsock? Last time I checked, he's not in charge of the 9:30 Club message board.
Frankly, if you want to bitch about something, I could care less. It's the nameless, "some folks who..." bullshit that weakens your argument. Instead of going to the source, i.e. the writers of the reviews, the editor of the webzine, or the webzine's messageboard.
And if you're a writer for a living, I'd hope you write better prose for your employer than you do in this thread. [/b]
-
Looks like we've got another thread on our hands where Rhett and/or Celeste rub it in on how much more enlightened and open minded they are than anyone else on this board.
It's been a while. I was wondering when we would see another one of these!
Btw, I write e-mails at work and occasionally even help out with a proposal or web document. Guess that means I'm a professional writer too!
-
Originally posted by chaz:
Looks like we've got another thread on our hands where Rhett and/or Celeste rub it in on how much more enlightened and open minded they are than anyone else on this board.
And therein lies the irony...
-
because attention is a drug which is hard to beat.
-
Look, I did not post my comments to hurt anyone's feeling...I held back when I first saw the Ringenberg review, but this now was too much.
It's not a matter of *opinion*
If those reviews were well-written with an understanding of the background and history of the artists, and without a blatant announcement of disdain for the genre at the outset, but found legitimate weaknesses in the albums and expressed those well, I wouldn't have been compelled to voice my opinion in this way...but, sadly, they were not.
If you kiddies can't take it, then I don't know what to tell you...
-
i give this thread 7 zs. fantastic angst, but offers no solutions
-
Originally posted by chaz:
I write e-mails at work and occasionally even help out with a proposal or web document. Guess that means I'm a professional writer too!
I write a newsletter, press releases, ad copy and other stuff, you ass. Get a grip.
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
Originally posted by chaz:
I write e-mails at work and occasionally even help out with a proposal or web document. Guess that means I'm a professional writer too!
I write a newsletter, you ass. Get a grip. [/b]
Sorry, kiddie.
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
Look, I did not post my comments to hurt anyone's feeling...I held back when I first saw the Ringenberg review, but this now was too much.
Certainly not hurting my feelings as I didn't write either of the reviews in question.
It's not a matter of *opinion*
...
I wouldn't have been compelled to voice my opinion in this way...but, sadly, they were not.
So, which is it? If it's not a matter of opinion, then how can you voice your opinion? :p
Again, you're going back and forth...first you're describing the writing based on the two reviews you listed above and then you're ragging the website in general...perhaps you should take your man's advice?
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
If someone has a personal problem with a certain writer or editor, sure ot would make sense to email them personally about it.
-
I hate to find myself on the side of Rhett and Celeste on anything, but I must admit that the review she linked to came off as *awfully* pompous. I don't frequent BigYawn so I'm not sure whether that's typical of them or not.
-
Poor old Redsock....
I get the feeling that Redsock is one of those guys who will one day become very rich and succesful through his eagerness and determination and maybe just a little dumb luck.. It is clear he has put a lot of effort into the website and in arranging shows.
I dont think the owner of a media outlet should control every word either. If those are the opinions and thoughts of the reviewer so be it.
If you have a differing viewpoint and are so burning to express it, it would seem clear to me also that you should start your own website or right your own reviews.
-
<img src="http://mapage.noos.fr/gymhippie/banane.gif" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by Random Citizen:
So, which is it? If it's not a matter of opinion, then how can you voice your opinion? [/b]
You really are a feeble-minded little thing aren't you? My point was that my gripe is not with the writer's opinion of the albums, it is with their blazingly obvious lack of qualifications to write these reviews at all.
Nobody here has offered any intelligent defense of these reviews or the site, or its tagline or rating system. You've just rallied around your pals and against people who are criticising you. That's commendable, sticking up for a friend, but kind of uninteresting and doesn't do much for the discourse on this board.
-
Originally posted by Random Citizen:
Certainly not hurting my feelings as I didn't write either of the reviews in question. [/b]
hello? I was talking about redsock's feeling you fool...
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
Originally posted by chaz:
I write e-mails at work and occasionally even help out with a proposal or web document. Guess that means I'm a professional writer too!
I write a newsletter, press releases, ad copy and other stuff, you ass. Get a grip. [/b]
i think you are generalizing this whole site, just as the reviewer has generalized country music. its the pot and the kettle, celeste.
A music review is just an opinion. some do it better than others, but i think the writers for BigYawn are learning, and they are not "professional" writers.
i don't think any of my reviews or most of the other reviews claim a know-it-all attitude. but even if they do...thats a review. if all reviews were "well, i think the cd is good, but thats just my opinion, i dont really know if you'd like it" then reviews altogether would be pointless.
reviewers are taught to proclaim that they have the knowledge to tell you if its good or not.
all reviewers have to do it. wishy-washy reviews are the worst, i am sure you agree.
i dont write too many reviews anymore, because i dont even like reviews. i dont read them, and i dont write them too much (ask redsock) but to say the whole site is a joke is just weak.
and quite frankly, expected of you. you never fail to disappoint in revealing what a miserable snooty bitch you really are.
voicing your opinion is one thing, but doing it in a hurtful way in a forum that you KNOW has many of the writers on it, was done deliberately to be mean. and dont deny it.
redsock and others are just doing this as a hobby and are trying to get involved in the music they love. not trying to be purveyors of all knowledge.
you have a right to an opinion and a right to voice it, but this is just downright disrespectful to everyone involved in Bigyawn AND everyone in this forum. but i suppose you have the right to that too. sad, really.
-
oooooooooooh cat fight!
sorry, thought the thread could use a sexist remark
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
OYou really are a feeble-minded little thing aren't you? [/b]
ok, that's enough, you porky midget!
-
this is all I am saying:
you can't categorically brush a genre with such a condescending stroke and expect to be taken seriously...
you can't call an artist that has been around for YEARS "this Ringenber guy" without showing that you have no background...
here's a better review of the album that focuses on the content of the album, not the reviewers distaste for its genre
http://www.popmatters.com/music/reviews/r/ringenbergjason-empire.shtml (http://www.popmatters.com/music/reviews/r/ringenbergjason-empire.shtml)
-
ok, now. after reading the first review and "scanning through" the second. I can make a couple points.
1. out of ALL of the reviews, these 2 do NOT make or break BigYawn.
furthermore, BigYawn is a site more for rock and indie-pop music, so a real country fan may never find this site. therefore, they may actually be better off speaking like they dont know much about country. someone namedropping every county album or reference in a review, may confuse me and leave me with no idea what the album may really sound like.
also, the first review sounds like a rant. which may have its place, but maybe shouldn't be in the review category. it does lack detail and information and gets a little harsh.
it even gets wishy washy at the end, after proclaiming quite a bit of knowledge.
the problem is that if all reviewers reviewed CDs from bands they loved and knew ALL about, there would be very few bad reviews. but are we getting paid to review these? no. so how much research can we really do? do i have the time and resources to listen to a bands back catalogue and that of closely related bands before reviewing a CD? nope.
i believe you may have a point in disagreeing with this review. but it doesnt make me less disgusted about the way you went about it.
you should be spit on.
-
I'm not part of your little club, think of me as your real "random citizen" or a focus group of one...I really didn't know that SO MANY of you wrote reviews for Big Yawn, and you're right...I don't read all of them...oy vey...I'd probably really blow my stack...I didn't mean to "hurt feelings"...I am a bitch, but I like it that way...when it comes to writing and communicationa and going PUBLIC with them, I think it's helpful to hear some criticism...and the fact of life is you're going to hear it...think of how poor Jason would feel if he read that review! Oh wait, he'd dismiss it because of the many clues the writer left that he or she HAD no clue about the music. Just think, if the review writers had the depth and background and did not show their lack of intelligence so blatantly, we could give their reviews more creedence...
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
I'm not part of your little club
would the club you refer to be "a club of second-rate wanna-bes?"
-
Wow, you get to the board a little late in the morning and you miss all the good stuff. Hmm.... where to begin?
First off, I am a member of this board, but it is in no way shape or form affiliated with BY. I promote BY stuff just as Fico promotes Cartel, and Medusa promotes her DJ events. I guess this is as good a place as any to air your complaints about any of the above, but the trend of folks feeling the need to publicly trash us, as opposed to offering some criticism to me personally, continues. Which is fine, I don't really care, it doesn't embaress me in the least. If it makes you feel better to say it out in the open, which it obviously does, I'm happy for you.
To the matter at hand. Celeste and Rhett (mostly Rhett) have never had good things to say about BY, and their criticism in and of itself means nothing to me. I personally think their taste in music is horrible, their favorite artists boring and many of the songs they love physically make me ill. I grew up on country music, attended the Grand Old Opry numerous times as a child, actually like Bluegrass, and have a grand appreciation for the legends of the genre, Loretta Lynn included. But I didn't write that review. On a staff of almost 30 writers, sometimes the wrong person gets the wrong CD. In the case of Jason Ringenberg, that is obvious. It is a pet peave of mine, when writers outwardly say they hate the particular genre of CD they are reviewing, but that is an internal issue. As for Loretta, whatever I think of the new CD -- and I'm not loving it much -- I think the writer's point of why everyone is writing about the CD is spot on. No Jack White, no one cares. Sorry Loretta, it's that simple.
