• RSS
  • Text Size:
  • -
  • irishtimes.com - Posted: July 28, 2009 @ 9:45 am

    Why writing about Irish bands can be bad for your health

    Jim Carroll

    There is one topic above all others which is guaranteed to have tanks parked on an Irish blog’s lawn by teatime: writing about Irish bands. Can you park your M1s on the left and Challengers on the right please?

    Musicians are a thin-skinned lot. You scratch them and they bleed. And they keep bleeding: bleedin’ complaining about this, bleedin’ whinging about that, bleedin’ giving out about something else. Usually, the bleeding concerns how they’re regarded by the members of the fourth estate (dancing about architecture branch). Even members of allegedly successful and established acts get thick about less-than-flattering write-ups. Then, it gets back to the writers who inevitably chortle long and loud about it – and then write another review which is just as scathing to keep the circle in motion.

    When it comes to homegrown acts, you can count on the camp followers and street-team groupies to join in and that’s when you need to inform AA Roadwatch about those tanks. In recent times, a couple of such skirmishes have broken out spoiling the usual sense of joy and happiness which normally prevails in the Irish online community. The debate here about The Ticket’s 50 Best Irish Music Acts Right Now, a downright bizarre discussion over a review of a Superjimenez album at State (a discussion which has probably at this stage been read by more people than have bought the album) and Johnny’s post about Irish bands getting soft reviews at home compared with more honest reviews abroad have been the latest manifestations of this protectionist trend.

    While blogs, online forums and websites have made such rent-a-mob tactics easy to manage, there’s nothing new about this kind of orchestrated outrage. Back when broadband refered to the girth of the bass-player, negative mentions of Irish bands in the local press would see the immediate recruitment of an outraged mob clutching pitchforks and cudgels. Many elder hacks still have the laughter lines from some of those run-ins. Some probably still have the recordings of the 3am phone calls where a band member drukenly spits feathers down the line.

    I’m sure it’s not just Irish musicians who are so sensitive, but the fact remains that critical reviews of local acts in Irish publications are the ones which cause the most fuming within local boundaries. A lot of this has to do with an unwritten rule peculiar to this bailwick where some publications and their house-hacks give Irish acts (or some Irish acts) an easy ride. It’s the green rock’n’roll card, where an Irish release gets an extra star or mark out of 10 which an act from, say, Wolverhampton would not get with the same album in the same situation.

    Handling acts with kid gloves just because you have the same passport as them is never a good idea. As any eager student of the history of Irish next big things will tell you, bands who left here to take over the world with rave reviews from local papers in the arse-pocket of their jeans found that such reviews were not worth the paper they were written on. In the world beyond Howth Head, you were up against bands who’d already proven their chops and didn’t have to just rely on a fawning local press for their accolades. In most cases, those hotly tipped Irish acts eventually came home to lick their wounds and prop up a bar. Some would complain to anyone who’d listen that the UK music press of the time had an anti-Irish bias. An anti-Irish bias? 800 years of oppression and now this? A snotty review in a UK rag from someone rubbing it in about the potato famine? Padraig Pearse, where are you now that your country’s indie-pop acts need you?

    The bands never learned from these outings and, worse, their fans and fanboys with typewriters didn’t either. All would wonder why acts who were the pick of the bunch at home fell apart like cheap suits when they went away. Very few would consider the fact that those acts were just not good enough to begin with. Even fewer would articulate that view in public. And the circle would go on and on and on.

    There is, thankfully, more robust coverage of local acts in 2009. More outlets mean more room for different views and less of the horrific cosy consensus which once sadly reigned supreme. Yet there is still a rotten sense amongst some in the Irish music community that we should always support our own come what may. Not everyone has learned the lessons of the past.

    That explains why the knives still come out when writers and commentators move away from the line that it’s all good and actually write what they really think about the act in question. Fans and bands who’ve become used to the soft treatment get uppity and air the kind of spluttering outrage usually experienced on Liveline when Joe Duffy is at his manipulative when a different, more considered and harsher opinion is expressed. Every reason under the sun is put forward for this negative review – the reviewer was bullied by the band’s drummer in school, the reviewer was jilted by the lead singer, the reviewer is first cousin twice removed with the manager of a band who are after the same support slot, the reviewer is an alien who doesn’t have any ears and, the one I’ve heard a few times over the years, the reviewer is a woman. The one reason which is never considered is that the band might not be any good and that the album or gig was rather dull. Better to invent some red herrings than face up to the source of the bad smell. It seems there are still some people out there who need to do a bit of copping on.

  • 154 Comments

    1.
    July 28, 2009
    9:53 am

    So you DID go to see U2 last night then? :D

    But I know what you mean. I’d have a fraction of the first hand experience in music journalism that most have, through the blog and paper I work for, and even then there are still cases where it is almost assumed that I will praise an act or give them heaps of coverage because of geography or connections on this little island of ours. At the moment I’m adopting a ‘mammy always said if you can’t say anything nice…’ approach about one act in particular but I can see the situation coming to a head soon.

    Comment by Joe
    2.
    July 28, 2009
    10:02 am

    / rubs hands with glee at the thought of the fun to come /

    Great, great piece but I would imagine there are loads of bands out there who would disagree with every word in this. Irish bands seem to think they’ve a god-given right to good reviews at home – I couldn’t get over some of the shite in the comments after that Superjimenez review on State.

    Comment by Numpty
    3.
    July 28, 2009
    10:04 am

    Did someone from Dirty Epics or Ham Sandwich beat you up at the U2 gig last night? ;)

    Comment by P&M
    4.
    July 28, 2009
    10:07 am

    yes jim, your reviews of republic of loose have been very generous :)

    Comment by petee
    5.
    July 28, 2009
    10:07 am

    Joe – i’m sure your mammy also said not to tell fibs….

    Numpty – I’m sure it’s not just Irish acts, but Irish acts do seem to think the press/media are just there to provide pull-quotes for them

    P&M – har, har, har. Er, no – was nowhere near Croker (well, except to cheer on the protestors at 1am) and no Irish band member has challenged me to put my dukes up in weeks.

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    6.
    July 28, 2009
    10:12 am

    I don’t think you should adopt the ‘mammy always said if you can’t say anything nice’ approach if the album is vaguely high profile and therefore worth reviewing. If it’s shit, it’s shit, and you should say it.

    There is of course, no point savaging a record that was sent into you by someone who recorded it underneath their stairs and who no one has ever heard of and which your readers would have no interest in anyway, but if there’s some ‘up and coming’ band who Hotpress are salivating stupidly over and their record sucks, then your readers deserve to know that.

    When it comes to writing about Irish bands, I think a lot of music writers are scared to stick the boot in even when it’s needed (in a constructive manner, of course) because they’ll bump into the singer in the Village the next weekend and feel bad. Which is bullshit of course.

    Writing for a domestic audience is pretty simple, I think, you should shine a light on new talents you think shouldn’t be ignored, review the high-profile stuff that people are interested in fairly and not in a ‘good for an Irish act’ kind of way, but with a view to international comparisons, and if you think a local band who are getting good press suck, say they suck!

    If you want to be friends with Irish bands go work in Whelan’s, don’t write about them.

    Comment by unarocks
    7.
    July 28, 2009
    10:13 am

    Personally, I’ve never felt like I’ve had to give a band extra credit because of the logo on their passport. Likewise, I’ve never felt the urge to be more critical of them either.

    However, I do agree that Irish fans/musicians are the worst at dealing with criticism. I reviewed an EP for Drop-D once, released by an Irish ‘band’ that shall remain nameless, that provoked a member of the band to use their website to not only review my review, but to review me as a person, including questioning my parentage and sexual preferences. The person just couldn’t understand why I didn’t appreciate what was, in their eyes, the greatest collection of music ever assembled.

    I’m not sure if it was describing one of their songs as a ‘Commitment’s B-Side’ or when I stated they were ‘more Neilstown than Motown’ that pissed them off most.

    Either way, their inability to take criticism which was (poor Roddy Doyle based jokes aside) mostly constructive, made me worry about their ability to survive as a band. Why send your music to publications for review if you don’t want to hear what they think?

    Comment by Steve
    8.
    July 28, 2009
    10:16 am

    If you want to be friends with Irish bands go work in Whelan’s, don’t write about them.

    Why send your music to publications for review if you don’t want to hear what they think?

    Couldn’t have said it better myself.

    When it comes to writing about Irish bands, I think a lot of music writers are scared to stick the boot in even when it’s needed (in a constructive manner, of course) because they’ll bump into the singer in the Village the next weekend and feel bad.

    I think that has a HUGE part to play in why many Irish reviews are so neutered – and why there’s such fuming when the band encounter more critical copy. Music hacks aren’t in this game to make pals – that’s what Facebook is for.

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    9.
    July 28, 2009
    10:24 am

    the Blizzards are notorious for this. ‘critics don’t respect us cos we’re a pop band’. no, it’s cos you’re shit.

    noxious waste of space, that band.

    Jim, name and shame. i demand it. it’ll teach other bands not to do the same

    Comment by daniel harrison
    10.
    July 28, 2009
    10:24 am

    Heaven forfend anyone who so much as tips our sacred cows, Jim. I’ve had a hilarious ‘run-in’ with someone who may or may not be 79Cortinaz’s frontman’s “brother” in recent weeks too. And you seriously could not have made it up.

    Comment by Johnnie
    11.
    July 28, 2009
    10:41 am

    Perhaps I should clarify what I meant in post 1 – I didn’t mean that I’d shy away from a negative review, but in my experience often acts may want to put themselves out there for our blog when their style is nothing like what we normally cover.

    I think you’ve said this before Jim, but it’s lazy PR on the part of bands who blanket bomb blogs with emails and EPs without taking into account the usual musical remit and tastes of the blogs and their writers. It’s the one’s who follow up these correspondences and ‘politely’ ask why they got no coverage that are the problem. Even when you explain to them that (a) a blog is a personal thing where you have the luxury of being more particular in your taste than traditional media and (b) their pop band is nothing like we’ve ever covered and is not our proverbial cuppa, some acts, or their ‘people’ (who in my experience are the worst of all) can’t believe you wont make an exception for their “OMG THE NEXT BEATLES!” band.

