Critics review reviews using Google search and then basically write the same review, leading to an increased homogenisation and "indie-fication" across the web – the collective view is the one everyone defaults to, which means mediocrity rises to the top.
Hahaha, you know I occassionally look at a Pitchfork review if I've got the CD in my pile to do. I know I shouldn't be I do. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't.
ReplyDeleteWhat I do hate myself for is when I reference Pitchfork which I've done from time to time. It shows that I read it, which is unforgivable as a critic.
PS: I saw you yesterday. I was going to find your office at KG but ran out of day. I was in that KCB201 lecture you dropped into. Afterwards, the girl next to me said 'Did he really invent grunge?'
But doesn't mediocrity belong on top? That's where I've always found it.
ReplyDeleteI once wrote a live review for the NME about the Derrick Green-fronted Sepultura, in which I said that Green was always being criticised for not being Max, when in fact the differences between the two singers should be celebrated - and went on to discuss Derrick's strengths as a frontman/singer. In all, it was a fairly considered, but positive review. I was informed by the live editor at the time, that this was not "the consensus view". After 11 years at Melody Maker, where I'd never once encountered the concept of "the consensus view", I was shocked.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree about the google-isation of reviews. It does seem more common these days that reviews feed from each other. The irony of this, of course, is if the reader realises that there's a consensus view on each artist, then once they've read the party line for the bands that they care about, then there's no need to buy the paper, because they're up to date.
So it seems to me that what's really killing the music press is cowardice. Because as you mention elsewhere, the role of critic as gatekeeper is long dead - everyone has immediate access to both the music and the consensus nowadays. So the only possible worth of the music critic could be to challenge the consensus, to bring a fresh, individual perspective. Would it matter if that perspective was "wrong"? Not at all. Because, once again, the reader can listen and decide how they feel for themselves. But a new perspective, wrong or not, might also just change how they think about the music.
Yeah, this is kinda true, but some of us still have our own quietly raging voices and opinions.
ReplyDeletewww.wearsthetrousers.com
I've made a habbit of only reading Pitchfork reviews (if ever) AFTER I've written & posted my own, just to see how much we agree/differ.
eeek! The reality of this homogenisation scares one.
ReplyDelete(from Facebook)
ReplyDeleteDeniz Martinez, Antonia Sellbach and Michael Fantham like this.
Douglas Baptie
You can use something like www.anydecentmusic.com to see the breadth of responses to a particular release. Very few albums get across the board support.
02 March at 19:18 ·
Everett True
interesting site. Thanks Douglas
02 March at 22:02 ·
Andrew Bentley
hmm, according to anydecentmusic.com, the quietus gave the new scout niblett an 8.5. but, the quietus doesn't score their reviews.
03 March at 01:23 ·
George Mc Fly
Or they subscribe to a bunch of UK music magazines + Google....cut & past the stew together and in the end translate it into a fantastic "cutting edge" Norwegian review without serving up one single new view or angle.......
At the risk of sounding a TAD grumpy, I have to say I'm sick of reading other peoples recycled dribble. It seems that most of the bastards who are lucky enough to work for the biggest music media outlets, don't give a damn or are just to stupid to understand they have the "power" to do great stuff.... or create havoc.
03 March at 04:34 ·