In the end, you can rag on us all you like about uneducated writers, our lack of relevance and whatever else your panties are in a bunch over. Some of your points are very valid, though they often become lost in your blind fury. I've said this before, keeping this site together and functional is not easy, and soetimes things don't always end up the way you want it. This shit ain't easy and it is a huge work in progress. When you start your own website and work with a staff of folks and experience many of the pitfalls we have, let's sit down and have a long talk. I'm not gonna apologize for either of those reviews. They are, as are all the others, personal statements from the writers and do not necessarilly reflect the feelings of the "BY editorial staff." I hope in time we'll have some "highly educated" country music lover who can talk endlessly about every CD released with a steel guitar. Until then, i'm going to continue to try and make it work as best I can. And if you feel that blows, that stop reading the fucking site.
PS- I apologize for the length of this post.
-
Originally posted by redsock:
I think the writer's point of why everyone is writing about the CD is spot on. No Jack White, no one cares. Sorry Loretta, it's that simple.
this, i meant to post originally as well. I have felt this way about several artists as of late. Indie rock and its fans will tend to glom onto something they would normally hate, for a reason unbeknownst to me.
most of the review really sounds like me talking, but maybe something I'd be too shy to write. I feel the same way about the Darkness....why anyone likes them and not Warrant, I'll never know. Loretta Lynn is in that same category. Remember when everyone in hiphop land bought Dido's CD cause she was on that Eminem track? same deal.
ps - i love redsock. even though he doesnt write me back anymore.
-
I believe her point was that the reviews were written in a way that conveyed that the writer(s) did not have much knowledge of the genre they were dealing with. If the writer does not have a knowledgeable grasp of the genre they are writing about, why waste the bandwidth to post such a review? It only reflects poorly on Big Yawn's ability to be taken seriously in the local music community.
That being said, I do agree that the Loretta Lynn and Jason Ringenberg efforts are indeed fairly mediocre, though I don't think the writers of these reviews offered any compelling evidence as to why this was the case.
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
the problem is that if all reviewers reviewed CDs from bands they loved and knew ALL about, there would be very few bad reviews. but are we getting paid to review these? no. so how much research can we really do? do i have the time and resources to listen to a bands back catalogue and that of closely related bands before reviewing a CD? nope.
you should be spit on.
-
And so you know, these comments don't hurt my feelings. I do spend an enormous amount of time on this site, and when someone trashes my hard work to the extent celeste did, it usually does make me want to kill them or cry, but not in this case.
But calling our reviews pompous? Have you read other sites' reviews? I mean c'mon.....
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I believe her point was that the reviews were written in a way that conveyed that the writer(s) did not have much knowledge of the genre they were dealing with.
uh, good point. they actually came out and said it, no? maybe not a great idea. but lets not review reviews!!! :)
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Indie rock and its fans will tend to glom onto something they would normally hate, for a reason unbeknownst to me.
it's easy to explain -- one can find the same proportion of trend-following sheep among indie rock fans as among the general human population -- which means the majority.
-
Originally posted by redsock:
But calling our reviews pompous? Have you read other sites' reviews? I mean c'mon.....
I was the one who said that, and I was only referring to the one review I read that Celeste linked to. I'm not familiar with anything else on that site, so it's the only thing I can comment on.
-
I think Jack White is a legitimate lover of classic country music. You are right, it is a shame when Loretta Lynn and Johnny Cash suddenly become "cool" among the fickle, trendhopping indie rock snots. Too bad people have such rigidly defined ideas about music. Thankfully, Jack White does not.
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by redsock:
I think the writer's point of why everyone is writing about the CD is spot on. No Jack White, no one cares. Sorry Loretta, it's that simple.
this, i meant to post originally as well. I have felt this way about several artists as of late. Indie rock and its fans will tend to glom onto something they would normally hate, for a reason unbeknownst to me.
most of the review really sounds like me talking, but maybe something I'd be too shy to write. I feel the same way about the Darkness....why anyone likes them and not Warrant, I'll never know. Loretta Lynn is in that same category. Remember when everyone in hiphop land bought Dido's CD cause she was on that Eminem track? same deal.
ps - i love redsock. even though he doesnt write me back anymore. [/b]
-
Originally posted by redsock:
But calling our reviews pompous? Have you read other sites' reviews? I mean c'mon.....
that wasn't me...they're too retarted to be pompous (OK, now I'm just ribbing you!)
I know a site like this is a lot of work...and I know it's not easy to write music reviews...that's why I don't do them! But cause something is hard and you try does not make you exempt from criticism. Anway, like you said, Redsock, my opinion doesn't bug you, and like Dupek said, you'll probably be rich someday...
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
But cause something is hard and you try does not make you exempt from criticism. Anway, like you said, Redsock, my opinion doesn't bug you, and like Dupek said, you'll probably be rich someday...
Criticism in and of itself is great. And as I said, you made some valid points; that writer shouldn't have reviewed that CD being one of them, totally my fault. I take more offense to the way this was portrayed. Which is why I find a personal e-mail to me more helpful. In a forum like this your message tends to quickly get potrayed as BigYawn is a Joke! and the valid points you have almost become meaningless as they are clouded over by your gross generalizations. But it does increase our level of activity on the site! :-)
I certainly hope Deepak is right. I need the money.
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
Anway, like you said, Redsock, my opinion doesn't bug you, and like Dupek said, you'll probably be rich someday...
Huh?
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v120/dr-kill/lindam.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
I think there's a difference between criticism and calling a whole group of people "a club of second-rate wanna-bes."
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
You've just rallied around your pals and against people who are criticising you. That's commendable, sticking up for a friend, but kind of uninteresting and doesn't do much for the discourse on this board.
Except, I haven't met anyone who works on the site, not even Redsock himself. The only person I know of on this board is Dr. Doom...and I haven't seen him in well over a year.
Having said that, I have no agenda in sticking up for these people beyond the fact that we volunteer our time to do something we like to do...discover new bands/CDs and write about them for others. As I said upthread, it's much easier to sit on the sidelines and critique another's writing abilities.
Do I like all the CDs I receive? Nope and I like it that way. If I were to start gushing about every album, I'd hope that Redsock would change it up.
Frankly, the fact that we don't get paid for writing these reviews should show that we're doing this because we want to, not because we have to. So who cares if you get paid to write a newsletter. I'm sure you have people critiquing your work as well, for better or for worse.
-
Originally posted by redsock:
In a forum like this your message tends to quickly get potrayed as BigYawn is a Joke!
that was the title of the thread.
-
Originally posted by HerrDoktorDoom:
I think there's a difference between criticism and calling a whole group of people "a club of second-rate wanna-bes."
We've been called worse...
-
Originally posted by redsock:
Originally posted by HerrDoktorDoom:
I think there's a difference between criticism and calling a whole group of people "a club of second-rate wanna-bes."
We've been called worse... [/b]
by better...
-
Originally posted by redsock:
But it does increase our level of activity on the site! :-)
"there is no such thing as bad publicity." :)
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by redsock:
In a forum like this your message tends to quickly get potrayed as BigYawn is a Joke!
that was the title of the thread. [/b]
No shit Sherlock, that was my point. As opposed to, "Here are a few things I would like to see changed on BigYawn." Now that is a thread I am eager to read.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by redsock:
Originally posted by HerrDoktorDoom:
I think there's a difference between criticism and calling a whole group of people "a club of second-rate wanna-bes."
We've been called worse... [/b]
by better... [/b]
eh... I don't know, as much as you'd think Rhett and Celeste are the pits, that Dceiver fella is pretty much the sludge at the bottom of the human gene pool. At least they bathe.
-
<img src="http://www.umpazall.co.uk/pics/garymichael.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by Random Citizen:
Do I like all the CDs I receive? Nope and I like it that way. If I were to start gushing about every album, I'd hope that Redsock would change it up.
you're still missing the point, thumbelina, it's not about liking or not liking the music, it's about knowing your work, and for someone to be a solid reviewer, they ought to have some background...
to those who would criticize how I chose to express my criticism, I'd say the media is the message...
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
Originally posted by Random Citizen:
Do I like all the CDs I receive? Nope and I like it that way. If I were to start gushing about every album, I'd hope that Redsock would change it up.
you're still missing the point, thumbelina, it's not about liking or not liking the music, it's about knowing your work, and for someone to be a solid reviewer, they ought to have some background...
to those who would criticize how I chose to express my criticism, I'd say the media is the message... [/b]
you can shut up now.
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
you're still missing the point, thumbelina, it's not about liking or not liking the music, it's about knowing your work, and for someone to be a solid reviewer, they ought to have some background...
I disagree. The whole point about writing a review of an album is to say whether or not you, the reviewer, like the album. But then again, you wouldn't understand...
Originally posted by Celeste:
I don't purport to be the person expert enough or knowledgable enough to write good music reviews. I just know a well-written one or a badly-written one when I see one. And, furthermore, writing is part of what I do for a LIVING and I get PAID for it. I don't really care to do it for free in my spare time.
-
Hey Redsock,
Which artists and songs, specifically, are you referring to?