    It’s like Denny getting thick with a vegetarian blog for not reviewing their new low fat sausages or something. The PR for some acts, whether self catered or taken care of by ‘their people’ have no cop on when targeting their key demographics, and play the geography card, as if the onus is on us to cover their band because ’sure they’re local’. If I was in an emerging band and saw how some pr folks represent them I’d be livid.

    Comment by Joe
    12.
    July 28, 2009
    10:46 am

    i just started reading the reviews and comments on the Superjimenez album on state.ie…..wow…..it’s like being back in Secondary School and listening to two girls fighting over a boy….

    Comment by caroline
    13.
    July 28, 2009
    10:52 am

    Joe @11 “it’s lazy PR on the part of bands who blanket bomb blogs with emails and EPs without taking into account the usual musical remit and tastes of the blogs and their writers.”

    totally agree with this.

    Comment by unarocks
    14.
    July 28, 2009
    10:52 am

    Oh, and that Superjimenez thing on State is BONKERS! Completely crazy and hilarious.

    Comment by unarocks
    15.
    July 28, 2009
    10:56 am

    TBH i hadn’t read all the comments on the Superjimenez review so I went back and did it. That’s a couple of mins of my life I won’t get back.

    As for Joe’s comment on bands blanket-boming blogs and journalists, I hear you, though I am sure bands would argue that it’s a writer’s job to listen to everything and be subjective. In that case, they should also be able to live with how the writer reviews the music.

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    16.
    July 28, 2009
    10:57 am

    Agree with Una. Seems to be an inordinate amount of neutral reviews for Irish bands in comparison to international acts for the reasons Una outlined, the inevitable meeting someplace in Ireland.

    Not that I wouldn’t welcome some more reviewer/band fist fights which is sadly lacking. ;)

    Comment by nerraw
    17.
    July 28, 2009
    11:01 am

    I am sure bands would argue that it’s a writer’s job to listen to everything and be subjective.

    True for professional, or aspiring professional journalists, but at the same time there’s no point in sending a demo of your five-piece-soon-to-be-top-of-the-ringtone-charts pop band to a blog that doesn’t cover pop and rates Grizzly Bear and Oneida for example

    Comment by Joe
    18.
    July 28, 2009
    11:03 am

    Maybe RTE should change the cast of that boxing reality TV show their doing to include music journos and crap rock bands.

    Comment by unarocks
    19.
    July 28, 2009
    11:04 am

    nerraw – I can see a new RTE TV show right there

    Joe – Of course, there’s no point doing that but Irish bands are just not prepared to put in the work to work out who might be open to their music. Too many years of soft reviews means too many Irish bands think all Irish hacks are easy.

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    20.
    July 28, 2009
    11:07 am

    No disrespect to you Jim or any of your fellow peers who, do an excellent job and make me look forward to fridays, but in my opinion reviews whether good or bad bear only a small relation to the success or not of a band. This is particularly the case for new bands. Fair enough it may give you some some credo with other bands and people in the industry who tend to form the majority of the readership of reviews but only writing good music and gigging like a slave in an indiana jones movie will get you anywhere. I was in a band that received very good national reviews, including in your own fine publication, but it didn’t open many doors for us in terms of getting good support slots or festivals etc The reason we didn’t break through to the next ‘level’ was we didn’t tour enough, simple as. So bands really shouldn’t pay overdue attention to reviews good or bad and reviewers should be unimpeachably honest

    Comment by db cooper
    21.
    July 28, 2009
    11:10 am

    db – fair comment and a very good point – it’s not reviews but radio and touring which help to break a band in the medium to long run. BUT the point of this post is to do with how thick many (not all – but many) Irish bands and especially their fans get with unflattering reviews. Sure, reviews aren’t going to get you on the main stage at Glastonbury, so why do bands and fans get so worked up then? And isn’t it the case that many bands quickly tire of touring abroad when they’re not getting the same waves of love from the foreign press as they became used to at home?

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    22.
    July 28, 2009
    11:10 am

    db cooper –

    i disagree, reviews are still the main thing i use to help decide what albums are worth buying. depending on who’s doing the reviewing of course

    Comment by daniel harrison
    23.
    July 28, 2009
    11:11 am

    Not just an Irish thing – and not just about negative reviews either. A few months ago I wrote a fairly complimentary article about a French guy called MeeK. He had once released an album entirely of Beatles covers and was the French translator of Barry Miles’ bio of Paul McCartney. He released a catchy little single that was dripping with ’60s pop vibes. I noted all this.

    MeeK wrote back:
    http://www.cluas.com/indie-music/Blogs/French_Letter/tabid/80/EntryId/958/MeeK.aspx

    Comment by aidan
    24.
    July 28, 2009
    11:12 am

    Being a musician I can totally empathise with being sensitive about the music you have created. Any artist who puts their heart, soul, blood and sweat into their creative work would.

    That being said, no one should submit an album/EP/single/whatever to be reviewed if they can not accept the fact that not everyone is going to like what they have created. If you’re releasing something into the public domain you have to accept the reaction it receives, whether good or bad. And if you can’t accept that then you should probably just stick to giving it to friends and family.

    Comment by Conor Furlong
    25.
    July 28, 2009
    11:13 am

    I think Una pretty much has it spot on.

    I don’t cover Irish music on my blog very often (aside from posting news items) for a couple of reasons. I have a rule that I don’t write in a critical manner about people I know because I think at some level my opinion of what they do either negatively of positively might be influenced by my opinion of them, even if I’m fairly sure that I’d like it anyway (The Subplots album for example, which I think is very good, or The Holy Roman Army one)

    Also there’s only so much time to blog, not enough to cover all the music that I like that I listen to so unless it’s music/a gig by someone who I’d previously praised at length then I don’t waste my time shitting on it.

    One thing that I never get though is the dissection and rebuttal of reviews, I don’t mean by the band but just the common or garden fans because reviews are “just like one person’s opinion maaaaan” but people seem to take it as an affront to them, as though they’re specifically attacking their taste in music. Personally I almost never read reviews of albums that I’ve heard prior to the review because at that stage I already “know” whether or not it’s good and the only opinion on a record that ultimately matters to me is my own.

    Comment by Ian
    26.
    July 28, 2009
    11:19 am

    Ah yeah, I reviewed Brian Deady’s single on Drop-D ages ago and everyone was horrified at my harshness including State’s editor saying my review was terrible (it wasn’t). To be fair to Deady, he came on and commented (unfunnily) but ultimately came back and did an interview.
    If it’s shit it’s shit and if a band don’t know they are rubbish until it’s too late and they are brutally exposed in the printed word, then they are surrounding themselves with sycophants and fawning liggers and deserve what they get.

    Comment by adam
    27.
    July 28, 2009
    11:25 am

    @ Aidan
    Wow, just reading that Meek review and comments now, unbelievable!

    Comment by enda
    28.
    July 28, 2009
    11:29 am

    re: Meek – love this comment – “Why don’t you fly back to your country where you obviously belong, like right now, and write about the incredibly original and unique and never heard before bands and singers your contry’s packed with ?…”

    Later, he describes himself as “Franco-British”.

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    29.
    July 28, 2009
    11:35 am

    And just on the subject of ‘objectivity’ in reviewing music (which may not have been raised here but I think I just read it on Johnny C’s blog post comments).
    Reviewing is a highly subjective form of writing and should in no way have the same rules of news journalism applied to it.
    If you want objective music reviewing then you need to find someone who has a) never heard any music
    and
    b) never talked to anyone about music.
    People seem to take reviews so personally at times. Just ’cause the reviewer doesn’t like it, doesn’t mean he/she thinks you’re a dick/moron/Philistine ’cause you DO like it.
    Chill ahhhhhhhht.

    Comment by adam
    30.
    July 28, 2009
    11:41 am

    @jim..sorry I know I went off on a bit of a tangent..I agree that Irish bands and fans seem to get particularly thick with negative reviews..it seems to be symptomatic of Irish life and it’s parochial nature in general..it’s the whole ‘vote for joe the man you know’ aspect of the Irish psyche..it makes great reading for the neutral, and cynical, observer though

    @daniel..the fact that you buy albums based on the respect you have for the opinions of the reviewers proves that only musicians and big music fans pay attention to reviews..your average punter isn’t going to pay attention to the new suno)) or dirty projectors albums just because they got a four star review

    Comment by db cooper
    31.
    July 28, 2009
    11:53 am

    Interesting psychological experiment. I remember I worked in the same record shop as a member of one band. Their album had been on the previous day and I said there was some good stuff on it. This was shrugged off with a dab of zen nonchalance that knew the merit of personal opinions was nothing to get excited about. When I said I wasn’t sure about one of the tracks, he didn’t talk to me for the rest of the week. I could never decide if he had been looking for an excuse, if he was very sensitive or if it was just the zen.

    Comment by brian
    32.
    July 28, 2009
    11:54 am

    @29

    Adam, I couldn’t agree more. I’ve written about this more times than I care to remember. All music, like all art, is subjective.

    However, there is a responsibility on the part of the reviewer to have a certain level of knowledge when it comes to their chosen subject though. I get annoyed when I read reviews that are clearly written with the help of the band’s wikipedia and myspace pages.

    Comment by Steve
    33.
    July 28, 2009
    12:00 pm

    I have to say that I have noticed favourable Irish reviews for Irish bands in the past which were undeserved. It has gotten to the stage now where I don’t read Irish reviews of Irish bands. If I do read an Irish review of them I view it very sceptically. I will usually mark it down by one to two stars to see what it would actually have gotten if reviewed by an unbiased person.
    It is a shame to view new Irish music with such scepticism but that seems to be where the situation has brought me.

    Comment by TD
    34.
    July 28, 2009
    12:01 pm

    This doesn’t just apply to Irish music but to film too – e.g. Wide Open Spaces, some reviews have fellated it and others played coy, suggesting it was worth seeing in some way without coming out and saying it was actually good.

    omg that Superjiminez threat is the most outstanding thing I’ve read online in quite some time. Such entertainment, and for free!

    Comment by An Fear Bolg
    35.
    July 28, 2009
    12:02 pm

    “the one I’ve heard a few times over the years, the reviewer is a woman. ”

    30 comments in and no one has commented on that unbelievable statement. What has that got to do with anything? Please tell me you’re not serious about this…

    I remember getting some grief – in person and on my blog – because I disagreed with the fact that Super Extra Bonus Party won the Choice Music Prize. It was just an opinion, and one I assumed I was entitled to.

