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

[Travis Hartnett <travishartnett@gmail.com>]

I'm not saying how a review should be, I'm only concerned with a
review serving my needs and whims.  A lot of reviewers think they're
stating facts, or that the facts they choose to state provide an
accurate picture of what they're discussing, but I don't take that as
a given.

I mean, recently I read a dozen reviews of the new Richard Thompson
album which described it as his first solo acoustic record since an
album he released in the early 80's.  However, just reading the album
credits showed that it was neither solo nor acoustic, and neither was
the previous album being referred to.  Actually, the first track of
both albums featured both drums played by a non-Richard Thompson and
electric guitar.  So much for the fact-based statements of those
reviews.

TravisH

On 10/27/05, Kris Hartung <khartung@cableone.net> wrote:
> > 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.