Originally posted by redsock:
To the matter at hand. Celeste and Rhett (mostly Rhett) have never had good things to say about BY, and their criticism in and of itself means nothing to me. I personally think their taste in music is horrible, their favorite artists boring and many of the songs they love physically make me ill.
-
in order to make the reader GIVE A SHIT if YOU like the item being reviewed, you need to demonstrate some knowledge of what you're reviewing...
you wouldn't ask a kid to review wine for example...you wouldn't ask a vegetarian to review a burger joint or a steak house...unless you were doing some kind of campy theme review...which, as I'm writing this, I'm thinking would be kind of cool...anyway, I doubt that's what was going on with these reviews on Big Yawn...
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
you can shut up now.
why should I "shut up"? I don't want to dis BY any more, but I'm certainly not going to let some intellectual light weight completely miss the point...
who tells people to "shut up" on a chat board?
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
you wouldn't ask a kid to review wine for example...you wouldn't ask a vegetarian to review a burger joint or a steak house...unless you were doing some kind of campy theme review...which, as I'm writing this, I'm thinking would be kind of cool...anyway, I doubt that's what was going on with these reviews on Big Yawn...
Those analogies are flawed (or flawd) and I hope you realize that. If a kid hasn't tasted the wine, then no, I wouldn't respect their critique. However, if I've listened to an album 3-4 times (which I do for each review before writing), then I feel I have enough background to write a review of that particular album.
-
Originally posted by Random Citizen:
if I've listened to an album 3-4 times (which I do for each review before writing), then I feel I have enough background to write a review of that particular album.
you feel that way...I'm glad you feel that way...but I would disagree and add that *feeling* or *thinking* you can write a review without a little depth of knowledge of the history of that artist or genre is what would yield reviews such as the ones I found so offensive...
a review is--or should be--more than just opinion
a good place to start would be to ask whether the artist was successful in achieving what they set out to do with the album if you don't know anything about the artist or the genre, you won't even ask the right questions
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
you can write a review without a little depth of knowledge of the history of that artist or genre is what would yield reviews such as the ones I found so offensive...
Hmm, sort of how this thread makes me feel.
a review is--or should be--more than just opinion
Again, I refer back to...
Originally posted by Celeste:
I don't purport to be the person expert enough or knowledgable enough to write good music reviews.
Meh, I'm bored. So here's another banana...
<img src="http://mapage.noos.fr/gymhippie/images/banana_rasta.gif" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
Originally posted by Random Citizen:
if I've listened to an album 3-4 times (which I do for each review before writing), then I feel I have enough background to write a review of that particular album.
you feel that way...I'm glad you feel that way...but I would disagree and add that *feeling* or *thinking* you can write a review without a little depth of knowledge of the history of that artist or genre is what would yield reviews such as the ones I found so offensive...
a review is--or should be--more than just opinion
a good place to start would be to ask whether the artist was successful in achieving what they set out to do with the album if you don't know anything about the artist or the genre, you won't even ask the right questions [/b]
You have a point, but none of this justifies the vitriol of your attacks, though. Nor does it support a criticism of the whole site when you could only find two reviews as examples. A classy thing to do would be to apologize.
-
If those two reviews are indicative of the lack of musical knowledge of the writers on the site, why would she want to bother reading the whole site?
I for one know that Celeste is not a huge country music fan. But I am. I think I should recieve an apology for the offensiveness of the reviewers in their terse, condescending dismissal of the genre of country music. Better yet, the reviewers should apologize to Jason Ringenberg and Loretta Lynn. Now that would be classy, Doctor Dolt.
[/qb][/QUOTE]You have a point, but none of this justifies the vitriol of your attacks, though. Nor does it support a criticism of the whole site when you could only find two reviews as examples. A classy thing to do would be to apologize. [/QB][/QUOTE]
-
Originally posted by Random Citizen:
I disagree. The whole point about writing a review of an album is to say whether or not you, the reviewer, like the album. But then again, you wouldn't understand...
Well, the whole point of reading reviews is to help the reader determine whether or not they should bother checking out the music. Reviews like the Loretta Lynn review don't really help much at all, in that respect. Two-thirds is a rant against Loretta's attention in the indie-press. The last third basically says "I don't like country music" and "This sounds like a Loretta Lynn CD." Neither of those comments is very helpful to the reader.
Does Jack show any influence on the sound of the CD? Is it more bluesy than Loretta's other CDs? Does it have a harder edge to it? Is Jack's production completely unnoticable? Does Jack sing or just play guitar on the track he guests on? Does it sound completely out of place?
A good review isn't about whether or not the reviewer likes/dislikes the CD. It's about why the reviewer has that opinion.
Unless you're Lester Bangs. Then anything goes.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
...the offensiveness of the reviewers in their terse, condescending dismissal of the genre of country music...
Originally posted by Herr Doctor Doom:
...the vitriol of your attacks...a criticism of the whole site when you could only find two reviews as examples...
see the similarity...the medium is the message, as I mentioned before...and the *manner* is the message as well...I think we're on to something now
-
Originally posted by Bombay Chutney:
Originally posted by Random Citizen:
I disagree. The whole point about writing a review of an album is to say whether or not you, the reviewer, like the album. But then again, you wouldn't understand...
Well, the whole point of reading reviews is to help the reader determine whether or not they should bother checking out the music. Reviews like the Loretta Lynn review don't really help much at all, in that respect. Two-thirds is a rant against Loretta's attention in the indie-press. The last third basically says "I don't like country music" and "This sounds like a Loretta Lynn CD." Neither of those comments is very helpful to the reader.
Does Jack show any influence on the sound of the CD? Is it more bluesy than Loretta's other CDs? Does it have a harder edge to it? Is Jack's production completely unnoticable? Does Jack sing or just play guitar on the track he guests on? Does it sound completely out of place?
A good review isn't about whether or not the reviewer likes/dislikes the CD. It's about why the reviewer has that opinion.
Unless you're Lester Bangs. Then anything goes. [/b]
it's a bad review because it assumes you've been reading other (ahem, pitchfork, ahem) reviews of the album and that you've been hearing about it in indie circles all year.
if big yawn wants to be kind of a "meta review" depository, then more power to them, i'd rather hear about the album itself.
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
you can shut up now.
why should I "shut up"? I don't want to dis BY any more, but I'm certainly not going to let some intellectual light weight completely miss the point...
who tells people to "shut up" on a chat board? [/b]
i said you "can shut up" not should. can you read?
meanwhile, your ending comment i am assuming was calling my petty or childish, which you have certainly proven today to be the HUGE winner at.
if i recall correctly, you have used your intelligence, knowledge and intellect to utter "little twat", "second rate wannabes", "you don't know shit" , "you ass" and "fool"
hardly sounds like words from an intelligent person!
you have gone off the deep end and made a complete fool of yourself and are too proud and self-righteous to admit it, and you are now finished questioning the integrity of the website, but are now insulting the intelligence of those you choose to keep company with (yes, only on the internet, but you do read and post here)
-
Originally posted by Bombay Chutney:
A good review isn't about whether or not the reviewer likes/dislikes the CD. It's about why the reviewer has that opinion.
Unless you're Lester Bangs. Then anything goes.
I agree (including the LB point), but the assumption made by another poster is that a writer should not to inject his/her opinion into the review. It's that point with which I disagree. Honestly, I try to avoid using words such as I, me, my, myself in reviews because it's a given that it's my opinion of the album.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I think I should recieve an apology ...
Better yet, the reviewers should apologize to Jason Ringenberg and Loretta Lynn.
i am sorry you like crappy music, and i am sorry Jason and Loretta make crappy music.
:)
-
Originally posted by Random Citizen:
but the assumption made by another poster is that a writer should not to inject his/her opinion into the review
if you mean me, I made no such "assumption"...but you could mean someone else
-
...or is it the massage?
Originally posted by Celeste:
see the similarity...the medium is the message, as I mentioned before...and the *manner* is the message as well...I think we're on to something now
-
Sounds like Markie (back in his glory days) to me.
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by Celeste:
[qb] Originally posted by sonickteam2:
[qb]
if i recall correctly, you have used your intelligence, knowledge and intellect to utter "little twat", "second rate wannabes", "you don't know shit" , "you ass" and "fool"
hardly sounds like words from an intelligent person!
[/b]
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
...you have gone off the deep end and made a complete fool of yourself and are too proud and self-righteous to admit it, and you are now finished questioning the integrity of the website, but are now insulting the intelligence of those you choose to keep company with (yes, only on the internet, but you do read and post here)
see my post above comparing my critique of the site with the album reviews
those who feel insulted insult their own intelligence (or lack thereof) themselves
they don't need me for that
-
I could sure use a "massage to completion."
Originally posted by econo:
...or is it the massage?
Originally posted by Celeste:
see the similarity...the medium is the message, as I mentioned before...and the *manner* is the message as well...I think we're on to something now
[/b]
-
I'm sure McLuhan could have used one as well.
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I could sure use a "massage to completion."
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
those who feel insulted insult their own intelligence (or lack thereof) themselves
they don't need me for that
no celeste, you have actually insulted people directly.
or should i say, you have said "insulting things" to people today. perhaps they werent insulted.
