quote:

imo, blender have no place being a magazine of serious music reviewing. they so self-consciously push some populist view of music, encouraging everyone to deride anything that hints at the grandiose or overly ambitious.

I agree. I'm upset they're weighted so heavily in the Metacritic average, a concern I've expressed more than once. The only rag that's worse is Alternative Press, which, again, is rated heavily here. A high or low score can come from either and move the average 3 to 4 points.

I like The Guardian, though, and my other big two are Mojo and Uncut. I need to look into Harp some more as well.

Well, I think it's clear and well established that the biggest problem with the metascore is the skewness of the distribution.

Yeah, just from looking at various metascore I don't care much for Q, Rolling Stone, Alternative Press, and Blender. My favorites are TMT, Pitchfork, Pop Matters, and the various newspapers (Guardian, NYT, etc.).

Gotta like Pitchfork, even though they tend to get a little self-absorbed. They do, though, highlight new music that I may not heave heard of elsewhere - for that, I am grateful.

I also go to TMT and Pop Matters.

One site that doesn't get mentioned a lot is a Canadian site -www.cokemachineglow.com ...they offer a good selection of reviews and some downloads too.

Yeah, I don't know why I forgot to mention Cokemachineglow. It's definitely one of my favorites. They might have the best writers of any site.

I like Pitchfork for albums that aren't mainstream, I've been reading it more and more. I also like Cokemachineglow, as they usually seem to be unbiased and have something interesting to say about music.

I also like Dusted because they have really thought out reviews and a list of the albums most played on college stations. I usually haven't heard of the albums they review, but when I have, they're very helpful most of the time.

Has anybody seen the new re-designed junkmedia?
I was not a fan beforehand, the new look is typical.Still not a fan though, lackluster reviews, no news or info really.The only thing i have liked there is the interviews which they seem to do alot of.

Pitchfork has good taste and bad writing. Others (The Guardian, for example) have lesser taste and better writing. Pick your poison.

I don't understand why it's so hard for critics to write music or art reviews in clear, straightforward language. Consider this quote:

"Like Alfred Hitchcock's storyboarded mise en scène or John Ford's pitting of solitary figures against the expansive backdrop of Monument Valley, Newman's giddy music, drunk on its own effervescence, is such a stylized idealization of pop's possibilities that it can't be anything but auteurism."

I like rhetorical flourishes and artful phrasing. Artistry is important in writing. However, the above passage -- from PopMatters review of The New Pornographers' new album, "Twin Cinema" -- is not artful. To the contrary, it is bloated, lazy writing that inhibits, rather than facilitates, understanding. I'm sure the reviewer is perfectly intelligent and a really good writer, but I think the music critic industry rewards this type of writing. I'm not sure why.

I happen to think that excerpt from Popmatters is a great example for describing the auteur theory in a way that it can relate to music. To compare Newman to great filmmakers like Hitchcock and Ford makes sense...the new album is called Twin CINEMA right? Doesn't the writer use Hollywood as a metaphor for Newman's involvement in the industry?

Its a reference to Newman's personal fingerprints all over the up coming LP hence the auteurism. Most people reading would understand who Alfred Hitchcock is, possibly be familar with his films and his personal style is a majority of them, and can make that connection to Newman as far as making music is concerned. To use the Hitchcock reference helps the reader connect with a familar persona that can be used as a jumping off point when making the comparison to Newman.

I am not familiar with Alfred Hitchcock or any of the film references in that excerpt, but I don't think that excerpt is entirely bad because he doesn't just make a comparison and then stop there so that anyone who doesn't know Alfred Hitchcock is lost. He at least describes Newman's music as giddy and effervescent. (I must admit that I don't know what auterism means though.) I suppose I'd have to read the whole review to make any kind of judgment though.

CPA13 and Raving: Both fair points, and well taken.

Auteurism is a film reference regarding the 'authorship' of a film: what makes the film indicative of the director. Its a label that is revered in film. It started in France when directors like Jean-Luc Goddard and Francois Truffuat were labeled as auteurs by critics. Their significant styles defined there films. That was in the 50s or 60s though.

Today critics like to use the "Indie Auteur" misnomer to label filmmakers like Tarantino, Rodriguez, M. Night Shamalayan, John Woo, Spielberg, George Lucas, etc. Although Spielberg may be the only who deserves the title, it usually takes a couple of dozen films made before garnering the auteur label. Like John Woo's style of filmmaking has certain signals that mark it as a Woo film. Slow motion action scences, dual pistol fights that look like dance sequences, the dove leaving a very critical scene, the troubled anti-hero, those are all references that can mark a John Woo movie.

As far as authorship in music, the fingerprints of the musicians, go...it would have to take a band that's been around awhile with a decent sized catalogue to dissect before you can start giving auteur titles away. Possibly the Flaming Lips, Radiohead, the Roots, De La Soul, Beastie Boys, Yo La Tengo, etc. Each of these groups has a significant style that is hinted at or full-blown on each of their records. that could be auteurism right there.

Wow. Conflict of interest, anyone?

Filmmaking and musicianship are all forms of art and critical to our pop culture, which in turn affect our society. Like traditional art, its important to understand how its past, present and future will define our generation. RavingLunatic asked what 'auteurism' meant. I'm just breaking it down. If you had a question wouldn't you appreciate an answer?

I'm pretty sure that the conflict of interest comment was in regards to the link that he posted to a fairly positive review on pitchfork of a band with members on the pitchfork staff.

My bad. How narcisissitic of me.

The thread has been a good read, guys, thanks. I suppose I'll throw my 2 cents in.

