Home› Other Music

Magazine reviews - good or bad?

Got a hard hard headGot a hard hard head Posts: 638
edited May 2010 in Other Music
I'm interested to know how people on here perceive album, single, dvd reviews in magazines. Are they potentially misleading, harmful or are they a good thing?

Say, for example, someone sees Backspacer on a shelf one day and never having heard Pearl Jam (and there will be people out there like this, without a doubt) they decide to check out reviews. And then you get the likes of Pitchfork saying things like "a group that hasn't been commercially or critically relevant for over a decade."

I'm sure the band won't care about reviews but, chances are, that person will walk away from Pearl Jam and never listen to them again. Even had they listened to the album, they may have decided not to check out any of the back catalog as it wasn't their thing, but at least they made the decision themselves, not because of someone else's opinion.

As much as magazines claim to offer impartial reviews, this in itself is an impossible task as the score given is based on the reviewers personal tastes. Try writing an impartial review of 10 to that same person who's never heard Pearl Jam, without putting your own personal opinion into it!

In the world of ten-a-penny pop shit that fills the airwaves everyday, whether or not the single is dire seems not to matter one jot of what reviewers make of it, so why should it matter to more established bands/artistes?

Perhaps music magazine's should be purely reporting on the latest releases, divided into genres and leaving it to the readers discretion.

I'm gradually ignoring magazine reviews more and more, especially the likes of Pitchfork - pretentious wankers pretending to have their finger on the pulse of music.
It's gonna be a glorious day...
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • facepollutionfacepollution Posts: 6,834
    Pitchfork is shit, they pretty much never give any of the records I like a decent review.

    I find myself caring less and less about reviews these days though, a lot of the reviewers don't seem to be even remotely into the music they review, which is kind of pointless.
  • Newch91Newch91 Posts: 17,560
    I normally read Rolling Stone's reviews (I know), but that seems to be the one people look at. Normally David Fricke will give a band like Pearl Jam a good review.
    Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
    "Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
  • FenwayFaithfulFenwayFaithful Posts: 8,626
    I've been using jambase.com for a while now.
    "FF, I've heard the droning about the Sawx being the baby dolls. Yeah, I get it, you guys invented baseball and suffered forever. I get it." -JearlPam0925
  • keeponrockinkeeponrockin Posts: 7,446
    facepollution wrote:
    Pitchfork is shit, they pretty much never give any of the records I like a decent review.

    I find myself caring less and less about reviews these days though, a lot of the reviewers don't seem to be even remotely into the music they review, which is kind of pointless.
    I think Pitchfork is ok, but I think they're trying to stay within their 'image'... I like allmusic.com, gives a pretty decent overview of albums. Usually, I'll check out a song or two on youtube, and if I dig it, I buy the CD.
    Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
  • FenwayFaithfulFenwayFaithful Posts: 8,626
    Also, this site should be mentioned in the discussion. It essentially averages every review and scores them accordingly. They do music, movies, games and television.

    The main site:
    http://www.metacritic.com/
    The music portion of the site:
    http://www.metacritic.com/music/
    A sample page for any given album:
    http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/mymorningjacket/z

    For those who don't know of this site until now, beware, you could be reading this stuff for a few hours. I've spent hours and hours on this site finding new music.
    "FF, I've heard the droning about the Sawx being the baby dolls. Yeah, I get it, you guys invented baseball and suffered forever. I get it." -JearlPam0925
  • Got a hard hard headGot a hard hard head Posts: 638
    I like the idea that Amazon currently have - "People who bought this, also listen to / also bought this". This has got me into a few bands who I otherwise, may not have listened to.
    It's gonna be a glorious day...
  • musicismylife78musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    i think with the exponential growth of the internet and blogs magazine reviews are a non issue. they are meaningless. subscriptions for any magazine of any time, music or otherwise has been declining year after year as more people rely on websites and digital versions of the magazines as opposed to the physical copy. years ago, rolling stone or spin was a way for music fans to connect and to hear about new bands, new music. nowadays, why wait for a new rolling stone every other week, or a new spin every month, when you can find new bands in so many other more efficient ways, right now. literally right now, i could find some new bands online. it makes no sense to have to wait monthly to find out the new sound, when i can do it this minute. you have more choices with the proliferation of blogs. anyone can make a blog for free, which means less people are reliant on rolling stone or spin solely. why rely on the opinion of some hot shot reviewer when you can pontificate on it. and in all honesty thats all that really matters right, your own opinion.