-
Something which you've NEVER done in this board. Hahahahaha
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by Celeste:
those who feel insulted insult their own intelligence (or lack thereof) themselves
they don't need me for that
no celeste, you have actually insulted people directly. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Something which you've NEVER done in this board. Hahahahaha
i have never told someone they have no intelligence, no.
-
<img src="http://deoxy.org/img/mcluhan.jpg" alt=" - " />
yup
Originally posted by econo:
I'm sure McLuhan could have used one as well.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
i have never told someone they have no intelligence, no.
I didn't say any one had "no intelligence" either...I'm gonna bail on further discussing this. I think those that can see my point have seen it and those that haven't just don't want to...and I don't care that much anyway. I just reacted earlier to what I felt were a couple of horrible "reviews"...
-
I'm sure you will once you find someone with quantifiably less than yourself. :D I suggest going to a hockey game.
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Something which you've NEVER done in this board. Hahahahaha
i have never told someone they have no intelligence, no. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
I just overreacted earlier
apology accepted.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by Celeste:
I just overreacted earlier
apology accepted. [/b]
Originally posted by Celeste:
I didn't say any one had "no intelligence" either...I'm gonna bail on further discussing this. I think those that can see my point have seen it and those that haven't just don't want to...and I don't care that much anyway. I just reacted earlier to what I felt were a couple of horrible "reviews"...
nice try, sonick
-
you remind me of that Spin Doctors song "Little Miss Can't Be Wrong"
-
I'm a Mrs.
-
Going back through all this, it does not seem entirely surprising that an outlet that normally reviews mainstream indie recordings does not like or have much knowledge of country recordings.
Moreover it may do its readership a disservice by recommending such records to its readers who are probably mainstream indie fans.
Just a thought.
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
I'm a Mrs.
Are you entirely sure about that?
<img src="http://www.eco-action.org/smelly/images/smellyelse1.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
uh oh...that one hits too close to the bone
-
I don't know any of you and don't want to get involved in your personal fights but I had a question-
What exactly "qualifies" someone to be a record reviewer- that seems to be what the thread started as? (I highly doubt that most reviewers have some sort of music history degree as a background to qualify them). I would posit that it would be impossible for any music reviewer to be intimately familar with every artist they review to the level that they can cite every prior work, influence, and motivation. Plus part of the experience of encountering any art is to take away your own message not necessarily what the maker intended. Flame away.
-
Originally posted by tbmtt:
Flame away.
There's nothing to flame in your comment. Congrats! ;)
-
Good Afternoon.
My name is Jaron, and I am the writer of the aforementioned Loretta Lynn review. I would like to start by saying that my views do not constitute the general opinion of BigYawn, any writer not named "Jaron," or the guy who runs the site. As Eric already pointed out somewhere in this quagmire of a hissy fit, he likes country music. I do not. However, my bias does not change or discredit the two central points of my review, namely: (1) that the indie rock community would not care about Loretta Lynn's album, absent Jack White's association with it, and (2) that the mad rush to give rave reviews to said record (i.e. Pitchfork just included it in it's top 50 of 2004) speaks a paradox of sorts; if Van Lear Rose is truly deserving of a 9 of 10 rating, then - this being an average, par-for-the-course Loretta Lynn album representative of her body of work - the indie rock community has ignored lavishing similar praise on equal records from Ms. Lynn's back catalogue. So, no matter how you want to slice it, they're either pandering or derelict in their goal of informing us of decent music.
That said, Celeste, or whoever still cares 85 posts into this thread, that's my opinion and you're totally entitled to disagree. I said it was an average Loretta Lynn record, in that it sounds on par with her other work, and gave her the rating that from our standard is average - a 5. On a tangental note, I find it funny you and Rhett seem so heaven sent against Eric "advertising" on here (and I'm not neccessarily going to disagree with you on that), yet you cannot follow up your disgust for such actions with taking the high road and emailing myself, or the site's webmaster. Several people have emailed me about reviews they've disagreed with in the past (in particular, one I wrote about Wilco), and the majority was able to express in a more mature manor then crying on 930.com. The thought of you calling my reviews condescending and then throwing a hissy fit on a venue's website is hypocritical at best. I encourage you to email myself or post commentary on BigYawn's message board if you have a follow-up or would like to engage in an actual discussion of the merits of recent album releases, as I will not waste 9:30's bandwidth any longer airing our dirty laundry. It's funny, one of the things I was thinking about earlier this week was suggesting to Eric that we have a mailbox section where people can write in and disagree, and we'd post them on the site in the spirit of fairness. Perhaps in light of this recent unpleasentness, that is an idea we'll take under advisement, but then again, I do not run the site, I just write "closed-minded bigoted rants."
I'm sure I speak for both myself and Eric when I say we appreciate your interest, and your obvious readership of his site and my work. On a personal note, it's so rewarding to see when something I create has such a profound effect on other's lives. I never write a review saying to myself, "Oh, boy, I hope someone will be so clearly affected by my opinion - so stirred with feeling and rancor - that they run to the streets, wraught with emotion, and have to tell others what they've seen," but when it does happen, it's most rewarding. Thank you, God bless.
-jaron
jaron@bigyawn.net
-
think of it this way.
If i like rock music and i am thinking of buying a country CD, perhaps i would like to hear what someone who also liked rock music thought of it, for I may share thier opinion of it. instead of hearing what someone who already likes country thinks of it.
make sense?
-
there are no explicit qualifications per se, but if I was to write a commentary on FDA's handling of the Vioxx/Celebrex issue and in my commentary I referred to the FDA commissioner as "this Crawford guy" I don't think people would hold my opinion as valuable, since bu doing this I would have demonstrated that I don't really know much background on the agency or its commissioner...
get it?
-
Originally posted by elj:
I find it funny you and Rhett seem so heaven sent against Eric "advertising" on here [/QB]
I'm not against this...
-
Edit
Delete
the dead horse has been beaten
i am out of this one
-
You remind me of that Beck song "Loser". Or perhaps the Radiohead song "Creep". Take your pick.
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
you remind me of that Spin Doctors song "Little Miss Can't Be Wrong"
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
I really didn't know that SO MANY of you wrote reviews for Big Yawn, and you're right...I don't read all of them...
wouldn't this statement clearly deem you "unqualified" to write a review of BigYawn.net then? which is what you did by starting this topic.
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
there are no explicit qualifications per se, but if I was to write a commentary on FDA's handling of the Vioxx/Celebrex issue and in my commentary I referred to the FDA commissioner as "this Crawford guy" I don't think people would hold my opinion as valuable, since bu doing this I would have demonstrated that I don't really know much background on the agency or its commissioner...
get it?
Now that is just wrong Celeste, comparing something the FDA did to Joe Blow's thoughts on an album is hardly apples to apples.
"Ms. Lynn was extremely interested in working with Mr. Jack White, whose credentials as a producer and as a musician in the band, the White Stripes, were quite impressive.They speant three solid weeks in the studio, located in Nashville, TN. Mr. White was heard saying how impressed he was with te city, and the studio itself. 'It's the birthplace of country,' he was quoted as saying."
You want to read 300 words of that? The reviews are meant to be intelligently written, off the cuff description of the album. Not reporting for a trade publication.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
You remind me of that Beck song "Loser". Or perhaps the Radiohead song "Creep". Take your pick.
i know you can do better than that!!
come on and use that brain!
-
So when people on the 9:30 Board have a problem with, say, a David Segal review in the Washington Post, they should simply email Mr. Segal with their complaint, and not post their complaint on the 9:30 board?
That's bullshit, and you know it.
Originally posted by elj:
Good Afternoon.
My name is Jaron, and I am the writer of the aforementioned Loretta Lynn review. I would like to start by saying that my views do not constitute the general opinion of BigYawn, any writer not named "Jaron," or the guy who runs the site. As Eric already pointed out somewhere in this quagmire of a hissy fit, he likes country music. I do not. However, my bias does not change or discredit the two central points of my review, namely: (1) that the indie rock community would not care about Loretta Lynn's album, absent Jack White's association with it, and (2) that the mad rush to give rave reviews to said record (i.e. Pitchfork just included it in it's top 50 of 2004) speaks a paradox of sorts; if Van Lear Rose is truly deserving of a 9 of 10 rating, then - this being an average, par-for-the-course Loretta Lynn album representative of her body of work - the indie rock community has ignored lavishing similar praise on equal records from Ms. Lynn's back catalogue. So, no matter how you want to slice it, they're either pandering or derelict in their goal of informing us of decent music.
That said, Celeste, or whoever still cares 85 posts into this thread, that's my opinion and you're totally entitled to disagree. I find it funny you and Rhett seem so heaven sent against Eric "advertising" on here (and I'm not neccessarily going to disagree with you on that), yet you cannot follow up your disgust for such actions with taking the high road and emailing myself, or the site's webmaster. Several people have emailed me about reviews they've disagreed with in the past (in particular, one I wrote about Wilco), and the majority was able to express in a more mature manor then crying on 930.com. The thought of you calling my reviews condescending and then throwing a hissy fit on a venue's website is hypocritical at best. I encourage you to email myself or post commentary on BigYawn's message board if you have a follow-up or would like to engage in an actual discussion of the merits of recent album releases, as I will not waste 9:30's bandwidth any longer airing our dirty laundry. It's funny, one of the things I was thinking about earlier this week was suggesting to Eric that we have a mailbox section where people can write in and disagree, and we'd post them on the site in the spirit of fairness. Perhaps in light of this recent unpleasentness, that is an idea we'll take under advisement, but then again, I do not run the site, I just write "closed-minded bigoted rants."