As for publications I still check regularly:

Pitchfork: I think I have justified mixed feelings about PF. For starters, I do have a certain amount of respect for them in how they take on a lot of under-the-radar groups, although most of them fly under the radar because they are not very good. At least they are receiving some sort of exposure. I find that their writers are knowledgeable and well-informed about music in general, and of course that is a positive thing. They also have a good News section.

However, I have my gripes with them as well. I would stop checking PF altogether because of these gripes, if it weren't for the fact that I find a dearth of decent, thought-out critical material on these lesser-known bands. One of my major hang-ups is how they run rampant and try to turn rock/hip-hop/etc. music into high art. A fine example of this is the capsule for In the Aeroplane... in the Top Albums of the 90s list. Comparing it to TS Eliot's The Wasteland. Please. No. That doesn't fly with me. Half the time I think Mangum is some crazy-ass hack anyway; it's rather hard not to see him that way. It's perfectly okay to enjoy music as music only, and not some sophisticated intellectual endeavor. A musical document and a poem from several decades before have absolutely no aesthetic connection to one another. They can stretch it as much as they want, but it isn't viable. That is only one instance of this, but it permeates the writing in general, and a lot of the time I find it pretty cringe-worthy. But maybe that's my own snobbishness in trying not to be snobby with music. It's more of a keep your chocolate out of my peanut butter sort of thing.

Also, check out the review for Shining on their site. The most condescending piece of shit I have read in a long time. That sums up my second complaint with their publication.

On a good note, though, they occasionally have a great interview. The one with the guy from LCD Soundsystem being the one that specifically sticks out in my mind. Also the one with the guy from Silver Jews.

Stylus: I have a hard time gathering together any respect for Stylus. It seems as though any time a reader makes a less-than-complimentary remark about a review, the entire staff runs into the fray and states "The Mission Statement", or whatever, and pulls some relativistic art criticism mumbo-jumbo. I mean, come one, that's unadulterated red-handed jingoism. Their modified relativism absolutely ruins any notion of 'art'. It is okay to *not* review a product of blatant consumerist production. They think that one or two commerical album reviews a week will keep them from becoming fully lodged in the hipster indie scene, but it makes them look even more ridiculous, and throws their ideologies into the shitpile. It doesn't help that they endorse massive grade inflation. They've fixed it to some degree recently, but it was common for a long stretch of time to see 3 or 4 A- or better reviews in a single day, which is ludicrous. Now that it seems they've leveled their views a little more, it makes you suspect that they are perhaps grading too hard to compensate, which doesn't help anyone.

It also doesn't help that they always tend to let a few reviews slip through completely unedited, as though they weren't even looked at prior to publication. They want to be known as an antidote to PF, but they merely come across as an amateur version. And their Singles Going Steady section is commonly idiotic.

Village Voice: Actually, the only source from VV I actually respect is Robert Christgau. I respect how he can smell a gimmick from a mile away. I actually ended up not liking a few bands that I had once liked because I finally recognized the gimmick in them, namely The Walkmen and ...And You Will Know Us by the Trail of Dead. That's not very common. It may not seem like a good effect to have upon a reader, but I think that says more than recommending some band to a reader and then having them ending up liking that band. That seems much easier to do. I also respect his coverage of African music.

However, there are time when he comes across as smug, and apparently for no reason. There is no reason to condescend to a band even when you don't like them. But then, the truth often hurts.

All Music: The most professional and objective source for the most part. Rather than preach to the choir, AMG approaches music in an almost academic way, although it is an important distinction to make that they don't treat it intellectually, which is what gets my goat. They deal with rock music in a popular culture context, which is exactly where it should be placed, and that makes their canonization of music much more credible. With that said, they can be accused of canonization, which has its merits and disadvantages. However, AMG is probably the best because it plays the role of an interested and well-informed enthusiast, and never comes across jaded. Their writers are often right on the mark as well. You just have to realize that the 5-stars are the best of a certain genre in their mind, whereas the endless amount of 4 1/2 star albums usually mean its the best album by a band that is not definitive or representative of their genre.

As for other publications, I don't check many others because it's a reliability issue. How many smaller indie-oriented publications can you actually rely on? Splendid seems to be a good one, although they deal with music that I would most likely never have any interest in. Obscure is often obscure for a reason. Often, but not always.

That's all.

Well Sancho, that was a very interesting and astute post, even if I don't spend nearly as much time at review sites as you. It also says a few things new to this thread, so the main reason I'm posting is to just say Thanks for a smooth and intelligent read. Try to post more often too.

Yeah, it's great to see somebody put so much time and thought into a post.

I agree mostly with your assessments. I agree with you about the virtues and drawbacks of Pitchfork, and I recently got fed up with Stylus as you did. And, I agree that allmusic is useful if only because of it's sheer comprehensivity.

Though with Christgau, I think he does sometimes fall for gimmickry, especially with popular rap. (Looking at things he writes about Kanye West and Eminem. At least, it was my impression that he was giving Eminem points for trying real hard to piss a lot of people off). But that's probably due to the fact that he reviews such a high volume of music he can't usually give himself time to absorb everything, so he might be influenced by his expectations more than others.

quote:

Well Sancho, that was a very interesting and astute post, even if I don't spend nearly as much time at review sites as you

LOL! You're right, I do spend too much time looking up music stuff. But that's one area in my life that I indulge in unchecked geekness. I'm fine with that.

quote:

Though with Christgau, I think he does sometimes fall for gimmickry, especially with popular rap. (Looking at things he writes about Kanye West and Eminem. At least, it was my impression that he was giving Eminem points for trying real hard to piss a lot of people off).

Great point. While he probably takes some sort pleasure in novelty acts, none of us with more normal lifestyles would have any use for them.