Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
My last post (RE:AdrennaLinn for Sale) was obviously meant just for Mark, this is what I get for trying to eat a muffin and type at the same time... > > it's funny, i always think of "mindless guitar wankery" as >> bad EVH clones and stuff from the 80's--didn't think i was even >> close to doing that, but who knows. > >...which of course is the problem with reviews... people's reference >points >are so skewed by what they listen to, or more importantly, by what they >DON'T listen to, that if you are working in an area that people don't get, >then they will latch onto whatever the nearest reference point they can >relate to... > >I remember playing a Metheny Group CD to a friend of mine who said 'oh >yes, >it sounds like Shakatak'... Shakatak??? doesn't sound anything like >Shakatak, but that for him was the only reference point he has for >electric >instrumental stuff with tunes! I had this happen at the record store yesterday, I was playing the new Herbie Hancock box set, and a customer told me it sounded just like Zappa's Joe's Garage. For a lot of people my generation and older, Zappa is the leftmost reference point for "weird" music, anything out of the ordinary, especially if there's serious chops involved, becomes "Zappa-like". As far as reviews go, good or bad, you have to remember that most reviewers are pretty much deluged with new music. I was a music director at a college radio for about 5 years, and the amount of music we had to review every week was really daunting. I had to listen to between 20 and 50 discs a week. Just imagine that for a second. I know musicians who own fewer than 50 records total! It's just an overwhelming amount of music, and I got severely burned out on dealing with it. Some of you may think this is a dream job (I did when I got it, though it certainly didn't pay all that well), but I almost grew to dread the stack of records that came to my desk every day. Plus, you find out very quickly that Sturgeon's Law (95% of everything is crap) is very true, and perhaps even a bit too generous! Not to excuse the original reviewer, had it been me and I honestly felt that way about the record, I wouldn't have published the review. But we all have to remember, when we send out our record to the reviewers, that the music we've poured our hearts into to make the disc is just another record in the stack for the reviewer. When I get positive reviews, I'm happy. When I get positive reviews from critics that actually seemed to listen to the record and wrote about with some intelligence, I'm ecstatic. If I get a bad review that has something perceptive to say, I try to learn from it (harder than you may think!). But ultimately, you've got to let it slide. If you feel that your music is real and honest and all that, and the reviewer hated it, screw 'em. > >I was recently dismissed in a review (albeit a review of the headline act, >not really of me) as doing 'frippertronics on a bass', with the following >comment along the lines of 'oh well, I guess it pays the bills'... Oh man, that's hilarious. Yeah Steve, we all know you're doing this Frippertronics on the bass thing for the cash, while you secretly dream of starting a N'Sync cover band!