I'm sure I speak for both myself and Eric when I say we appreciate your interest, and your obvious readership of his site and my work. On a personal note, it's so rewarding to see when something I create has such a profound effect on other's lives. I never write a review saying to myself, "Oh, boy, I hope someone will be so clearly affected by my opinion - so stirred with feeling and rancor - that they run to the streets, wraught with emotion, and have to tell others what they've seen," but when it does happen, it's most rewarding. Thank you, God bless.
-jaron
jaron@bigyawn.net
-
There are actually some people in the world who like BOTH rock and country music. Those are the people whose opinions I am going to trust when it comes to a review of a rock or country album. Duh.
I like rock music, but dislike rap. Would you like to hear my opinion of the new Mos Def album?
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
think of it this way.
If i like rock music and i am thinking of buying a country CD, perhaps i would like to hear what someone who also liked rock music thought of it, for I may share thier opinion of it. instead of hearing what someone who already likes country thinks of it.
make sense?
-
She was referring to Jason Ringenberg, one of the godfathers of the 80's cowpunk movement that came along long before Jeff Tweedy ever met his Uncle Tupelo. To call him "this Ringenberg guy" either shows a complete lack of knowledge of the importance of Jason's past, or a complete disregard for it.
Originally posted by redsock:
Originally posted by Celeste:
there are no explicit qualifications per se, but if I was to write a commentary on FDA's handling of the Vioxx/Celebrex issue and in my commentary I referred to the FDA commissioner as "this Crawford guy" I don't think people would hold my opinion as valuable, since bu doing this I would have demonstrated that I don't really know much background on the agency or its commissioner...
get it?
Now that is just wrong Celeste, comparing something the FDA did to Joe Blow's thoughts on an album is hardly apples to apples.
"Ms. Lynn was extremely interested in working with Mr. Jack White, whose credentials as a producer and as a musician in the band, the White Stripes, were quite impressive.They speant three solid weeks in the studio, located in Nashville, TN. Mr. White was heard saying how impressed he was with te city, and the studio itself. 'It's the birthplace of country,' he was quoted as saying."
You want to read 300 words of that? The reviews are meant to be intelligently written, off the cuff description of the album. Not reporting for a trade publication. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
There are actually some people in the world who like BOTH rock and country music. Those are the people whose opinions I am going to trust when it comes to a review of a rock or country album. Duh.
I like rock music, but dislike rap. Would you like to hear my opinion of the new Mos Def album?
[/QB][/QUOTE]
this is what i am saying. I understand some people like both, but i was not talking about those people, DUH.
and perhaps i would like to hear your opinion on the new Mos Def. honestly.
and if you just senselessly trashed it, i would say, whatever, but it wouldnt send me in a crazy rage!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
and if you just senselessly trashed it, i would say, whatever, but it wouldnt send me in a crazy rage!!!!!!
What if it was the new Muse CD? ;)
-
Originally posted by redsock:
Now that is just wrong Celeste, comparing something the FDA did to Joe Blow's thoughts on an album is hardly apples to apples.
you're still, STILL, missing the point, like so many others on the board right now, and it is so frustrating...I'm not comparing "something FDA did" with the Joe Blow reviewer...
I was using the subject as an example, if someone was to WRITE about something and refer to someone who is KNOWN as "this so-and-so guy" as though this KNOWN person is just some schmuck nobody's heard of ever...this only reflects that the person writing this has not heard of said so-and-so...and it reflects poorly on the writer and on the publication...I'm not suggesting you use Mr. or Ms...I'm suggesting your reviewers do their homework, stick to what they know (notice, not what they "like", but what they "know")...or, have some humility...
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
one of the godfathers of the 80's cowpunk movement
what a title. how could we insult such an important person in music.
:roll:
and thats MR COWPUNK to you buddy.
-
Originally posted by Bombay Chutney:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
and if you just senselessly trashed it, i would say, whatever, but it wouldnt send me in a crazy rage!!!!!!
What if it was the new Muse CD? ;) [/b]
whatever. it doesnt matter. some review is not going to make me act like a goddamn fool on a chat board.
-
the important question is
Will Jack White beat the shit out of Loretta Lynn when after her next album is out, she criticizes the production of Van Lear Rose?
-
No, Jack White only beats the shit out of girls (like that Von Bundies chick). Loretta Lynn is a woman.
Originally posted by pollard:
the important question is
Will Jack White beat the shit out of Loretta Lynn when after her next album is out, she criticizes the production of Van Lear Rose?
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I believe her point was that the reviews were written in a way that conveyed that the writer(s) did not have much knowledge of the genre they were dealing with. If the writer does not have a knowledgeable grasp of the genre they are writing about, why waste the bandwidth to post such a review?
Actually, I agree -- I only looked at the Loretta Lynn review, but to start out this way to me means that particular reviewer should not be tasked with reviewing that album. Harsh words -- vile, fecund, etc.
"Every ten years or so, Indie Rock Criticism goes through an identity crisis of sorts and opens its doors to an artist of what is traditionally the most vile, hated spew of the fecund popular music world -- country music."
While the general point is an interesting one, it lost all validity with the opening paragraph.
And, though I don't think this board is the place to bash particular people simply to bash them, it is a local music forum, so a good place to generate discussion on local music websites, etc. God knows the exciting and invigorating discussions have been fairly few and far between this winter...
May all get better soon, as I'm probably not long for the board. And I get to leave having agreed with Rhett and Celeste!
-
Just for comparison's (http://www.930.com/cgi-bin/ubb-cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=008681;p=2) sake:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
....
Most overrated album: Loretta Lynn-Van Lear Rose. This sounds like a Jack White country album with Loretta Lynn doing vocal chores. Which is fine if you like Jack White. Personally, I prefer the Emmylou Harris-Daniel Lanois and Willie Nelson-Daniel Lanois collaborations, as well as the seemingly more hands-off Rick Rubin approach to Johnny Cash.
Granted, it's not an official review but Sonick, Random, Redsock and others have already detailed most of my thoughts somewhere above especially the fact that these people are writing for the love of it and not as a profession. Christ, it's the internet! I'm not even paying for some print copy or an excessive amount of advertising that I'd have to wade through!
Personally, one of the reasons that I rarely read music reviews is because they bore me to death which is something I've stated here many times. Way too many of them are by people who have worked their way up the journalistic career ladder after paying lots of dues and have been molded by the old established ways. While there are a few good lessons to be learned there, they end up becoming cookie-cutter writers who do nothing but kiss corporate ass with the right words in the right ways at the expense of any real knowledge or insight into the music angle of their work.
Often the very best reviews, in my eyes, are those that get deeply involved in the music side of the craft but are a bit short on the standard methods of writing the same old boring review over and over again. Too many of them are like form letters with bands and outcomes keyed in. Some of the worst are the ones with all of the flowery words that try to overcompensate for a lack of ability to communicate any real information that a reader might need to have a clue what is being said so that by the time you've completed reading, you still don't know whether or not it's something that you would have any interest in buying or even listening to.
Rhett, I actually agree with the first part of your statement even though we have very different tastes in music. It just seemed that a little 'black kettle therapy' was needed. Word of advice, take some chocolate home with you. Lots of chocolate! ;)
-
Originally posted by Jaguär:
Word of advice, take some chocolate home with you. Lots of chocolate! ;)
lol!!! i herrrrr dat!!!!!
-
Funny, there's a similar thread happening on the Big Takeover's mailing list discussing Pitchfork.
-
Well...this is what I come home to!
I guess it's hard NOT to comment on all this.
I'm really finding it hard to see why Celeste is so upset. If the reviewer is so discredited, then why care? Why not just dismiss it as ignorant? I work in retail these days...and I like the things I sell. But everyday, someone comes in and looks at something I love and says "that's ugly." What an angry and unstable person I'd be if I had to rant and rave every time that happened. Another thing I don't understand is that the person has admitted to not liking or knowing country music. So a) why are you even paying attention to it as one who DOES like country music and b) why do you expect someone to afford the same reverence as you do? That's like asking a follower of Islam to praise Jesus Christ. You have to understand...some people are Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, Atheist, Agnostic, Buddhist, Confucist,or Taoist
and they don't have the respect for Jesus as a Christian would. With so many other types of religion out there, why get upset at all of the people who don't praise Jesus? That's a lot of people to get upset at.
And I don't see how insulting their catchphrase and whatnot is adding to your argument. That just seems really petty.
I'm bringing copies of the Tao Te Ching for everyone to the Chrimmus party. HA!
Well anyways this was interesting, folks. Especially since I plan on going into journalism! Yowza.