    Comment by Sinéad
    36.
    July 28, 2009
    12:03 pm

    sinead – what’s unbelievable about this? You don’t think bands and fans have used this as a reason for a bad review? Read the superjimenez comments, for instance. Bands and fans use every excuse in the book for a bad review, bar the fact that their band/music are not very good.

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    37.
    July 28, 2009
    12:05 pm

    Jim, I read that post at the time. Don’t remember the remarks about female reviewers, should I go back and read it?

    Comment by Sinéad
    38.
    July 28, 2009
    12:10 pm

    Sinead – i think so. Comment 8, for example, would never be made about a male reviewer.

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    39.
    July 28, 2009
    12:10 pm

    Sorry! I meant Johnnie’s post. The superjimenez one was hilarious. Una played a blinder with her responses.

    Comment by Sinéad
    40.
    July 28, 2009
    12:30 pm

    Just read the Superjimenez review. wow. Who knew that people who allegedly don’t care about a review put so much effort into criticising said review.

    @Una, I have far too much time on my hands but the review that they were talking about was that you once posted on CLUAS saying that “I don’t really see what the fuss is about with these guys, but I’m sure they’ll do well. They seem to have to have their morkeshing down.” Supercritical of you dude, I can see why everyone got so upset! ;-)

    Comment by Steve
    41.
    July 28, 2009
    12:33 pm

    This doesn’t just apply to Irish music but to film too – e.g. Wide Open Spaces, some reviews have fellated it and others played coy, suggesting it was worth seeing in some way without coming out and saying it was actually good.

    There was a discussion on Culture Shock on Newstalk a couple of weeks ago, I believe Sinead occasionally of this parish was on the panel, about being a critic. One of the people talking said that there was an unnamed Irish film critic who that person refuses to read when the subject is an Irish film.

    Comment by Ian
    42.
    July 28, 2009
    12:34 pm

    “I remember getting some grief – in person and on my blog – because I disagreed with the fact that Super Extra Bonus Party won the Choice Music Prize. It was just an opinion, and one I assumed I was entitled to.”

    I think people were giving you grief because you didn’t declare an interest when you were giving out about SEBP – your husband worked with and produced the act you thought should have won (ie Adrian Crowley)

    Comment by Martin
    43.
    July 28, 2009
    12:35 pm

    In the rather wonderful Pixar film “Ratatouille” there’s an interesting speech from the food critic regarding the role of the critic:

    “In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talents, new creations. The new needs friends.”

    Not sure if that speech is entirely relevant to this discussion but I’ve always loved it so I thought I’d chuck it in.

    Comment by Conor Furlong
    44.
    July 28, 2009
    12:43 pm

    RE: the ‘woman’ comment. I’ve got that a couple of times, but mostly just hearing it back from people. And it’s always complete bullshit of course, but I think deep down, lots of boys in bands and boys in newspapers and boys in record labels and boys everywhere think girls know less about music than they do.

    Someone told me recently that a few (music industry-ish) people put a favourable review I gave to an Irish band down to a rumour that I was “invovled” with the singer, which was untrue.

    I was actually fucking the drummer (joke.)

    So yeah, I think the ‘woman reviewer’ thing is just another excuse that musicians throw at you for not liking their band. It’s as ridiculous as saying “he only hates us because he’s from Wicklow and we’re not” or something dumb.

    As a female music journalist, one is of course open to sexism, but that’s relative to any male-dominated industry.

    Comment by unarocks
    45.
    July 28, 2009
    12:47 pm

    @Steve #40 – as I said, BONKERS!

    Comment by unarocks
    46.
    July 28, 2009
    12:54 pm

    There was a discussion on Culture Shock on Newstalk a couple of weeks ago, I believe Sinead occasionally of this parish was on the panel, about being a critic. One of the people talking said that there was an unnamed Irish film critic who that person refuses to read when the subject is an Irish film.

    The Irish film reviewing scene is far more tainted than the music one I would suggest. There is a certain larger Irish film distributer who get rather animated and flex their muscles in terms of reviews – you slate any of the films on their roster – you don’t get invited to their next press junket in New York/Barcelona/themepark on the outskirts of Paris – simple as that. You stick the knife into the directorial debut of a acclaimed writer they are nurturing – you are never allowed into to one of their press screenings again ever – even if you happen to be the appointed film critic of a Cultural section of a rather well known UK Sunday paper.

    Comment by Ivor
    47.
    July 28, 2009
    12:55 pm

    @ Jim “why do bands and fans get so worked up then?”

    I don’t think it’s a phenomenon unique to Irish bands and fans of Irish bands. Hasn’t the same Superjimenez-type thing occurred on this blog in relation to the likes of Ian Brown?!!

    There’s countless examples of when a similar thing has happened on an international scale with established artists. The usual sensitive souls come to mind: Oasis, Richard Ashcroft, Ian Brown…erm Reverend and the Makers. But it’s not exclusive to the music industry. Recently the author Alice Hoffman posted a Boston Globe reviewers phone number + email address on Twitter encouraging fans to contact her and tell her what they thought of “snarky critics”.

    People are just passionate about the music they love, whether that’s because they made it, they’re mates with the people who made or they’re so blindsighted by the image of Bruce Springsteen ass-sweating into a pair of tight Levi’s at the RDS that they’re unable to concede that it’s just Bon Jovi for Marianne Finnucane listeners.

    Comment by colly
    48.
    July 28, 2009
    12:56 pm

    @Martin Some people who gave me grief did so purely because I didn’t like the SEBP album, that I didn’t think it was the best album of the year and that it didn’t deserved to win over any of the other nine albums, Adrian’s included. Just an opinion. I would have preferred nearly every other album on that shortlist to win, it was nowt to do with Adrian not winning.

    @Ian, that was indeed me, with Sara Keating and Colin Murphy. Was actually trying to find the podcast to post it here but didn’t have any luck. Must have another poke around the Newstalk site.
    Someone texted in about an Irish film reviewer, saying that they always gave Irish films – no matter how bad they were – a good review. So I think this discussion applies outside of music.

    Some of the theatre discussion recently (see the Peter Crawley/Abbey pieces in this paper) are also really interesting.

    Comment by Sinéad
    49.
    July 28, 2009
    12:58 pm

    “One of the people talking said that there was an unnamed Irish film critic who that person refuses to read when the subject is an Irish film.”

    That also applies to music – hands up who among us ever pays any attention to Hot Press when they rave-review an Irish band? I bet there are music hacks out there who throw away a band’s CD if it comes with a quote from Hot Press on it.

    Comment by Jack The Lad
    50.
    July 28, 2009
    1:02 pm

    Although I do the odd review for state, I have rarely have had to review any Irish music yet. For my blog, my approach is that if I get sent something I really like (for example subplots or Patrick kelleher) and listen to it, then I will post about it. If get something I don’t particularly like, I just won’t write about it ‘cos seeing as I am not obliged to write about everything, I don’t see my blog as a place to beat down on bands.

    And yet. Yet, I got accosted recently by a member of a band who sent me material over the last few months. He was angry, nay apoplectic, that I never reviewed it on my blog. WTF? He said “probably not american enough for ye is it?” Now that is sad on so many levels. I tried to explain how my blog wasn’t hotpress, and if I wanted to I might only review tropicalia music from Rio De Janeiro for the next few years and it would be none of his business. He seemed to think that bloggers are obliged to write to a local agenda.

    Anyway, more power to Irish reviewers who hold the line so the speak and give good honest reviews. Lauren Murphy I’m talking about you!

    Comment by Darragh
    51.
    July 28, 2009
    1:21 pm

    No way in hell is this just happening in Ireland…I’ll point everyone to the BBC’s coverage of music for example, tose national broadcasters don’t even question whether somethings good or bad as long as it’s British. It isn’t necessarily reviewing it, but when you look at what bands the BBC main channels showed from Glasto for example who could ignore the favouritism. I, as an outsider, think there are a vast number of ordinary bands doing well in the British music scene, largely due to a biased press coverage, when there are many bands in similar genres trying to break into Britain who have similar and often better things to offer. It’s an island mentality.

    Then again, as a musician myself, it would sting to get a bad review, particularly for a first attempt at an album or EP. Its understandable but no reason to get the neighbours friends and family together to cause a riot. A band retaliating after a bad review will just compound negative opinion.

    Comment by Stone Throwing Youths
    52.
    July 28, 2009
    1:25 pm

    Bands need to grow a thicker skin. If you don’t want to get bad reviews, don’t put yourself in the spotlight. End of.

    Having been in a band that’s received both good and atrocious reviews, it’s really easy to obsess over the negative things people say – hey that’s human nature! Of course it can be especially hard when you’ve put your heart and soul into your music and you’re baring a part of yourself, only for it to be torn apart, but you just need to take a step back, and get over it. I’ve started to believe that, as a musician, you can actually take more from negative reviews as it forces you to really examine just what it is you’re doing, and who you’re doing it for.

    It is impossible to be liked by everyone; and sure, who would want to be? Wouldn’t that just make you MOR?

    Comment by Jessie
    53.
    July 28, 2009
    1:26 pm

    I did a piece for Film Ireland a few months back on the role of the critic and in talking to a few film critics, I gathered there may well be an ‘add one star’ policy to Irish films when reviewing for an unspecified publication. Possibly. Maybe. Read Between Lines.

    Comment by adam
    54.
    July 28, 2009
    1:44 pm

    One thing that always perplexes me when I’m commissioning reviews in my newspaper job: often, when I ask someone if they’d like to review a book/album, they say — “Oh, great, yep, will definitely do it. The author is my friend/cousin/former schoolmate.” And this, they think, means that they’re qualified rather than disqualified from doing the review… it’s bizarre. I don’t know how many times I’ve had to explain that this means that they should never, ever, be allowed write a review of said book/album.

    Comment by Nadine
    55.
    July 28, 2009
    1:44 pm

    A lot of good reviews in certain publications largely depend on the advertising budgets involved or the PR company pushing the acts though there are notable exception to this in recent times namely Julie Feeney, RSAG etc

    Comment by silvio
    56.
    July 28, 2009
    1:44 pm

    Gave up reading those comments on the linked sites after a few. Such drivel. Clearly all little kids. Brings me back to the early days of the Internet. At least the debates here are (usually) of a higher standard!