    that said, reviews are still as important as they ever were. getting a good review, best new music stamp from pitchfork is huge, stereogum is the same way. to be a buzz band right now is major news. last year the biggest bands of the year were grizzly bear, animal collective, dirty projectors, and all of them were big in large part because some indie blog or indie review proclaimed them to be a must listen to band.

    whether you agree with pitchfork or not, they are the most important music medium out there right now. in terms of breaking new bands, in terms of getting a band important press, pitchfork and having ones song used in a tv show are THE way alot of bands are now getting their big break.

    reviews matter, but magazines are obsolete. its internet sites thats decide the fate of a band. either you like the direction music is going right now, or you dont. personally, i love it. and alot of my cd collection is made up of bands that pitchfork approves of. they are major tastemakers.

    personally, i could care less if rolling stone or spin think an album is good or bad. those are meaningless to me. pitchfork, stereogum, brooklyn vegan all are trusted music sites.
  • mookeywrenchmookeywrench Posts: 5,953
    I think reviews are helpful as long as you understand that host's biasness and intents.

    reviews serve as a good filter for finding music in an industry that lacks structure.

    But unfortunately there's a large risk of payola and bribery in blogs/internet sources, since the FCC tends to hone in more carefully on radio and print sources....not to say that those aren't free from payola...they're just more likely to get busted for it.
    350x700px-LL-d2f49cb4_vinyl-needle-scu-e1356666258495.jpeg
  • facepollutionfacepollution Posts: 6,834
    keeponrockin wrote:
    facepollution wrote:
    Pitchfork is shit, they pretty much never give any of the records I like a decent review.

    I find myself caring less and less about reviews these days though, a lot of the reviewers don't seem to be even remotely into the music they review, which is kind of pointless.
    I think Pitchfork is ok, but I think they're trying to stay within their 'image'... I like allmusic.com, gives a pretty decent overview of albums. Usually, I'll check out a song or two on youtube, and if I dig it, I buy the CD.

    Pitchfork come across as a bunch of pretentious bitches, rock music is not about perfection, it's about passion for what you do.
  • musicismylife78musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    facepollution wrote:
    keeponrockin wrote:
    facepollution wrote:
    Pitchfork is shit, they pretty much never give any of the records I like a decent review.

    I find myself caring less and less about reviews these days though, a lot of the reviewers don't seem to be even remotely into the music they review, which is kind of pointless.
    I think Pitchfork is ok, but I think they're trying to stay within their 'image'... I like allmusic.com, gives a pretty decent overview of albums. Usually, I'll check out a song or two on youtube, and if I dig it, I buy the CD.

    Pitchfork come across as a bunch of pretentious bitches, rock music is not about perfection, it's about passion for what you do.


    pitchfork has a ton of power right now. it is THE music medium right now. and we certainly argue if one site should have that much power, but pitchfork is no more critical than any other outlet. Certainly we can argue if there really is a difference between a 9.2 and 9.7 album, but every critic site or magazine does it. Rolling Stone has the 5 star system. Can someone really rate an album 4 stars or 3 stars, or any stars for the fact that all art should be respected?

    Pitchfork deserves to be questioned sometimes, but they get alot of flack not based on their reviews or their music they support but more because of how they are top dog right now. I certainly can see how people would bristle at the rating system of pitchfork, but they have grown from the days when they gave Travistan a 0.0. They rarely do that anymore, they have become more responsible.
  • Digital TwilightDigital Twilight Posts: 5,642
    Don't read reviews, make up our own mind.
  • SawyerSawyer Posts: 2,411
    Most of the time I agree with Pitchfork, and I have found some great bands through them.....However, they will never give a mainstream act their due...never
  • musicismylife78musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    Sawyer wrote:
    Most of the time I agree with Pitchfork, and I have found some great bands through them.....However, they will never give a mainstream act their due...never


    thats part of their appeal though. i stated i have problems with pitchfork above, but who wants to read or view a website or anything that covers mainly mainstream acts? Bands are mainstream for a reason...they are mainstream. we know them on a first name basis, even the bands we dislike. they are on the radio, on mtv etc...