PS. I was going to say something about Jesus but I'll refrain
-
Originally posted by Samantha:
You have to understand...some people are Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, Atheist, Agnostic, Buddhist, Confucist,or Taoist and they don't have the respect for Jesus as a Christian would.
But, to stay with Celeste's point, would you want to read on a site about religious texts a 'review' of the Torah by the Wiccan, who's coming at it with a biased attitude (signaled by starting the review by describing Judaism as vile, fecund and all...) and isn't familiar with any of the context? If the Wiccan had deconstructed the Torah as an investigatory manner and looked at how it might play off of Wiccan lore, that could be interesting, but to start of ranting....
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by Samantha:
You have to understand...some people are Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, Atheist, Agnostic, Buddhist, Confucist,or Taoist and they don't have the respect for Jesus as a Christian would.
But, to stay with Celeste's point, would you want to read on a site about religious texts a 'review' of the Torah by the Wiccan, who's coming at it with a biased attitude (signaled by starting the review by describing Judaism as vile, fecund and all...) and isn't familiar with any of the context? If the Wiccan had deconstructed the Torah as an investigatory manner and looked at how it might play off of Wiccan lore, that could be interesting, but to start of ranting.... [/b]
If it were a Wiccan site, I wouldn't be surprised. I also wouldn't be upset by it (if I were Jewish) because I know it came from someone who didn't have the same respect as I would have. A country fan would probably call some of my music "vile and fecund." But I would understand it to be their opinion and I certainly wouldn't be upset by it.
It seemed to me to be a tongue-in-cheek "rant." It just didn't seem like it was meant to be such an insult, more like a joke.
-
<img src="http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQDxAjEXKXRu4KE8Upu!I4Bwqa92JkAkpIkJj4!vbx83IPo6Hrim7q6iUuFeL2LxaMfv!gBf8Dv047tcuRSm1pHdsUjZsv0kUn5T9uTUVDFWNmtS1WsMGw/pregnant.jpg?dc=4675501988481707638" alt=" - " />
-
to clarify to you all "fecund" is not a pejorative term...it means "productive" or "fertile"
also, Samantha, I am not "so upset" and to Jag, I do not need chocolate
I was emphatically criticizing the reviews, and thus, the site (since they were allowed ON the site, hello is there an editor in the house?) in the same manner in which the reviews were written
I'm personally not upset by any of this, nor am I bothered by the reviewers' opinions of the CDs in terms of whether they like them or not (I personally think the Loretta Lynn album stinks, but I won't presume to know enough about it all to write something for public consumption for a website about it), it is the shoddy manner in which they were written and the complete lack of any indication of depth of knowledge that I was railing against here, and, if you all want BY to remain a private enclave and a hobby site, then, by all means continue in this vein, but if you want respectability, well, I've given my pointers...
the reason I posted on this board is to see if anyone agreed/disagreed and have a discussion about it, I don't really care to have a private conversation with the writer...that's no fun
-
Originally posted by Xmasie Markie:
Originally posted by Celeste:
I'm a Mrs.
Are you entirely sure about that?
<img src="http://www.eco-action.org/smelly/images/smellyelse1.jpg" alt=" - " /> [/b]
this needs updating, it must be from 2000 or early 01
-
You asked for it:
<img src="http://uk.geocities.com/littlemissmental/images/logos/LMM_txt.gif" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
to clarify to you all "fecund" is not a pejorative term...it means "productive" or "fertile"
also, Samantha, I am not "so upset" and to Jag, I do not need chocolate
are you still talking? jeez. maybe you need a ball gag or something. I bet Markie could help you out with that.
-
I'm typing, 'tard
later!
-
heh... how long can this thread last? :D
-
Originally posted by HerrDoktorDoom:
heh... how long can this thread last? :D
Shhh.... remember what we talked about? Any publicity is good publicity. Just ask Paris hilton.
-
About 100 times as long as you did with that Paris Hilton picture in your left hand last night. :D
Originally posted by HerrDoktorDoom:
heh... how long can this thread last? :D
-
well you sure fooled me.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
About 100 times as long as you did with that Paris Hilton picture in your left hand last night. :D
stop looking in my window!
-
<img src="http://img159.exs.cx/img159/4955/card22ex.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
I am a bitch, but I like it that way...
Good thing I'm on vacation so I had time to read this drivel. Four pages - I read it all and I feel this point was never fully explained. It wasn't about the music, the web site, the review, the people, or anything other then Celeste and Rhett's boredom needing to incite others. That's what bitches do, and they like doing it. How many years has this been going on folks? And you still let them do this to you? Silly people.
-
Who asked you, asshole?
Did you even read the two offensive reviews?
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Celeste:
I am a bitch, but I like it that way...
Good thing I'm on vacation so I had time to read this drivel. Four pages - I read it all and I feel this point was never fully explained. It wasn't about the music, the web site, the review, the people, or anything other then Celeste and Rhett's boredom needing to incite others. That's what bitches do, and they like doing it. How many years has this been going on folks? And you still let them do this to you? Silly people. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Who asked you, asshole?
Did you even read the two offensive reviews?
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Celeste:
I am a bitch, but I like it that way...
Good thing I'm on vacation so I had time to read this drivel. Four pages - I read it all and I feel this point was never fully explained. It wasn't about the music, the web site, the review, the people, or anything other then Celeste and Rhett's boredom needing to incite others. That's what bitches do, and they like doing it. How many years has this been going on folks? And you still let them do this to you? Silly people. [/b]
[/b]
smackie's point proven.
besides, who takes such offense to a CD review???
lol. talk about being petty.
i bet even that ringenburg guy wouldnt have cared as much!
-
I think we've learned on this board that different people get offended by different things. Sometimes these things may seem trivial to the person saying them, as well as others who are not offended by the comment.
Perhaps offensive was not the right wording. But it is annoying to read stuff and dumb as the shit in these two reviews, even if was written by a mere kid pretending to be a music journalist.
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Who asked you, asshole?
Did you even read the two offensive reviews?
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Celeste:
I am a bitch, but I like it that way...
Good thing I'm on vacation so I had time to read this drivel. Four pages - I read it all and I feel this point was never fully explained. It wasn't about the music, the web site, the review, the people, or anything other then Celeste and Rhett's boredom needing to incite others. That's what bitches do, and they like doing it. How many years has this been going on folks? And you still let them do this to you? Silly people. [/b]
[/b]
smackie's point proven.
besides, who takes such offense to a CD review???
lol. talk about being petty.
i bet even that ringenburg guy wouldnt have cared as much! [/b]
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I think we've learned on this board that different people get offended by different things.
and some people are just generally offended by other people on this board!
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Who asked you, asshole?
You did:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
If someone has a personal problem with a certain writer or editor, sure ot would make sense to email them personally about it. But if you have a critique of something out there on the web, particularly something that gets mentioned here endlessly, why not critique it here?
So there's no need to call me names. I didn't call your wife a bitch, she labeled herself a bitch, and did so proudly I might add.
-
My point was...why jump into a conversation that pretty much ended yesterday?
The conversation was about the poor, vitriolic quality of the writing in the two reviews that would tend to reflect poorly on the website that they were posted on. The conversation was not about Vansmack being judgemental about other people on the board.
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Who asked you, asshole?
You did:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
If someone has a personal problem with a certain writer or editor, sure ot would make sense to email them personally about it. But if you have a critique of something out there on the web, particularly something that gets mentioned here endlessly, why not critique it here?
So there's no need to call me names. I didn't call your wife a bitch, she labeled herself a bitch, and did so proudly I might add. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Did you even read the two offensive reviews?
I did Rhett. But I know better the to make blanket statements about Slate, ESPN, Salon or any other web site because I disagree with an article or two contained therein. And so should someone who writes professionally for a living.
And I don't go to Country Music web sites to read reviews about the new U2 CD. And if they do review it, would I be shocked that they hate it? No. And even if I were shocked, I would definitely not be shocked enough to write a six paragraph critique and post it on a different web site all together.
Doesn't Big Yawn have an avenue for your wife's grumbling? I assume she would have used it first, unless of course her point was to do something completely different then her (somewhat masked) attempt at taking offense to two reviews of CD's she disagreed with.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
My point was...why jump into a conversation that pretty much ended yesterday?
Forgive me for not being able to get this particular point out of "who asked you, asshole?" - perhaps you should have just come out and said this was over yesterday. To my credit or discredit, I was travelling yesterday, and unable to post my thoughts until today.
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
The conversation was about the poor, vitriolic quality of the writing in the two reviews that would tend to reflect poorly on the website that they were posted on. The conversation was not about Vansmack being judgemental about other people on the board.
Forgive me if I don't take a lesson from you on not being judgmental of people on the board. It was your wife's "Big Yawn is a club of second-rate wanna-bes" amd calling them "kiddies" post that started it all (knowing full well that those folks are on this board, otherwise she takes her beef up on the Big Yawn Board). You're wife called herself a bitch and I agreed. I was not being judgemental so much as I was giving her the affirmation she seemd so deeply to be craving.
-
I don't know if Big Yawn has a forum to grumble about their reviews. I don't know if the Washington Post does. I don't know if Rolling Stone, Magnet, Spin, Pitchfork, Popmatters, or any other music publications have forums for people to grumble about their reviews. When I want to talk about music, concerts, music reviews, or anything music related, this board is where I go. And my wife as well.