    Even then, I actually find any form of debate over a Coronas album hilarious and pointless in equal measure (you can make much the same point about U2, Snow Patrol, Keane, etc.) In other words, to those with discerning ears, they know that its pants already and do not need a reviewer to tell them this. To those that like this sort of bland done-a-thousand-times-before music, they will buy it regardless of what some “indie snob” thinks. Hence, its all an exercise in futility.

    I seem to remember Donald Clarke writing something similar a while back about mainstream film reviews.

    Indeed, you could say that big-arse universal-church media have become quite outmoded. Any such medium that will, for example, negatively review a Razorlight album alongside a glowing one for a Sunn O))) release may do so in all sincerety. However, it has all of the grace of a Brontosaurus in ballet shoes compared to a much leaner effort that focuses on a few specialities and just ignores anything that it considers to be dross.

    ************

    On the main point of bands and reviews, I can imagine how there is great but naive optimism on the part of unsigned bands when they first put their music out there. They hope to “live the dream”, adopt a scattergun approach to promotion, and feel crushed by a mostly indifferent universe.

    For small bands, its really all about gigging and word of mouth. A short sentence saying “these guys were savage as a support act last night” from a person whose musical interests I mostly share is enough to propel me towards MySpace/Spotify, etc. to get a sense for them. From there on in, it is up to the tunes to do the work.

    Music – its the ears and not the eyes that matter!

    Comment by JD
    57.
    July 28, 2009
    2:05 pm

    Wow, a ton of points already and that’s before people even hit the pubs. Thanks everyone

    I think there’s one point which has come up here a few times (Una @ 5, nadine @ 54) which bears repeating – when bands and writers are pals.

    Inevitably, given the size of the country and the scale of the music business here, this happens but I really think it’s unfair on the reader for the writer not to state this very openly when he or she is reviewing something – or, better still, not to stay the fuck away from the review. Back in the old days, this was rife in the Irish music business and led to more back-slapping than you can imagine for certain bands. It still goes on but I would hope more commissioning editors and publications would be like nadine above when it comes to shouting “no, for the love of God, no!”

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    58.
    July 28, 2009
    2:06 pm

    bit of a 2-way street imo.. some reviewers/radio stations/general gig goers ignore everything that’s Irish because of that very fact.. I’m a firm believer that you can get every bit as much entertainment from a good local band as you can from any overseas act – and probably at a fraction of the cost..

    That doesn’t mean there’s not a lot of shit out there, or that i’m afraid to say that a band are shit if they are, it just means that all bands, regardless of reputation or origin, should be treated equally.

    There is another worrying trend whereby bands that feature on pitchfork or other “reputable” music sites tend to score higher, or have an inflated reputation, purely based on that fact. That’s more worrying to me than people being kind to local small bands.

    @32 Steve: I get annoyed when I read reviews that are clearly written with the help of the band’s wikipedia and myspace pages.

    Uh-huh.. would you rather reviewers made up facts and information? I mean really, where are you supposed to find information about new bands? Off the crappy A4 sheet of paper that they send with their cd? By phoning their mam?

    Myspace and Wiki are a godsend for everyone who has any interest in music.. Using them to gather information is normal and makes sense.. Why are you even on the internet if you’re annoyed by the resources it provides.. Yeesh!

    Comment by Liam
    59.
    July 28, 2009
    2:07 pm

    @ Jim “why do bands and fans get so worked up then?”

    There are probably a few reasons for this – for example some bands and fans are more sensitive than others, sometimes because they can’t take any criticism at all, whether it’s from a critic or not. There was a comment on an interview with Lily Allen on State.ie a few months back for example where an over-zealous fan tried to ’stand up’ for Lily and be her protector by assuming the interview was made up (it wasn’t) because Lily had mentioned in a few other interviews that she, well, didn’t like doing interviews. It made little sense, but the fan was so worked up that anyone might intrude on Lily’s privacy that they chose not to believe numerous people who said the interview had taken place.

    So you’re always going to get people who care more than others about this sort of stuff. And let’s face it, no one likes criticism – and shite bands don’t always know they’re shite, y’know? Some people can be deluded about their ‘talent’.

    But there are plenty of bands out there who are extremely grateful for any mention of their music, for any reviews no matter how good or bad, and who are just glad to get their name out there.

    At the end of the day, reviewers and musicians have two very different and distinct jobs. And neither can quite see things from the other’s position. As a reviewer your job is to give your own subjective opinion on an album (etc) – while not going overboard and using the review to get back at someone etc – and fairly judge it using your own standards. If people don’t agree, they don’t agree. The problem is that because reviewers get to air their views on the internet to potentially 1000s of people these days, fans and bands are conscious that a bad review can give bands a ‘bad name’. But while it’s understandable that people can be upset or disappointed about a bad review, as long as the review is not being nasty without reason then there really is never any need for name-calling, abusive emails etc.

    (As an aside, I do think though that reviewers need to know their shit before they review – ironically it’s probably the easiest thing to start doing in music journalism, but it can be the hardest thing to do ‘right’ sometimes. The more albums you review, the more you hone your craft. I’ve been writing them for 10 years and I still don’t feel like I’ve got them down 100%. You learn as you go on. But one thing you shouldn’t be learning is being swayed by PR companies, labels, etc….)

    Comment by sweetoblivion
    60.
    July 28, 2009
    2:10 pm

    I assume Naomi from Hotpress started writing her comment hours ago and is still at it

    Comment by Peter
    61.
    July 28, 2009
    2:18 pm

    @58 Liam,

    You totally misunderstood me dude. I mean that if you are reviewing a band, you shouldn’t just write that they are ‘an eclectic mix of jazz funk and death metal’ because that’s exactly what you’ve read on their website.

    Of course you should find out background information to help fill out the review, but it shouldn’t be the basis of your review, as was the case with the reviews I was referring to in my original comment

    Comment by Steve
    62.
    July 28, 2009
    2:20 pm

    the Pitchfork comments reminded me – is it me or is So Cow completely ignored by the Irish media? DOI: none.

    Comment by daniel harrison
    63.
    July 28, 2009
    2:26 pm

    @55 “A lot of good reviews in certain publications largely depend on the advertising budgets involved or the PR company pushing the acts though there are notable exception to this in recent times namely Julie Feeney, RSAG etc”

    As someone who has worked in music PR for five years i can tell you honestly that that is totally not the case. When it comes to reviews it’s down to the reviewer and his or her taste in music. We just send ‘em the tunes. If i think a reviewer or certain publication will hate a particular band or type of music i won’t send it in but that’s about it control-wise. I can’t speak for all music publicists but i reckon the majority would agree with me.

    Comment by Bernie
    64.
    July 28, 2009
    2:26 pm

    I was actually fucking the drummer (joke.)

    I should hope so, wouldn’t touch him with yours.

    I assume Naomi from Hotpress started writing her comment hours ago and is still at it

    I blieve that it’s Drop D these days dude, do try to keep up.

    Comment by Ian
    65.
    July 28, 2009
    2:27 pm

    @61.. fair enough.. it would have pretty hard for me to infer that from the general statement you made above..
    personally, i like to invent my own genre for anything i review, so when you hear BATS being described as disco-metal by anyone and everyone next month, you’ll know where it came from..

    @62: 5 years receiving cd’s and mails from all over and no sign of a So Cow release darkening either my actual or virtual door. Please go speak to their PR manager and make them do some legwork.. then they might get somewhere..

    Comment by Liam
    66.
    July 28, 2009
    2:30 pm

    “@62: 5 years receiving cd’s and mails from all over and no sign of a So Cow release darkening either my actual or virtual door. Please go speak to their PR manager and make them do some legwork.. then they might get somewhere..”

    Well, go and buy the album then, you scabby cheapskate

    Comment by How Now Brown Cow
    67.
    July 28, 2009
    2:31 pm

    Darragh @50 – exactly what I was saying earlier. Bands may hear ‘blog’ but think ‘press release regurgitator’

    Comment by Joe
    68.
    July 28, 2009
    2:32 pm

    Breaking News (link below) : Woman trapped in a toilet for a week:

    I wonder were the Superjimenez ‘fans’ responsible for locking the State reviewer in a toilet for a week!

    http://news.eircom.net/breakingnews/16154098/

    Comment by silvio
    69.
    July 28, 2009
    2:33 pm

    Liam – yeah,but surely if Irish press outlets see that Pitchfork are interested, they’d follow upon it? like i said, i’ve no DOI and it makes no odds to me. it’s just a bit puzzling that he seems to be completely off the radar domestically. do all press outlets wait for stuff to be sent to them, or do people not actively seek out new music? it’s more of a general question than specifically directed at you

    Comment by daniel harrison
    70.
    July 28, 2009
    2:37 pm

    Steve (#7): It took me 10 seconds to find out the name of that band whose CD you slated. I take it quoting the “more Neilstown than Motown” line in your comment was an intentional act of name-and-shame? I don’t give a toss personally, just wondering.

    Comment by AstonishingSodApe
    71.
    July 28, 2009
    2:38 pm

    Just feel like I should clarify – I’ve never been pressured by a PR person from Ireland or otherwise, was just referring to those who might be swayed by companies (particularly advertisers) and unnamed publications mentioned above.

    Comment by sweetoblivion
    72.
    July 28, 2009
    2:42 pm

    definitey agree with 63 re 55, plenty of cases where ads were taken for releases, then the album slated in a review in the same issue,

    Comment by OC
    73.
    July 28, 2009
    2:43 pm

    is So Cow completely ignored by the Irish media? DOI: none.

    More of a blog darling really it seems. I think Foggy Notions gave him a very positive feature write up around the time that the first album came out.

    (I’m a big fan)

    Comment by Ian
    74.
    July 28, 2009
    2:43 pm

    Bad reviews are grand. Personally, I’m less happy at the ones that reprint the press release, then stick a random number out of ten at the end. I remember one HP review for a CD I released. One sheet reprinted word for word, 8/10 at the end. They’d copied everything perfectly other than the artist name. Doh.
    I don’t necessarily blame music journalists for this. They get sent tons of music, a good deal of which is low quality, and some still manage to retain enthusiasm about music. Then they’re given short deadlines to pump out content. Of course, there are also bound to be a few who don’t actually bother.
    Anyway. I’d rather a bad review with comment based on actually listening to the thing.

