Re: Looping back to Krispen's old critics thread (was sorta: using laptops for music"

["Kris Hartung" <khartung@cableone.net>]

> Pretty much other than the name of the act, the location, the date and
the cover charge--after that it's all a bit questionable.

I think this statement is questionable, not to mention it's not a
categorical one. It's
a value statement based on what you like to see out of a review, or perhaps
just
an observation of what you see a lot in reviews, neither of which
necessarily imply what a
decent and well review should look like (and I emphasize "necessarily"
here). I speak
to many music enthusiasts who enjoy very much when a music review provides
some
background on a group or CD and actually shows that the reviewer gives a
shit about
their artform,  other than just doing a cursory review of a band or CD with
no
regard to context.

> Even the choice on the part of the writer as to which "verifiable facts"
to
include is a series of editorial decisions (as you found out with your
own writing and the paper's editors).  People's ideas of what's
historical or verifiable vary quite a bit.

Exactly, so why do you say "Pretty much other than the name of the act, the
location, the date and
the cover charge--after that it's all a bit questionable"?  Are you stating
a fact or your own value
value statement? If it varies, then neither scenario is necessarily the
case. In somw cases and for some
people, it will be questionable (like yourself, perhaps),  for others not.
So, we're not really in a position
say that it "ought" to be done one one way or another when reader choice 
has
the final say.  Now the
artform of writing is a whole differenet matter, part of which is academic
and some practical. I won't go
into that now.

...just trying to level the playing field here. As with any artform, making
categorical statements about
the way things should operate or what is questionable or not, is risky
business. Making a factual
claim about a band or music form is safe..sometimes boring, but perhaps not
if the writer is clever and
insightful. Making value statements disguised as factual statements gets
people stoked and look really
insightful and cool, but also piss everyone off that holds the 
contradictory
value statement.  The point
is that writers are smart enough to discern between these two domains of
writing and now how to
be insightful without irritating the shit out of 50% of their readers.

Kris



TravisH

On 10/26/05, Kris Hartung <khartung@cableone.net> wrote:
> Such as historical or verifiable comparisons regarding melodies,
techniques,
> tid bids about the band history or members, other things that readers 
>find
> interesting and indicate that the reviewer gives a shit about
understanding
> the band, the context in which the CD was recorded or produced, etc...you
> don't think music reviews areall about value statements do you?  Good
> reviews most always contain a healthy balance of factual and evaluative
> commentary.
>
> Kris
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Travis Hartnett" <travishartnett@gmail.com>
> To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 12:19 AM
> Subject: Re: Looping back to Krispen's old critics thread (was sorta:
using
> laptops for music"
>
>
> Verifiable facts?  Were you writing for the sports section?  Otherwise...
>
> TravisH
>
> On 10/26/05, Kris Hartung <khartung@cableone.net> wrote:
> > ...I was
> > very precise with my language on my reviews, clarifying when I was
stating
> a
> > verifiable fact vs. my own emotional response to the music (i.e.,
> > distinguishing factual from emotive statements), ...
>
>
>
>