Big Yawn bills itself as "O2 for the musically starved." (it seems as if someone who was STARVED would need food more than oxygen, but whatever) I didn't realize that they billed themselves as a website specific to any certain genre. So when I saw reviews of a couple of country related artists that I was fond of, I though perhaps that they are a website that covers a variety of genres (which is the kind of website I like!). Thus, it was a bit of a shock to read these two reviews that were both condescending to the genre they were dealing with, and the artists in particular. If you're going to review something, at least start my having some respect for the genre you're dealing with.
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Did you even read the two offensive reviews?
I did Rhett. But I know better the to make blanket statements about Slate, ESPN, Salon or any other web site because I disagree with an article or two contained therein. And so should someone who writes professionally for a living.
And I don't go to Country Music web sites to read reviews about the new U2 CD. And if they do review it, would I be shocked that they hate it? No. And even if I were shocked, I would definitely not be shocked enough to write a six paragraph critique and post it on a different web site all together.
Doesn't Big Yawn have an avenue for your wife's grumbling? I assume she would have used it first, unless of course her point was to do something completely different then her (somewhat masked) attempt at taking offense to two reviews of CD's she disagreed with. [/b]
-
There's only one way to settle this brouhaha:
<img src="http://www.semantic.co.uk/images/lab/lab_thumbnails/water_pistols.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Well, to finally clear up this one point, from the Ontario Science center:
"The accepted theory is that we yawn when there's not enough oxygen in our lungs. When you're relaxed, your breathing is shallow and only the air sacs at the very bottom of your lungs get used. If these sacs don't get enough fresh air, the tissue tends to stiffen up a bit. Your brain then tells your body to yawn and get more oxygen down there."
Does this finally explain our tag line? New music (O2) for the oxygen (new music) starved mind.
Now, in terms of genre, we do like to include lots of genres... some examples:
Hip-hop - http://www.bigyawn.net/cdreview.php?id=122 (http://www.bigyawn.net/cdreview.php?id=122)
electronic - http://www.bigyawn.net/cdreview.php?id=15 (http://www.bigyawn.net/cdreview.php?id=15)
alt-country - http://www.bigyawn.net/cdreview.php?id=148 (http://www.bigyawn.net/cdreview.php?id=148)
post rock - http://www.bigyawn.net/cdreview.php?id=71 (http://www.bigyawn.net/cdreview.php?id=71)
folk/singer-songwriter - http://www.bigyawn.net/cdreview.php?id=85 (http://www.bigyawn.net/cdreview.php?id=85)
pop - http://www.bigyawn.net/cdreview.php?id=88 (http://www.bigyawn.net/cdreview.php?id=88)
trance - http://www.bigyawn.net/cdreview.php?id=94 (http://www.bigyawn.net/cdreview.php?id=94)
metal - http://www.bigyawn.net/cdreview.php?id=163 (http://www.bigyawn.net/cdreview.php?id=163)
So, we try to include all sorts of stuff, not just your standard alt/indie stuff. Maybe I need to find a better alt country writer, or a real metal-head, but the bottom line is the coverage is there whether or not you like the opinions or the writing style.
-
Yes, that all makes sense.
Have a Merry Xmas.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
The conversation was about the poor, vitriolic quality of the writing in the two reviews that would tend to reflect poorly on the website that they were posted on.
However, it was stated in a MUCH more childish way in the opening post of this thread by your self proclaimed bitch of a wife.
-
oh yes, you all are so right!
<img src="http://vcl.ctrl-c.liu.se/vcl/Artists/Sayla-Renheart/suck.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
I think she did it in the manner that she did in order to mimic/mock the style of writing of the writer of the article. She said as much several times in the ensuing thread.
Good night, dear Sonick.
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
The conversation was about the poor, vitriolic quality of the writing in the two reviews that would tend to reflect poorly on the website that they were posted on.
However, it was stated in a MUCH more childish way in the opening post of this thread by your self proclaimed bitch of a wife. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I don't know if Big Yawn has a forum to grumble about their reviews.
They do. There's a link at the top of every page on Big Yawn to it. It could probably use a topic as controversial as your wife's to get it going.
And Happy Holiday's to you and the Mrs. as well, Rhett.
-
Alright, Happy holidays to all, I'm off to what will likely be an even more lively family holiday weekend. Thanks for defending us, crapping on us, or whatever, in the long run it all brings traffic. Ho ho ho.... (and no, i don't mean Celeste)
-
can we get this sucker up to 5 pages???
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
I did Rhett.
OMG UR GAY
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I think she did it in the manner that she did in order to mimic/mock the style of writing of the writer of the article. She said as much several times in the ensuing thread.
Good night, dear Sonick.
perhaps that is why i wrote something about the pot and the kettle
ok, happy holidays everyone, i am off to the Great White North til Monday!!!!
-
Here's wishing you a merry Xmas (http://jesus.wuffle.com/) with this wonderful present (http://www.christthelight.com/)!
www.kinsellalaw.com/ip/TTAB_voicemail.wav (http://www.kinsellalaw.com/ip/TTAB_voicemail.wav)
-
C'mon Rhett, did you have to mention the review on the Robbie Fulks board (http://robbiefulks.com/bboards/index.html?action=readtopic&topic=02199&forum=001) too?
-
Oh my god!
I have to tell you all about what happened to me over Christmas! On Christmas Eve, I couldn't sleep. I thought it was just some undigested food or maybe too much alcohol, but then, I saw the most frightful apparation looming in the hallway outside my bedchamber. It was a skinny alt-rock looking guy with a long goatee floating in the air beckoning me sternly to come with him, as he had something very important to show me. Naturally, I refused at first, but he persisted and showed me what he did to the last person he haunted that didn't go with him, so he kind of scared me into following him. Next thing I know I was at a rock club where a bunch of people were grooving to mediocre brit pop, some were smoking cigarettes some were talking on cell phones, and before my eyes I saw them all turn into little babies, some were crying, some were sitting in their own shit laughing, some were still smoking. But, this vision made me see the vulnerability and child-like-ness of us all. I said as much to the goateed ghost and he nodded in satisfaction that I had learned the lesson he was trying to teach (not rocket science). He said, though, he would now turn me over to the next ghost for my next lesson.
This next ghostly creature was more terrifying than the first. It was a large womanly apparation with an ironic t-shirt, or maybe a logo from an esoteric hipster music store (her breasts were too big for me to make out the slogan exactly) She gently grabbed me by the arm and floated me over to an industrial looking complex, all brick with towering smokestacks under a heavy grey sky. It was such a horrible place, I shuddered and begged her not to make me go inside. But, she gently calmed my fears and coaxed me into the complex. Inside I saw legions of pale indie kids chained to small IKEA issue desks banging out copy on computer keyboards in the freezing cold and dark warehouse with (at the time) the Fiery Furnaces being piped in. Every so often an old haggish looking woman would come by an hold a cigarette to the lips of one of them and let them have a puff. My corpulent ghost host carefully touched my eyelids with her soft doughy fingers and allowed me to see up close what they were all working on on those computers. What I saw was unbelievable.
They were writing music reviews...lengthy, boring music reviews...each and every one of them. "What is this?" I asked the ghost. She explained that these were aspiring music writers and that ever since the Big Yawn website had shut down, this was the only place for them.
I was horrified. I broke down in tears. I asked if they were forced to write reviews and listen to Fiery Furnaces all day long, and she explained that they also got to listen to stuff like Interpol and TV on the Radio, and sometimes Polyphonic Spree. I knew what this meant and it was too sad, too devasting to bear.
I begged her to take leave of me and let me alone with my thoughts. She said she would only if I could tell her what I learned from the whole experience (these ghosts are big on making sure people learn stuff and imposing a sense of school-yard, or jail-house, or mob justice of some sort). So I told her I was sorry for being so mean to the Big Yawn kids on the 930 club chatboard and that I was a changed woman, and what about the other ghosts that traditionally visit bad people on Christmas? Wasn't I supposed to get three (in addition to the firs) why did I only get these two? And she said the rest of the ghosts were busy preparing their top 10 albums of 2004 lists...
I said OK, then, I'll be nice.
How weird is that?
-
were these the 3 ghosts?
<img src="http://robbiefulks.com/images/profiles/large/00358_0.559979621394636.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Wow, Bigyawn is getting mentioned on NATIONAL chat boards , with international board members (it seems there are a curiously large amount of Robbie Fulks lovers from the UK). I am sure that all the free publicity will do wonders.
Originally posted by redsock:
C'mon Rhett, did you have to mention the review on the Robbie Fulks board (http://robbiefulks.com/bboards/index.html?action=readtopic&topic=02199&forum=001) too?
-
Who's Robbie Fukls, anyway?
-
Originally posted by Dwight Curtis Seafoan:
Who's Robbie Fukls, anyway?
he's friends with that Ringenburg guy isnt he?