    Comment by Joss
    75.
    July 28, 2009
    2:44 pm

    @70

    I just couldn’t bring myself to type the name of the band! It still makes me laugh at their reaction to the review. Like I said, I was a touch harsh in places, but I did try to be constructive in my criticism too. Their review of me is actually quite funny to read, as a lesson in how some bands just don’t ‘get’ how somebody might not like their music.

    Comment by Steve
    76.
    July 28, 2009
    2:45 pm

    Feck sexism, racism, ageism…any negativity is just grasping at straws and not worth consideration.
    I think this is more interesting as an ethical discussion on how to rate music. As ever, Ireland’s tiny mass/huge ego is the key factor.

    To make a living in the Irish music media seems to demand some very unusual qualities from a journalist. The very good ones have a fine handle on tact and quality, and find themselves sympathetic employers who respect their views and print verbatim.
    Others have to compromise and work on a different ethos of “I might not like it but someone else may” or the dreaded compromise, in which generic work is submitted or subjected to heavy in-house editing. This lack of conscience has a cost too…it cheapens the original passion the writer had for good music in the first place.

    I will hate writing reviews for the rest of my life thanks to a horrible experience in my early forays as an Irish music writer. The Blonde Majority played a dismal support to Butterfly Explosion in Dec 2007 and in my ham-fisted, newbie way, I had the gall to examine what I found lacking from their set. The backlash wasn’t as extreme as the Superjiminez or Meek posts there but I found from the offset that as blind Butchie says, “conscience do cost” and the price as an impartial critic is spending one’s days constantly justifying and defending your right to an opinion.
    The alternative goes from focusing on the music to including the band’s ego. It muddies the waters. Overviews of arts and culture need to be honest and constructive, in order to encourage a fresh response from other players. It’s only when you have harsh commentary that high praise rings out most truly.
    ‘Mammy’s advice’ of not saying mean things is in itself a productive method, however: there’s no harsher commentary for a band than silence. If they’re shit/trolls, just never mention the fuckers again.

    Comment by Naomi
    77.
    July 28, 2009
    2:46 pm

    it’s just a bit puzzling that he seems to be completely off the radar domestically. do all press outlets wait for stuff to be sent to them, or do people not actively seek out new music? it’s more of a general question than specifically directed at you

    Starting with So Cow, I wouldn’t say he was off the radar. I googled “So Cow Irish reviews” and came up with a ton of reviews – and found a 4 star review in The Ticket from 2007 of his last album. Don’t think Pitchfork reviewed that one. I wouldn’t call that being “ignored”

    In terms of waiting for stuff to be sent to the office, I can only speak for myself and say no. I do the New Music column for The Ticket and nearly every other week will get an email from a band thanking me for mentioning them and asking how the hell I found out about them. They seem genuinely surprised to get a mention/review which didnt involve them doing the chasing.

    On the other hand, there are dozens and dozens of bands who email me asking why I didn’t write about them, review them or play them on the radio show. Chances are I’ve heard their record and am either waiting to write about/play them or thought it was piss-poor and left it to one side. I often think that if bands persist in looking for a review, I should give them one, albeit one they probably don’t want. Then again, life is too short for that kind of carry-on. As Naomi says in the last comment, silence is often the harshest response of all.

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    78.
    July 28, 2009
    2:47 pm

    @Daniel H – albums/singles/EPs are sent in for review. If it’s not sent in then the label/musician don’t want it reviewed by that website/mag/whatever.
    That’s not to say it hasn’t been bought and listened to by the writers but it does mean it won’t be reviewed.
    Bloggers are the people that seek out stuff for review, usually.

    Comment by adam
    79.
    July 28, 2009
    2:52 pm

    Jim – yes, if you go googling you’ll find just about any piece of plastic reviewed somewhere. i mean in a more general sense, i read the domestic press regularly (state, ticket, hot press etc) and the first time i ever came across So Cow was in the Pitchfork review. even the odd name-drop seems to have eluded me

    Comment by daniel harrison
    80.
    July 28, 2009
    2:52 pm

    @59

    nodding my head in agreement with pretty much everything you said….nicely put!

    Comment by caroline
    81.
    July 28, 2009
    2:55 pm

    is anyone leaving comments here not a journalist/blogger/PR type?

    me and a group of musicians are starting a blog reviewing the reviews of Irish journalism, it’s called http://www.throwingstones@glasshouses.com

    “clearly listened to album barely once, possibly while hoovering, has confused bass players name with singers, regurgitated press release, repeated use of the phrase “sonic chathedral”, confused second paragraph about what he/she thinks bands should be sounding like, hops back on fence for non-committal stereotyping in last sentence. 2 stars”

    how you like it now?

    Comment by Thee Eff Men
    82.
    July 28, 2009
    2:58 pm

    daniel – well, seeing as that Ticket review comes from 2007, I think it’s safe to say So Cow has been around a while and getting coverage

    Three Eff Men – try The Dubliner with that one, they might be interested

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    83.
    July 28, 2009
    3:01 pm

    @81 – I love it.
    You forgot ‘generous use of words like plaintive and soundscape’.
    Also, bass players have names?

    Comment by adam
    84.
    July 28, 2009
    3:04 pm

    As someone who plays in a band and does the odd review, Im in that lovely position whereby if I criticise an act, they can instantly come right back at me (in a “so’s your face” kind of way, which is the ultimate form of insult).
    I understand that people are reluctant to criticise Irish acts for fear of bumping into them in person, but I dont accept it. This notion is always at the forefront of my mind when reviewing, regardless of nationality. Before I hit the send button, I think “would I say this to the person’s face?” If you don’t have the balls to, then don’t bother sending it.
    I also think bands and musicians place waaaaay to much store in reviews and the like, and the dreaded star system.
    Ireland is a small enough pond and that can work both ways. Playing abroad or having your stuff reviewed abroad is always a good thing – more perspectives, more context and more honesty. We played in New York several times in the past few years, and although our music is relatively niche, most of the shows were sell outs. We’ve played quite a few times in Ireland recently and havent had as many bums on seats. That’s not to say Irish people dont know their tunes, it just means that with larger populations you can probably afford to be a bit more experimental and still get a decent crowd to a gig.

    Comment by Lar
    85.
    July 28, 2009
    3:05 pm

    “clearly listened to album barely once, possibly while hoovering, has confused bass players name with singers, regurgitated press release, repeated use of the phrase “sonic chathedral”, confused second paragraph about what he/she thinks bands should be sounding like, hops back on fence for non-committal stereotyping in last sentence. 2 stars”

    Hilarious. Love the ironic piss-poor grammar, typos and lack of punctuation. Oh…

    Comment by Ivor
    86.
    July 28, 2009
    3:06 pm

    @ 81 – surely the start of a vicious circle that will lead to people reviewing your reviews of reviewers and, ultimately, the end of the world as we know it.

    Comment by Steve
    87.
    July 28, 2009
    3:10 pm

    @81 is obviously the work of some frustrated piss-poor musician who is hurting because his journalism is far, far better than his songwriting.

    Comment by Brian Groom
    88.
    July 28, 2009
    3:14 pm

    @84 “Before I hit the send button, I think “would I say this to the person’s face?” If you don’t have the balls to, then don’t bother sending it.”

    Wise words indeed.

    Comment by sweetoblivion
    89.
    July 28, 2009
    3:21 pm

    This is making work fly by! Thanks everyone.

    Comment by Rob
    90.
    July 28, 2009
    3:40 pm

    Being in a band myself,I have been in the situation where bad reviews have been given and yes, a small part of me will be a bit dissappointed. But then you just have to cop onto yourself and realise that not everyone is going to like your stuff! It is really silly how very personal things become,especially on the superjimenez debate. A bad review is what it is. Its someone having their opinion regardless of who you are or what nationality you are!
    I also agree completley with comment no.84 “Before I hit the send button, I think “would I say this to the person’s face?” If you don’t have the balls to, then don’t bother sending it.”

    Comment by Anonymouse
    91.
    July 28, 2009
    3:52 pm

    I mightn’t like a lot of what comes up in the new music section but it’s to Jims credit that he obviously wilfully seeks out new things to excite him, I think managing to stay excited about music in a maelstrom of PR duffers is vital, but @65 I think it’s a shame that many journo’s never raise their head above the ever increasing pile of cheap cdr promos to seek out new things.

    I wrote for Plan B and I’d say half the reviews I had published were records I’d hunted down myself and wanted to write about. I am the best, mind

    Comment by dudley
    92.
    July 28, 2009
    3:59 pm

    Oh, and in reference to those writers who just cadge from myspace/wiki etc., bah to them. I think if you’re taking on the responsibility of critiquing a piece of work, the least you can do is pay a little attention to it. I remember we got a fairly middling review on Pitchfork a few years back, but most of the negative comments were based on lazy stereotypes, being we were Irish the guy wrote that the record was drowning in catholic guilt etc, a little odd seeing as I’m a filthy prod what’s been in a Church once in me life, and only ‘cos it made for good rollerskating. Just lazy writing, like

    If I post to this thread again, I’ll career this even way more off topic, don’t you worry

    Comment by dudley
    93.
    July 28, 2009
    4:14 pm

    Y’know what? It’s a two way street people. Alot of music journalism today can be unnecessarily cruel when going about reviewing any kind of music, Irish or otherwise.

    Unarocks thinks that we should throw the “mammy says if you can’t say anything nice…” stuff out the window and be upfront about whether something sucks? I see where she is coming from and most of the time that’s grand if you’re with your mates in the pub but if you’re being paid to do a review, nasty “witty” remarks and half-arsed comparisons just to fill up column inches don’t cut it really. I have no strong feelings either way regarding Superjimenez but I read that review on state.ie and the reviewer was just plain mean in parts to be quite frank. By all means we should be honest about what is good music and what is not, regardless of whether its Irish or not, but whatever happened to art of reviewing something properly? As a musician myself, obviously I would take it to heart if I got a negative review about my work. However, if the reviewer in question was actually bothering to give a relatively objective and constructive picture of why my music didn’t appeal to them, I could get over it reasonably quickly and bear no grudge. Any musician who would react otherwise obviously can’t take criticism but lets be honest most of the time music journalism just isn’t like that and I can completely see why most bands would take it to heart if they got a review that was anything like that superjimenez review or countless similar reviews I’ve had the misfortune to read over the last few years.

