David Segal and the Washington Post.

[jkeisenh]

my friend skonster and i were just chatting about how much David Segal sucks, and how much the Post music reviews suck.
 
 I mean, David Segal is some "respected" critic, yet he only writes like one article a month and hosts one surly chat.  His taste is questionable, to say the least.  And when someone asks him why he didn't review some of last year's best shows, his response is, "I'm sorry, I missed that one."  Missed it?  Isn't it your *job* to go to these things.  damn, i would die for his job!
 
 anyway, rant temporarily over, but gosh i hate that guy.

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

He always seems to belittle the right Britpop bands, so he gets the thumbs up in my book.  :p    :p

[jkeisenh]

sure, he belittles BritPop.  Then he goes and reviews shows at MCI Center and ignores the more important 930 and Gato Negro shows...

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

Good point. But remember that the Post is a mainstream publication, and the MCI holds 15 times as many people as the 9:30 Club.
 
 I actually think the Post does a good job covering music, considering it's a mainstream newspaper and not a music magazine...
 
 Certainly better than the pathetic music converage of the City Paper.
 
 

Originally posted by chimblysweep:
  sure, he belittles BritPop.  Then he goes and reviews shows at MCI Center and ignores the more important 930 and Gato Negro shows...

[Bags]

What I find interesting is that the Washington Times reviews about as much as the Post.  Which gives me shivers, 'cuz I go to that scary website to look for reviews.
 
 I never would have thought or known, but at last summer's Liz Phair show, we spoke to the Times critic at length.  He was a pretty cool guy, no pretense.

[jkeisenh]

You know, the Times is an odd, odd paper.  I used to work in Anacostia and lots of the folks East of the River would buy the Times.  I didn't get why they'd want to read that drivel until I looked closer-- lots of folks would throw out all but the sports page.  It turns out people think the Times has better sports reporting.
 
 I personally think they have a better Metro section, too.
 
 But the front section I just can't stomach, no matter how nice the rest of it is.  
 
 

Originally posted by Bags:
  What I find interesting is that the Washington Times reviews about as much as the Post.  Which gives me shivers, 'cuz I go to that scary website to look for reviews.
 
 I never would have thought or known, but at last summer's Liz Phair show, we spoke to the Times critic at length.  He was a pretty cool guy, no pretense.

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

Yeah, they probably try to say some crazy shit like a fetus is not a human life, or some bullshit like that...
 
 
 

Originally posted by chimblysweep:
 [QB]
 
 But the front section I just can't stomach, no matter how nice the rest of it is.  
 
  [

[Seth Hurwitz]

actually, I think he's really funny
 
 I don't know that his job is reviewing every show - I think the point is that he does the "important" ones, but I don't know if he chooses his own assignments anyway (it is called an "assignment")
 
 my problem with the Post is that they seem to come up with every reason NOT to do a story - like an A & R person who thinks it's their job to pass on bands, not sign them
 
 meanwhile, the NY Times uncannily comes up with stuff that is right there on the curve - it's amazing reallyâ?¦seems like as soon as you talk about something with your friends, boom, there it is

[walkman]

Originally posted by Seth Hurwitz:
 
 meanwhile, the NY Times uncannily comes up with stuff that is right there on the curve - it's amazing reallyâ?¦seems like as soon as you talk about something with your friends, boom, there it is

which is scary, because then my mom knows more about Will Oldham or Dizzee Rascal than I do.

[David Segal]

Please allow me to respond to this.
 
    Thanks for taking the time to read my reviews in the post. Yes, I feel very privileged to actually get paid to go to shows and write how I felt about them.
 
    As to those who feel that we don't have our ears on what is pulsing in the music world today, let me say this. There are over a dozen full time music venues in the DC area. The Post has a  staff of five people who critique shows regularly. You do the math. Even if we were at shows seven nights a week, we would not be able to cover everything.
 
    And to those who say we miss some of the "important" stuff? I say, "Important to who?" Just because a gaggle of 23 year old music "journalists" get excited about a new indie band that might sell 20,000 albums tops, doesn't mean the general newspaper audience is going to get excited about the band, nor does it mean the band is important.

[brennser]

is this the real diamond 'rock on with your bad selves' david segal or an april fools joke?
 
 we're gonna need to see some id please young man

[egmoulds]

Tho' I hope that Mr. Segal's insinuation that record sales is indicative of import was unintended?

[jkeisenh]

yes, i doubt that David Segal could find time in his writing-one-column-a-month schedule to chat with us lowly ticket buyers.

[brennser]

Tho' I hope that Mr. Segal's insinuation that record sales is indicative of import was unintended?  

unfortunately I think not - he didn't do much to answer the complaint that the Posts music coverage is lacking and generally focused on mainstream music
 
 and as others have pointed out the NY Times seems to be able to cover these bands - in particular I remembr an excellent and interesting article on Idlewild, one of those bands who 23 year old music journalists get excited about who sell 20,000 copies
 
 with its huge audience the Post has a real chance to let people know of good stuff thats out there thats not what Clear Channel wants you to listen to but instead they choose the safer route
 
 I'm not arguing they shouldn't cover major artists, they have to of course, but there should be more of a focus on up and coming or out of the mainstream acts

[markie]

Originally posted by brennser:
 
 
 I'm not arguing they shouldn't cover major artists, they have to of course, but there should be more of a focus on up and coming or out of the mainstream acts

Exactly, everyone already knows about the mainstream acts.
 
 If that is really David Segal, I would love to really know if he stays to the end of shows or leaves after 3 songs. Often reviews from the post miss important aspects of shows.