    i personally dont want to hear about mainstream bands. pitchfork is brilliant in that respect, they have broken a ton of bands that no one ever heard of and now are some of the most vital and important bands in the world.

    but as i stated above, thats a double edged sword. any media outlet with as much power as pitchfork can be a dangerous thing.

    pitchfork found their niche. catering to a bunch of kids who felt and feel alienated by the garbage being shoved down our throats, pitchfork shines a light on bands who actually deserve the spotlight.
  • musicismylife78musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    more than anything what interests me is how the indie scene and pitchfork will fare in 5 or 10 years. indie may have been an underground scene in 2002 or so, but pitchfork launched the scene to the mainstream and now everyone knows the term indie rock, its a household word. Its facinating to wonder how the scene will change and morph. Pitchfork caters to as I said, people who dislike the mainstream, but for 7 years now the mainstream has become the type of music pitchfork covers and promotes. its an interesting paradox. the whole american apparel, skinny jeans hipster look is mainstream as well.
  • facepollutionfacepollution Posts: 6,834
    musicismylife78 wrote:
    pitchfork has a ton of power right now. it is THE music medium right now. and we certainly argue if one site should have that much power, but pitchfork is no more critical than any other outlet. Certainly we can argue if there really is a difference between a 9.2 and 9.7 album, but every critic site or magazine does it. Rolling Stone has the 5 star system. Can someone really rate an album 4 stars or 3 stars, or any stars for the fact that all art should be respected?

    Pitchfork deserves to be questioned sometimes, but they get alot of flack not based on their reviews or their music they support but more because of how they are top dog right now. I certainly can see how people would bristle at the rating system of pitchfork, but they have grown from the days when they gave Travistan a 0.0. They rarely do that anymore, they have become more responsible.

    I don't have an issue with people rating music per se, it's just that Pitchfork's writers appear to be very particular about what they like - essentially nothing that is popular. Which begs the question, why bother reviewing those kind of records in the first place?
  • PJGARDENPJGARDEN Posts: 1,484
    In the past I bought some really shitty albums b/c Pitchfork thought it was the greatest thing since sliced breaed. I know better now. I still use Pitchfork and yes I read the reviews but I pay more attention to the album description or the comparisions they make versus what the reviewer actually thinks of the album. This has worked out pretty well for me.

    I think reviews in general are hard to pull off. Either your not really into the band your reviewing and at best, you think the album is worth a listen or two. If you love the band it you give them a wonderful review not b/c the album is all that great but the music is right up the alley of your personal taste. Its just human nature.
  • Rhinocerous SurpriseRhinocerous Surprise Posts: 4,423
    PJGARDEN wrote:
    In the past I bought some really shitty albums b/c Pitchfork thought it was the greatest thing since sliced breaed. I know better now. I still use Pitchfork and yes I read the reviews but I pay more attention to the album description or the comparisions they make versus what the reviewer actually thinks of the album. This has worked out pretty well for me.

    I think reviews in general are hard to pull off. Either your not really into the band your reviewing and at best, you think the album is worth a listen or two. If you love the band it you give them a wonderful review not b/c the album is all that great but the music is right up the alley of your personal taste. Its just human nature.
    Speaking as someone who writes (horribly amateurish, completely irrelevant, blatantly subjective, utterly useless, etc.) reviews, and wants to do it for a living, that's the healthiest attitude a reader can have. Yes, I have biases - but as long as I'm clear about them, and write honestly and entertainingly, so what?

    My constant standpoint on this is that reviews are as good or bad as the people writing them. They might not be as useful as buyers' guides anymore, but if you find a reviewer you can trust or shares tastes with you, they're excellent ways of finding new music. (Example: if Christgau says a band favourably remind him of Sleater-Kinney, I'm damn sure gonna check that band out.) They might take an interesting stance on an album you'd already formed an opinion on, which can lead to a review becoming more of a discussion than a pontification.

    Or, as is the case with most of my favourite critics, they might just be brilliantly funny.
    Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Sign In or Register to comment.