    There is nothing more boring than reading a review by a journalist who cannot even be arsed to actually deconstruct and analyse the piece of music they’re supposed to be “reviewing”, and instead littering the piece with scathing remarks rather than any kind of constructive criticism or even some kind of engaging description of the music itself that might actually be interesting and worth reading.

    It’s lazy journalism.

    Comment by sodthemachine
    94.
    July 28, 2009
    4:19 pm

    It’s lazy journalism.

    Ah, we’ve had to wait 93 comments for that hoary old chestnut to come out. Lazy journalism is as much of a cliche as anonymous people giving out about reviews on online forums.

    But what is lazy journalism anyway? Give us a couple of examples sodthemachinesuperjimenezbandmemberorsuperfan. And maybe if you do so, the journalist in question might respond here and we can have a Mrs Merton-style heated debate.

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    95.
    July 28, 2009
    4:23 pm

    I will agree with one aspect of sodthemachine’s post – sometimes you read a review and it feels like the writer is using the piece as an opportunity to trot out her or his oh so funny put downs and superfluous language that do nothing to evaluate the music at hand.

    Comment by Joe
    96.
    July 28, 2009
    4:28 pm

    “albums/singles/EPs are sent in for review. If it’s not sent in then the label/musician don’t want it reviewed by that website/mag/whatever.

    That’s not to say it hasn’t been bought and listened to by the writers but it does mean it won’t be reviewed.

    Bloggers are the people that seek out stuff for review, usually”

    Says who? It’s not necessarily up to the artist to ‘asked’ to be reviewed by submitting work. I’ve often hunted stuff down or bought stuff or ordered stuff that I wasn’t going to get/ hadn’t got sent in for review.

    As a critic, you are servicing the reader, not the artist, not yourself, not their PR.

    Comment by unarocks
    97.
    July 28, 2009
    4:30 pm

    @95 i have to second this opinion

    Comment by caroline
    98.
    July 28, 2009
    4:31 pm

    sometimes you read a review and it feels like the writer is using the piece as an opportunity to trot out her or his oh so funny put downs

    *sighs* I miss Swells’ singles reviews from the NME.

    Comment by Ivor
    99.
    July 28, 2009
    4:38 pm

    I’m a firm believer in ‘oh-so-funny-putdowns and superfluous language’ combined with informing the reader what the music sounds like and describing why it’s good or bad or somewhere in the middle.
    I do believe that a reviewer’s job is to entertain and engage just as much as to review the music in question and this can be a difficult task for some.

    Comment by adam
    100.
    July 28, 2009
    4:42 pm

    @sodthemachine So you’re saying if something really blows, that you should let the musician down gently? That you shouldn’t say it’s crap? I’m sorry, fuck that. That’s just as dishonest as saying something is good just because it’s Irish.

    As a music critic you’re not just analysing a piece of work by an artist. Part of reviewing something is providing an entertaining and informative read for your audience while criticising or praising constructively in order to give the reader a good feel of what the artistic and sonic merits of a release of.

    Music reviews are for the customers of the album, music fans, and the readers of your publication.

    And yes, if you can write a criticism in an entertaining way rather than in a boring way, write it in the entertaining way. Duh.

    I have no problems laying the smack down if something is totally shit, and I would have no problem repeating it to a band if I met them after, but that’s because I don’t give a fuck what people think. You have to have faith in your opinion and your expertise even if it’s going to hurt someone. Who gives a flying fuck if some band is pissed off with you or whatever?

    It’s the same if you’re a news reporter, pissing people off is just collatoral damage. Deal with it!

    Comment by unarocks
    101.
    July 28, 2009
    4:57 pm

    @una It’s not up to the artist to submit stuff at all but if said stuff is never submitted it’s fair to say it will probably be ignored by the main media outlets.
    When was the last time an album was reviewed in the Times,Tribune,Business Post (or whatever ‘big’ media outlet you care to mention) that wasn’t specifically sent to the office for review at some point?
    It’s rare for the critics to dig for unknown albums off their own bat AND submit these reviews to their editor for publication.
    I don’t think the current environment in newspapers or radio stations would nurture that kind of time-management too much, no matter how much the journalist in question loves the music.
    It would be great if someone could prove me wrong here, of course.

    Comment by adam
    102.
    July 28, 2009
    5:00 pm

    and it appears una and i agree on #99 and #100 anyhoo

    Comment by adam
    103.
    July 28, 2009
    5:04 pm

    When was the last time an album was reviewed in the Times,Tribune,Business Post (or whatever ‘big’ media outlet you care to mention) that wasn’t specifically sent to the office for review at some point?

    Adam – here’s a selection of albums reviewed by me in the first six months of 2009 in The Ticket which were NOT sent to me (ie I bought them)

    Various Artists “Como Now”
    Welcome Wagon “Welcome to the Welcome Wagon”
    Various “Fly Girls”
    Alela Diane “To Be Still”
    Dan Deacon
    Pains Of Being Pure At Heart
    Tallest Man On Earth
    The Antlers
    Here We Go Magic
    Lemonade
    DM Stith
    The Knux
    Coconut
    Cymbals Eat Guitars
    The Ettes
    Nite Jewel
    She Keeps Bees
    Harlem Shakes
    Magic Magic
    Iran
    Beyond The Wizard’s Sleeve
    El Michels Affair
    Crocodiles
    Inspiration Information
    J Dilla – Jay Stay Paid
    The Field
    Death

    If I was relying on what was sent to me, it would be a piss-poor selection of reviews.

    It’s rare for the critics to dig for unknown albums off their own bat AND submit these reviews to their editor for publication.

    Well, there’s two dozen plus examples above where that’s not the case

    I don’t think the current environment in newspapers or radio stations would nurture that kind of time-management too much, no matter how much the journalist in question loves the music.

    Obviously my “time-management” skills must leave a lot to be desired.

    It would be great if someone could prove me wrong here, of course.

    Done

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    104.
    July 28, 2009
    5:08 pm

    jim….how many cd’s do you actually own?! out of simple curiosity of course

    Comment by caroline
    105.
    July 28, 2009
    5:09 pm

    Reviewers not getting sexual favours, buying their own music? Fucking hell, this topic has been a relevation! What’s the world coming to? ;)

    Adam, you can lay those accusations at some publications, but to be fair, both Jim and Una go above and beyond when digging for new albums. Probably much to the horror of Irish bands who would prefer if they didn’t, judging by this thread.

    Comment by nerraw
    106.
    July 28, 2009
    5:12 pm

    @ 103 must be the best and most uncomebackable putdown I’ve ever read on a blog. Respect!

    Comment by Frank
    107.
    July 28, 2009
    5:15 pm

    Here here, Jim.

    If you’re ego is too fragile to handle a bad (even scathing) review, then you’re in the wrong biz.

    It’s a dog eat dog world out there, and you just have to be a dog.

    Comment by Adam W
    108.
    July 28, 2009
    5:18 pm

    ….and he’s only mentioning the smaller releases in that list on 103

    Comment by OC
    109.
    July 28, 2009
    5:19 pm

    I’m not sure I’d call it lazy journalism but with the advent of the internet/myspace etc. there is less responsability for the journalist to accurately critique and describe a band’s sound. That’s not a criticism of journalists and it’s probably a good thing to leave the ol’ architectural two-step behind but it leaves an absence of context to a lot of reviews outside name checking other similiar bands (which is generally done too frequently and haphazardly) and the smart-ass remarks that Joe (95) was on about.

    Journalism needs to do more than just direct the traffic otherwise every man, (equally knowledgable) woman and their blog can legitimately have their say. I might listen out for some of the music pitchfork recommends but I’d be hard pressed to read their reviews….

    Comment by brian
    110.
    July 28, 2009
    5:27 pm

    You have to have faith in your opinion and your expertise even if it’s going to hurt someone.

    What expertise do critics have? As far as I can see there’s no such thing as having an expert subjective opinion and those reviewers who do have an actual serious knowledge of musical theory and scructure when they attempt to apply it to reviewing generally fail to make it an engaging read on any level.

    To the best of my knowledge the only person who has posted a comment here today who writes (be it as a pro, or if they’re saving themselves for the olympics) about music and who I’d consider to have any sort of “musical expertise” is Dudley and just because I reckon that he’s a pretty fantastic guitarist means jack shit when it comes to him having an opinion about whether something is good or bad.

    Comment by Ian
    111.
    July 28, 2009
    5:49 pm

    caroline @ 104 – you’ve just reminded me – I sent my nephew off to count them the other week and haven’t seen him since….

    nerraw @ 105 – I think i’ve put people off music journalism for life now

    adam w @ 107 – woof

    OC @ 108 – not to mention the releases on majors which I never get sent that I ended up buying and reviewing (ie Raphael Saadiq)

    brian @ 109 – good point, but I fear that space constraints have done for that context in print – while you probably need an atlas and a thermos flask to parse some of the context in online reviews

    ian @ 110 – you obviously don’t know about my past as a tuba-player

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    112.
    July 28, 2009
    6:58 pm

    Adam @101 “It’s rare for the critics to dig for unknown albums off their own bat AND submit these reviews to their editor for publication.”

    Not true, the MO with Totally Dublin anyway is that if something has a bit of a buzz, it’ll get a review, or if someone particularly wants to review something, it’ll have a good shot too.

    Ian @110

    You don’t think a passing knowledge of what’s gone before can help in telling what’s good and what’s bad now? One of the central purposes of criticism is to differentiate between “innovative” and “derivative”, as I see it – i.e. don’t let the world get lazy. To do that, you need to be a little informed.

    Comment by Karl
    113.
    July 28, 2009
    7:14 pm

    That’s great stuff and I’m delighted you can prove me wrong.
    There’s hope yet,eh?
    And ain’t it nice to see Frank gloating over it? :/
    I only hope that other music journos out there buy and review as many albums as you do, Jim.
    I also hope there are more editors out there that let their journos have as much personal input into what they review as you have there in Times Tower and don’t rely so heavily on what is sent in by labels and PR companies but I’ll venture that you are, unfortunately, in the minority. At any rate, this should all continue tomorrow!

    Comment by adam
    114.
    July 28, 2009
    7:16 pm

    Someone had to play Devil’s Advocate,no?