-
the guy with the glasses, he looks like a depressed middle aged yuppie who gets constipated a lot and throws massive fits on the internet.
im just a newbie so dont hate on me for making an observation i dont even know who the guy is
anyway i kind of know the guy who reviewed the album for big yawn, he's a smart guy sometimes
-
and by glasses i meant the fool on the left in the black shirt
-
If you are referring to me, my shit is just fine. I'm a vegetarian, and find that I never get constipated. But let me tell you, I do rip some really smelly farts. Sometimes though, they don't smell and are just really fucking loud. Like an Andrew WK concert.
Originally posted by dulla:
the guy with the glasses, he looks like a depressed middle aged yuppie who gets constipated a lot and throws massive fits on the internet.
im just a newbie so dont hate on me for making an observation i dont even know who the guy is
anyway i kind of know the guy who reviewed the album for big yawn, he's a smart guy sometimes
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
If you are referring to me, my shit is just fine. I'm a vegetarian, and find that I never get constipated.
is meat what makes you constipated? i have a new fondness for artichoke hearts after last night.
-
Originally posted by dulla:
and by glasses i meant the fool on the left in the black shirt
thanks for clarifying, you retard
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
Originally posted by dulla:
and by glasses i meant the fool on the left in the black shirt
thanks for clarifying, you retard [/b]
are you still all pissy and name calling? maybe you need a doggie downer.
-
doomlink (http://www.angelfire.com/celeb2/garytheretard/)
doomlink (http://www.velocity.net/~acekc/nazis_and_retards.htm)
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by Celeste:
Originally posted by dulla:
and by glasses i meant the fool on the left in the black shirt
thanks for clarifying, you retard [/b]
are you still all pissy and name calling? maybe you need a doggie downer. [/b]
-
Originally posted by dulla:
the guy with the glasses, he looks like a depressed middle aged yuppie who gets constipated a lot and throws massive fits on the internet.
im just a newbie so dont hate on me for making an observation i dont even know who the guy is
anyway i kind of know the guy who reviewed the album for big yawn, he's a smart guy sometimes
ggw...is that really you?
-
Rhett's bio (http://www.snpp.com/guides/cbg.file.html)
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
[QB] So when people on the 9:30 Board have a problem with, say, a David Segal review in the Washington Post, they should simply email Mr. Segal with their complaint, and not post their complaint on the 9:30 board?
Originally posted by elj:
[qb]
Well I've been on vacation for a week and havent kept up. I've been reading this thread and can't disagree with what both sides have said so far. But I was waiting for this response for a long time and can't believe it's taken this long to get here. All the bitching about the Washington Post reviews and everyone in the little indie click agreeing with each other of how they don't know what they are talking about and how did they get that job as a reviewer.
Hope you all a had a great holiday season. I still have three more pages to read on this thread. Hopefully noone already said what I said. If so, sorry for saying it twice.
-
Originally posted by Bombay Chutney:
What if it was the new Muse CD? ;) [/b]
I'll review it:
I wasn't thrilled with the cd at all but hearing the same songs live, was very impressed, maybe more than impressed.
Short, sweet and barely to the point, I'm sure.
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
[/b]
I like to go to the man in charge. Plus I'm sick of the hot-shot attitude like some folks on here are so in-touch and know so much about music, when you don't know shit. [/QB]
HEY HEY HEY, HOLD ON THERE MISSY!!!!!
When it comes to music I most definately do know shit.
Actually, on the subject of alt-country...there was an article in the Irish Examiner last week trying to educate people on what exactly, "alt-country" is. I got through about 6 words then the attentiion span was gone. ;)
-
I'm glad this review clears up exactly WHY this album finished 10 places higher than the Drive By Truckers on the BigYawn best of list.
Adam Richman left college at the George Washington University after his freshman year to pursue his dream of being a rock star and getting his musical voice heard. I bet most of us can think of half a dozen people we know personally who have similar stories, but what's really amazing is that Adam Richman is really doing it ... and it's paying off. After independently releasing his debut album Two in 2001 and tirelessly touring colleges nationwide for the last three years, Richman is finally seeing his dream come true. After releasing his latest independent album Patience & Science, in which he plays every instrument, sings every vocal track, and produced and recorded everything himself, the world is finally starting to take notice of this young new musical star. He has recently signed on with OR Records and they have re-released a number of tracks from Richman's latest album as The Patience EP, which is the precursor for Richman's upcoming full-length major label debut, to be released sometime early this year.
-
Hey Rhett, why do you even bother paying attention to what BigYawn has to say if you find so much wrong with it? There are dozens of other music review sites on the internet.
-
it is the most highly predictable top 50 ever.
-
Originally posted by econo:
Hey Rhett, why do you even bother paying attention to what BigYawn has to say if you find so much wrong with it? There are dozens of other music review sites on the internet.
I believe he'll say that the constitution gives him the free right to.
-
I'm a completist when it comes to reading end of year music lists. Isn't everyone?
I will give BY credit. They are the only list to include this Adam Richman dude, even if the review sounds like it was written by a street teamer or close personal friend of Mr. Richman.
Originally posted by econo:
Hey Rhett, why do you even bother paying attention to what BigYawn has to say if you find so much wrong with it? There are dozens of other music review sites on the internet.
-
True enough, it says nothing about his music.
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I will give BY credit. They are the only list to include this Adam Richman dude, even if the review sounds like it was written by a street teamer or close personal friend of Mr. Richman.
-
One thing that I found interesting to me is how my tastes totally veered from what was popular with critics this year. Typically, there are always a couple of albums universally revered by critics that were also revered by me. Not this year. Anyway, blah blah blah.
-
There was an album out last year or two years ago by Nada Surf that some of my friends -- who have excellent taste -- liked but was generally disliked by critics.
-
Yes, that album is a great makeout/sex album, imo. Most music critics probably don't get that kind of opportunity.
Originally posted by econo:
There was an album out last year or two years ago by Nada Surf that some of my friends -- who have excellent taste -- liked but was generally disliked by critics.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
it is the most highly predictable top 50 ever.
?
Everyone pretty much had the same lists this year. (Except for the list I found that included Hillary Duff & Ashlee what's her name Simpson.)
In my opinion '04 wasn't the greatest for new albums, so what did I expect?
Or, like Rhett said, list of albums revered by critics. I actually liked the BY list as it had a few ranks that other lists did not. The top ten wasn't so surprising, but hey, at least the other 40 had a few obscure mentions I'm going to check out.
-
Originally posted by El Tee:
Everyone pretty much had the same lists this year.
thats what i am saying, blah blah, Fiery Furnaces, TV On the Radio, Franz Ferdinand, Interpol and like a few ones you havent heard of
boring.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by El Tee:
Everyone pretty much had the same lists this year.
thats what i am saying, blah blah, Fiery Furnaces, TV On the Radio, Franz Ferdinand, Interpol and like a few ones you havent heard of
boring. [/b]
I have read at least one that doesnt have any of those on there (http://mulling.net)
-
leave it to pollard to find anything :)
-
No Mountain Goats?
No Thermals?
You Big Yawn people are high....
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
No Mountain Goats?
No Thermals?
You Big Yawn people are high....
the return!
-
I win the pool!
Originally posted by pollard:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
No Mountain Goats?
No Thermals?
You Big Yawn people are high....
the return! [/b]
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I win the pool!
Judging by the picture on page 4 of this thread, it looks like you lost the pool....the gene pool that is.
Is that the circa 1998 "Clooney" cut?
-
ahhhhh, everything is right in the world again
-
You got me on that one. That's the last time I go to a hairdresser who doesn't speak English. She was replaced, and my hair recovered.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I win the pool!
Judging by the picture on page 4 of this thread, it looks like you lost the pool....the gene pool that is.
Is that the circa 1998 "Clooney" cut? [/b]
-
Welcome back from your sabbatical GGW. I trust that your apprenticeship with the Lee Iacocca went well.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
No Mountain Goats?
No Thermals?
You Big Yawn people are high....
no Secret Machines, The Streets, Burning Brides
and I have seen the Dresden Dolls, but no one asked me!!!
-
For the record, our top 10 was highly predictable. And that made me unhappy. Unfortunately I used all of the writers to put the list together. That won't happen again. Too many folks tastes are kinda mainstream. I am pretty happy with some others that ended up in our top 50 though. Sonick, you had the chance to participate but didn't. And don't claim you were on vacation the whole time either :)
Anyway, a number of folks on the board had a chance to contribute as well, but chose not to. As i said, next year will go a tad differently. Learn from your mistakes...
And welcome back ggw
-
Originally posted by redsock:
Sonick, you had the chance to participate but didn't. And don't claim you were on vacation the whole time either :)
whatever, i had plenty of ideas you shot down.
just cause i didnt wanna write reviews i suppose...
-
Redsock, don't take it too hard. If your list was much different from the Mainstream, than some would bitch that point and claim you were way off the mark for whatever reason they chose to throw around. You know how it goes.
My personal list was way different with the #1 spot going to "� Coeur Léger Sommeil Sanglant" by DestroyAllDreamers with a very close second and third being "Different Stars" by Trespassers William and "Your Everything" by Highspire.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
No Mountain Goats?
No Thermals?
You Big Yawn people are high....
no Secret Machines, The Streets, Burning Brides
and I have seen the Dresden Dolls, but no one asked me!!! [/b]
Sloan - Action Pact