I work for [url=http://www.myspace.com/bruisedfruitpromotions]Bruised Fruit[/url]. Prior to that I did a lot of student radio and DJing in England and Scotland. I've had to listen to many stacks of demos and watch a lot of acts round here, some, in my opinion, are going to be very successful, others, in my opinion, are mediocre at best.
Any public review or feedback I've been asked for has tried to be positive and constructive; I expect no less from the professional media and was bitterly disappointed by the NME's review of FWW, not because I like the band, but with the language in which it was conducted. It was deliberately inflammatory. If I did that, at best no-one would work with me, and at worst I'd be found shat in the alley behind Auntie Annie's. Given the NME's conduct over the years, "Stepehen Kelly" is probably a pseudonym.
BF is about developing new talent at whatever level it is at and has the potential to reach. I will be harsh sometimes, but I will be positive, because all I want is for music in this country to get better and reach the worldwide recognition it deserves.
[quote:29a2f9b92b="JTM"]I will be harsh sometimes, but I will be positive.[/quote:29a2f9b92b]
How does one do such a thing?
You guys really suck, I mean it's the worst thing to come out of Northern Ireland since Johnny Adair went into exile. Let's all go to Helen's Bay and build sandcastles! Won't that be FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN!
Dude you say it to declines and sits at home disassembling and reassembling a rifle, all while singing "[i:29a2f9b92b]so many people push me one way...[/i:29a2f9b92b]"*
*Burning - The Whitest Boy Alive (incase you're interested).
I really think the reactions to this one quite unremarkable (for the NME) review are beginning to verge on the hysterical. And I like FWW and have seen them many times since they were formed, in Derry, Belfast and London. (I also realise the irony of feeling I have to 'prove' my FWW 'fan credentials' while posting this, lest I be labelled some sort of hate crimer, and submitting to it. Ho hum.)
"I expect no less from the professional media and was bitterly disappointed by the NME's review of FWW"[/i:b3d4fd7be1]
Captures perfectly the outraged tone of a letter of complaint from a middle aged matron who had her arse squeezed by a waiter in a Scarborough tea room.
If this review defied your 'expectations' of the NME, I can only assume you have never read it in your puff.
I very, very much doubt that the hack working for pauper's rates at the NME is going to forgo his real name in lights by pseudonym. In the Real World, no one feels the need to distance themselves from such run-of-the-mill hackery or hide behind a pen name. Altho one can see how in NI it might have its attractions, given the sheer hyperbole of the last few days.
T, possibly a good point about it not being a pseudonym but some NME journos *have* been beaten up for dissing bands. Not that "Stephen Kelly" should be afraid of Cahir :lol: But leave my sweet Yorkshire arese-cheeks out of it, OK? For the record, you're correct - I've never read the NME. I had heard it was crap, I just wanted to believe otherwise.
I stand by what I said, I just wish that it hadn't came out like a corporate mission statement.
I'm quite curious about what qualifies as 'journalism' or 'journalistic critique'.
Mostly, because in Uni we have to study and write essays, critically analysing pieces of music that are often quite abstract.
I personally find this really difficult and find when I read a music review that succeeds in writing about a piece of music in a way that really paints a clear picture, for me, then that is a talent in itself.
However, often journalism is a load of waffle with very little relationship to the actual musical content.
There are obvious reasons for that too. One being that journalists are rarely musicians themselves, so they don't know how to analyse a piece of music from the same perspective as the artists would, i.e. the technical and creative elements, the choice of chords, notes, sounds, production.
There is a lot they can comment on and they be very articulate about this stuff, but personally I often find it fairly useless, unless it is based on FACTUAL information about the music, instead of just opinion (not based on fact).
[quote:efa6062cbd="The Ronster"]My favourite thing ever written about criticism was Peter O'Toole's character's article at the end of Ratatouille.[/quote:efa6062cbd]
As does [url=http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/09/critic_is_a_fourletter_word.html]Roger Ebert[/url].
[quote:efa6062cbd] It is not important to be "right" or "wrong." It is important to know why you hold an opinion, understand how it emerged from the universe of all your opinions, and help others to form their own opinions. There is no correct answer. There is simply the correct process. "An unexamined life is not worth living."[/quote:efa6062cbd]
(Oh, and my credentials for commenting on this thread are that I once wrote a review of 60 Foot Dolls - Joya Magica for the Aberdeen student newspaper, The Gaudie. They even published it.)[/quote:67533accc2]
Yet they refused to print my comic strip, "Granite City Blues".
Anyway, there seems to be a load of notions on here that music journalism is some kind of holy order that has been abused. Damn those journalists for not writing about chord progressions! Smite them, for they often make glib remarks! Banish them, for they say hurtful things!
Truth of the matter is that music journalism has always been looked upon as the younger, unimportant brother of 'serious' journalism. In this country, it only really became a serious consideration when Q was launched in the late 80s in an attempt to make music journalism look all grown up and proper. Up until that point, it was largely seen as a 'youth' orientated market, and not really worth much bother.
So when we're complaining about badly written reviews, etc, lets remember that music journalism has always been this way, and that 'bad' writing is arguably a part of it's genetic makeup.
I speak for myself, but I take a small amount of pride in the fact that music journalism, my chosen trade, is the most poorly regarded, flippant piece of nonsense on the go.
Did that FWW piece only appear on the NME site? In the internet world, everyone seems free to write any old nonsense, I wouldn't waste my time taking it seriously, whether it comes from a paid writer on an official site or an enthusiastic amateur on their own.
The sheer speed and need for continuously updated content guarantees a greater degree of rubbish that doesn't get any decent editing - which means you have to use your own edit filter, usually by moving on and not giving it a second thought.
There are plenty of other sites out there providing music information, just because the NME has a recognisable logo doesn't mean its content should automatically earn respect. That's why I don't feel 'let down' by shabby reviews - I don't like the NME style in general, so it was no surprise.
If the FWW piece also appeared in the print version, in the print world, what a journalist writes has to conform to what the publication thinks is acceptable, or else it'll never get included. So if that review is the sort of content the NME are providing for readers, I don't blame the writer - I reserve my criticism for the NME itself, for either employing people who are only capable of that style, or encouraging their employees to go in that direction.
Generally, what I use critics for is... I find the people whose views make me think, and then follow their writing to see if they've seen or heard anything that might interest me. The critics that don't say anything to interest me, I ignore. They're probably useful or entertaining to somebody else, just not me. So I filter them out. I wouldn't waste my time trying to 'destroy' them with futile abuse.
The big controversy the NME review created and how people managed to defend that piece of shit of a so-called review made me remember why I hate established music magazines. They pay a bunch of idiots to go to gigs and write worthless pseudo-reviews (some reviewers do a good job, I will admit) and then sell the thing actually fooling people into believing something is cool or not.
That is why I prefer fanzines and always have. At least they are written by people that by no means consider themselves 'professional music reviewers' and are simply passion-driven. Some of the best reviews I have ever read where in fanzines, people that maybe by day are manual labourers seem to do a better job than people that have a diploma or a degree in it.
So yeah, to sum it up, overall I think fanzines are better than established music magazines.