    Comment by adam
    115.
    July 28, 2009
    8:10 pm

    114 posts??? must be raining….oh my mistake 115

    Comment by petee
    116.
    July 28, 2009
    9:19 pm

    For me Mongrel (God Rest It) had the perfect combination of direct – and sometimes superfluous – language, laugh out loud put downs and wickedly entertaining, but more often than not, spot-on music reviews I’ve ever read.

    Comment by barryb
    117.
    July 28, 2009
    10:15 pm

    Karl @112.

    No, I don’t. I think the ideas of new vs. old or derivative vs. original are pointless made up constructs which distract against the only one vs. the other that matters a damn which is good vs. bad.

    Comment by Ian
    118.
    July 29, 2009
    1:13 am

    Is that the Official Springsteen Fan disclaimer?

    (sorry Ian)

    Comment by Karl
    119.
    July 29, 2009
    9:22 am

    ‘What expertise do critics have? As far as I can see there’s no such thing as having an expert subjective opinion and those reviewers who do have an actual serious knowledge of musical theory and scructure when they attempt to apply it to reviewing generally fail to make it an engaging read on any level.’

    surely ‘expertise’ is only one part of how a critic, music or otherwise, comes to review something. I know that for me personally, if i’ve read a music review & agreed with it, i’ll be more likely to read other reviews from that person. There were be a handful or reviewers that I would trust their reviews based on past experience, i think that counts for a lot more than ‘expertise’.

    I just think it’s funny that people are saying a music CRITIC should try and be nice to a band so as not to offend them. A food critic would be trusted to say exactly what they found in a restaurant, why can’t a music critic have the same right? As in my first point, there’s some reviewers that i would never read, but that’s down to different tastes not necessarily that they’re wrong.

    Comment by Numpty
    120.
    July 29, 2009
    10:01 am

    Some interesting pieces here about what’s under discussion above

    http://drownedinsound.com/lists/ismusicjournalismdead

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    121.
    July 29, 2009
    10:02 am

    It’s not just Irish bands….http://www.state.ie/lily-allen/

    Comment by Phil Udell
    122.
    July 29, 2009
    10:03 am

    Phil – see Sweetoblivion’s comment @ 59 above

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    123.
    July 29, 2009
    10:12 am

    I’m just gonna use this opportunity to say Fight Like Apes are a crock of shite so.

    Comment by Undergrunt
    124.
    July 29, 2009
    10:42 am

    120 comments and you didn’t even have to mention any band names Jim – too easy eh?!

    Comment by dermot
    125.
    July 29, 2009
    10:46 am

    dermot – on the contrary, I think it’s all the better for that. If I reeled off band names, it just become a bad day at the panto (“no they’re not/yes they are”). What’s interesting to me is how readers have reacted to the piece and especially the tone of what they have to say.

    That said, if you want to mention band names – or set up your own blog to mention band names – please fire ahead.

    Oh and 124 comments – please get your maths right. I get paid by the comment.

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    126.
    July 29, 2009
    11:07 am

    If it helps with the mortgage here’s another comment for you…. did anyone see what Alain De Botton wrote about the NY Times reviewer who slated his book.

    “I will hate you till the day I die and wish you nothing but ill will in every career move you make.”

    I wonder if any critic or reviewer was on the recieving end of something like this?

    Full story here:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/5712899/Alain-de-Botton-tells-New-York-Times-reviewer-I-will-hate-you-until-I-die.html

    Comment by Peter Nagle
    127.
    July 29, 2009
    11:51 am

    I dont know which is more tedious – bands who cant take a bad review on the chin or journalists complaining about bands who cant take a bad review on the chin. This thread is at least as excruciating a read as that Superjiminez nonesense

    Comment by Graham
    128.
    July 29, 2009
    12:17 pm

    Jim – Please don’t stop telling it like it is. I’m no music expert, but it’s obvious that many Irish media outlets give Irish acts too easy a time.

    BY FAR the worst offenders must be the vast majority of godawful 2FM coverage and RTÉ in general. I know this blog is more focussed on the indie scene but Louis Walsh seems to be able to dictate the scheduling of Tubridy Tonight or the Late Late Show to include whatever new shite he chooses to peddle next. And before anyone accuses me of musical snobbery, I LOVE pop music. That is why I care enough to dismiss Boyzone or Westlife as making sacharrine, tuneless, horrible rubbish with sales as the primary objective.

    Indeed, this is a particularly sad reality as one might expect a Public Service Broadcaster to have the cojones to, like, tell the truth about an act regardless of nationality.

    I can’t end without saying that the usually rigorous Hot Press seems to also fall into the ‘if their Irish, they’re alright with us’ attitude. This is of course most notable whenever the sacred U2 are in town to peddle more bombastic windswept bluster. Ok Niall Stokes you need to make a few quid and get back stage at Croker, but really think how your grandkids will judge your suspicously regular lapses of critical judgement when it come to That Particluar Band.

    Rant over, now back to work.

    Comment by NPR
    129.
    July 29, 2009
    1:34 pm

    There was a recent fluster of talk about film criticism on the web over all the US critics who’ve lost jobs on newspapers recently, I think the firing of the USA today critic was the spark. Anyway David Bordwell had a post that interested me a lot here. I’ve used his schema for writing criticism for college work since: Describe, Analyse, Interpret and Evaluation.
    Very basic reviews ought to do the Description well and be honest in the Evaluation, anything longer can indulge in some Analysis and longer again can throw in some big thinking Interpretation. Can be difficult to find reviews that do that longer length stuff in Irish publications about Irish artists.

    I’m reading Alex Ross’s book The Rest Is Noise at the moment (it’s excellent) and have gotten as far as Sibelius and Duke Ellington but I just have to stop because his writing really makes you want to hear the music, even if it is something like Berg that you might never otherwise have been attracted to. I need to go back over what I’ve read and listen to the music before I can read on. That happens when I read reviews from a source I trust and it’s rare.

    In the case of reviews of Irish bands, they rarely make an impression on me, because I find it hard to differentiate between the artists being reviewed, probably because of the issues that are descibed here. If you water down the bad reviews you automatically water down your whole reviewing work, making it harder to communicate what you really want people to listen to. Or that’s my reaction at least. Basically I find I trust only a few places for reviews of Irish acts, your own Ticket being one of them. I’d be interested to hear whose critical writing people trust but I know it would turn into a bout of negativity and bitching and these comments seem pretty free of that at the moment.

    Comment by Major Alfonso
    130.
    July 29, 2009
    1:52 pm

    Major – you’ve just mentioned Alex Ross’s book and the notion of trusted sources and that brings me to something which should also be brought into this discussion – word of mouth.

    For instance, I’ve heard nothing but fantastic raves about this book and so it’s on my reading list and I’m looking fwd to having my head expanded by it.

    The same also applies to various albums over the years – you hear about an act or an album from a trusted source so you go dig it out and 99 times out of 100, it’s a wow. Case in point – Nialler9 mentioned Mayer Hawthorne to me the other week and he’s bang on the money with it.

    And yes, the same also applies to reviews. There are certain writers and reviewers and publications which you always trust – just as there are ones you’d never pay a blind bit of attention to. In the case of Irish bands, they themselves know that a review from some publications carries way less weight and heft than reviews from other publications. After all, if they were honest with themselves, what source would they themselves trust when they’re looking for a recommendation or opinion?

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    131.
    July 29, 2009
    2:02 pm

    The Rest is Noise is absolutely terrific, and demonstrates exactly what happens when a critic has knowledge of music theory and uses it to deconstruct songs and styles in an entertaining fashion (take note Ian). Also, it seems lazy too assume that critics have no expertise (@110). I know quite a few who play music, know their theory or have studied music/theatre/relevant area at third level, or have spent an enormous amoutn of time listening, looking and experiencing what they write about. It shows in the writing, you can spot it a mile off.

    Comment by Lar
    132.
    July 29, 2009
    2:18 pm

    Hey Jim,

    Must concur with Major – the rest is Noise is a seriously good read and he’s right in that the way it’s written makes me want to hear.

    The problem I find in a lot of publications currently (either online or in print) is that there is a feeling that a reviewer or author tends to write down to readers. Not only do I find that off-putting from a reading perspective, but sometimes it means I skip over an artist that I might otherwise be interested in learning more about.

    Comment by Leigh O'Gorman
    133.
    July 29, 2009
    2:19 pm

    Hi Jim, I am not going to read all the comments and am going to jump straight in with a direct reference back to the article.

    It is not just Irish bands who have thin skins.

    Times New Viking are still sending me angry missives to have a comments made about their debut Irish gig in Andrew’s Lane removed from a social network.

    Comment by Mark_G
    134.
    July 29, 2009
    2:40 pm

    Ive just perused back through some of this blog’s archives and Mr Carroll seems to react quite childishly to any serious criticism. I hope this irony is not lost on him.

    Comment by Graham
    135.
    July 29, 2009
    2:48 pm

    Graham – like every other mature adult on the planet, “Mr Carroll” never regards anonymous internet comments and tirades as “serious criticism”

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    136.
    July 29, 2009
    3:04 pm

    @135 Gotcha. Irrespective of the veracity of a particular comment the only thing that matters in a serious discussion is who is saying it and what do you know about them.

    Comment by Graham
    137.
    July 29, 2009
    3:07 pm

    Graham – I take all comments and criticisms seriously – but I take some comments and critcisms less seriously than others.

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    138.
    July 29, 2009
    3:21 pm

    @137 The comments you often appear to take less seriously are the ones that gazzump you in n discussion. Im not trying to insult you here rather Im just trying to make the point that you occasionally appear to be as thin-skinned as whatever thin-skinned artists you’re talking about in this post – maybe you want to be right as much as artists want to be appreciated. I just thought it might be food for thought.

    Comment by Graham
    139.
    July 29, 2009
    3:26 pm

    Graham – the fact is, if I was that thin-skinned, surely I wouldn’t publish ANY negative comments or criticisms? Negative comments and criticisms are part of the game but when I started this blog, I made a conscious decison to treat the anonymous “ya boo sucks” ones with the disdain and smart alec retorts they deserved.

    However when someone does make a serious comment or point that disagrees with what I have to say, you’ll find that a discussion and debate then arises. Regular readers know this only too well – that’s why they keep coming back.

    Of course, journalists have thin-skins – but I’ve yet to find a muso who’d happily publish negative reviews of their work on their website

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    140.
    July 29, 2009
    4:14 pm

    The solution is clearly to outsource all reviews of Irish bands to journalists in other countries, and we can review their bands in exchange..

    ps. Jim – the band Deerhunter used to put all their most negative reviews in their Myspace page description box, but I think that was done as a joke more than anything.

    Comment by dermot
    141.
    July 29, 2009
    4:18 pm

    @Karl – touche, you’re dead next time I see you.

    @Lar – Cool, you’ve pointed out an example of a book that does deconstruct pieces of music in terms of theory and structure in a well written and entertaining way, that doesn’t change the fact that what I said was that most of the time when I I read reviews that take that approach they fail to engage. The rest is noise has been on my reading list for a while as it happens.

    Also I think that you misread my second point. I didn’t say that that reviewers don’t have expertise as musicians, I said that even if they do (and if you’re the Lar that I’m thinking of I probably should have mentioned you with Dudley as someone who I think plays an instrument well and who also does reviews that has posted a comment here) it gives them no sort of leg up over someone who doesn’t when it comes to determining what’s good or bad in any sort of subjective matter.

    Comment by Ian
    142.
    July 29, 2009
    4:27 pm

    From all this, it seems to me that:

    a. Music journalism, and particularly music reviews are an entirely different kettle of fish,
    b. They are not so much about telling the people the facts, or informing whoever may pick up the paper as much as they are like the kid in the class who gets to buy alot of albums and has an older brother who got them into music, recommending stuff to their class mates who aren’t so lucky to have the money or the older brother to come across all this music. I very much doubt that a first time ticket reader will hold as much weight in a review of an album as a regular reader, which qualifies and proves what I’m saying.

    DOI: I study in DCU and am apparently being prepared to be a journalist, but discussions such as this one happen in our course every week and have made me realize I should at least try to lead a life of music making rather than news writing, no matter how little people care about my music – who chooses to review it favourably, nonfavourably or down right ignores it. I’ll hang around for the piece of paper though!

    Brian.

    p.s. I know, a journalism student, what bad grammer/typing skills!

    Comment by Stone Throwing Youths
    143.
    July 29, 2009
    4:47 pm

    “Of course, journalists have thin-skins – but I’ve yet to find a muso who’d happily publish negative reviews of their work on their website”

    I did once, but only because it was genuinely funny made me smile…
    :)

    Comment by Leigh O'Gorman
    144.
    July 29, 2009
    6:07 pm

    As someone pointed out in one of the posts above, it’s not just local acts. I’ll never forget when ltj bukem made his debut in Dublin I was sent along by HP to review it. anyway, the gig was dull dull dull – more breakdowns than a trabant race and loads of wishy washy ambient noodling.
    I pretty much said as much in the review. Next thing I know, the London drum’n'bass mafia are going nuts. DJ Rap rang up the office and started abusing all and sundry and when I ran into Bukem and his far more menacing MC, Conrad, at a gig in the Pod a few months later, he threatened to beat me up! In fairness though, I bumped into him again about a year or two later and he apologised, so it was all OK in the end.

    Also, the point about reviewers buying their own music struck a chord; I get sent about 300-400 electronic music promos a month but usually end up reviewing the 20 odd releases I buy myself every month…

    Comment by Richard
    145.
    July 29, 2009
    6:24 pm

    I released records and I review records.

    I remember as a musician there were a few different kinds of reviews you could get.

    There were the lazy ones in which you didn’t recognise the band being described. Whether those were one star reviews or five star reviews they were a kind of hollow experience, and you had to disregard them.

    Then there were the good ones where the reviewer seemed to get it (we got one of those from the late great Steven Wells!). That was always nice.

    And then there were the horrible bad reviews, where, on reflection, the reviewer really had a point. Those were the painful ones we really learned from.

    Oh, and then there were the scathing ones. “Despite featuring some of the best production talent in Ireland, you can’t polish a turd,” read one. You’ve got to respect that passion. :)

    If bands want to get better, they need honest reviews. Any band who can’t take it doesn’t really give a sh*t about their ‘craft’.

    Comment by Patrick
    146.
    July 29, 2009
    7:18 pm

    dermot @ 140 – It would be like town-twinning for music. Let’s hope for Indonesia

    brian @ 142 – that’s an interesting point but that also applies to every walk of life – you only learn who to trust or follow or listen to with experience and time. I can still remember reading the NME for the first time in the early 80s and going “what the fuck is this about, who are these bands?” Within a few years, though, I knew exactly where those great writers were coming from and trusted – some of – them implicitly. This also applies today – you need time to work out what blogs to follow, what websites to check out etc

    Leigh @ 143 – there are exceptions, of course, which prove the rule

    richard @ 144 – And there I was thinking Bukem was a pussycat! I hear you about the electronic music promos as well – that’s one area which could do with some judicious pruning

    Patrick @ 145 – I find that many writers are far more excercised and far more entertaining to read when they get a stinker to review and just go for it. I think many readers prefer those ones too!

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    147.
    July 29, 2009
    7:36 pm

    “I find that many writers are far more excercised and far more entertaining to read when they get a stinker to review and just go for it. I think many readers prefer those ones too!”

    that’s because the language of negativity is funnier than that of positivity though. It’s far easier to write a passionate negative review, than a passionate and entertaining positive one.

    But yeah, they’re more fun to read as a result, I guess. Still, I always appreciate a well-written review that isn’t polarised. Kitty Empire is the master of this IMO.

    Comment by UnaRocks
    148.
    July 30, 2009
    10:59 am

    “that’s because the language of negativity is funnier than that of positivity though. It’s far easier to write a passionate negative review, than a passionate and entertaining positive one.”

    Totally agree with that. While scathing reviews can be soooo funny when they’re well written (Charlie Brooker’s telly writing comes to mind), as reviewers we’ve a responsibility to use our powers for good as well as evil.

    I would also like to add my sheep-like endorsement of Alex Ross’s The Rest is Noise, which is a bloody revelation when it comes to straightforward, beautiful musical description. While he’s informed by a good knowledge of theory, the most impressive thing about it is how he goes beyond that to create something anyone can understand.

    Comment by Patrick
    149.
    July 30, 2009
    11:23 am

    Great article, totally agree. Am I the only person in Ireland who think The Script are sh1t? Well they are. I would rather rub my arse with sandpaper than listen to them.

    Comment by Sean OLeary
    150.
    July 30, 2009
    1:02 pm

    @141
    “it gives them no sort of leg up over someone who doesn’t when it comes to determining what’s good or bad in any sort of subjective matter.”

    ah no, it does
    Cheers, Dudley
    King of Good Music

    Comment by dudley
    151.
    July 30, 2009
    1:03 pm

    a man and a fool are talking about sunrises, the man has seen many sunrises but the fool has never witnessed one.

    the man says, ‘i have experienced a lot of sunrises so i can explain to you better than the next man about how it feels like to witness one. listen to what i say and you will understand a sunrise fool’

    the fool is intrigued. he listens to what the man says intently, it is interesting to him to hear this knowledgeable man’s opinion on the subject of sunrises, something he does not understand although is enchanted by.

    after the discussion the fool is in awe of the man. ‘what knowledge he possesses to fully understand a sunrise like that’ , he thinks to himself.

    he goes home and falls soundly asleep, he is troubled by a strange dream and wakes up with a startle. the night is just subsiding and he looks out his window and sees, for the first time in his life a majestic sunrise.

    as his pupils adjust to the incredible beauty of the sun rising over the morning horizon, thoughts stir in his brain.

    instead of feeling happy the fool feels sad, this sunrise is not at all as the man described it to be.

    he feels hopeless as a thought settles in his head.

    ‘we the creators and describers know as much and as little as each other’

    ‘experience is the only true knowledge’.

    Comment by johnny
    152.
    July 30, 2009
    2:12 pm

    Sean @149 – Yes, you are. The rest of us know it without having to think about it.

    Comment by JD
    153.
    July 30, 2009
    2:42 pm

    Interesting post. I shouldn’t even be spending time reading this maelstrom, but here are my two cents.

    I have released two records (12 and 7″) with my band You’re Only Massive and am writing and recording a follow-up album right now.

    Putting out a record is like watching your first born go to school – it’s terrifying. You’ve put so much into it, writing, recording, producing, mixing, mastering and manufacturing; and now it’s time to present it and hope that communication can be
    achieved.

    And you need some way to assess this; there are a myriad of ways, but journalistic criticism is one of them. The critic is a kind of “ideal spectator”, one who supposedly can weigh the record up. That’s an old-fashioned idea, and doesn’t take into account the possible uniformity of reviewers (white, male, middle aged) versus the possible diversity of audiences of different bands, but it’s still relevant (as this blog post and all the links prove).

    While it can be crushing to read a bad review (though personally I enjoy them as much as the good ones!) it’s the job of a band to rise above criticism (positive and negative…a band all pumped up on and full of ego after a good review is just as insufferable as one defensively swiping after a bad one) and make their statement with their record, their manifesto, their music and their performances.

    Ok, now I’ve given myself that little pep talk I’m going back to the studio!

    Comment by Maebh Cheasty
    154.
    August 20, 2009
    8:34 pm

    sorry to come to this so late.

    i just wanted to say that i feel sorry for SJ in all this. They had no part in the comments on the state blog and took no pleasure from any of it. They always knew that there would be fans of there music as well as critics and they were prepared to take those chances. To assume that they were expecting nothing but positive reviews as a lot of comments here suggest is so far off the mark. They even did a seperate interview with State outlining their position (which has failed to be mentioned here). They still do not know who was responsible for some of the comments on the State blog.

    They are really nice lads, down to earth and funny and never took themselves too seriously (they knew their music wasnt breaking any new ground) but this whole episode and the blame they feel has been unfairly laid at their door has left them all feeling pretty disillusioned so much so that the guitarist has left the band and they are on the verge of splitting up. Im sure that will please many.

    Just to be clear, I am related to one of the band members but i am posting this solely of my own accord and i am not even sure if the band themselves are aware of this article.

    Finally, i would like to say that a bad review isnt always the right review and it seems the majority of posters here are assuming that it is. Music is all about differing tastes and opinions and it is a pity that this is not somewhat acknowledged by the litany of journalists here so quick to have a swipe at SuperJimenez.

    Comment by Stuart

    Comments on this article are now closed.


Search On The Record