Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Hey Crew-
I'm gonna try and pull a few of these posts into a single reply. It's
l-o-o-o-o-n-n-n-n-g-g-g....
Dave Eichenberger wrote:
> Wow, cool- for which magazine?
I write for Guitar One, not Guitar World. (David Beardsley is probably
remembering when I wrote for World about five-to-eight years ago.) More on
the differences between the two in a moment.
...and...
> Do they ever 'guide' or change things in your reviews?
I have had some radical revisions made to my writing when I wrote for
Guitar
World, part of the reason why I no longer write for them, except in
"emergency" situations. (G. World and G. One are owned by the same
publisher
now (Future Network) and share the same office space in Manhattan. I
e-commute from my home on Long Island, and only go into the office once or
twice a year.) Sometimes World will be short a reviewer and I'll write a
review for them, but overall the two magazines are actually in competition
with each other. I have not had radical revisions - or ANY significant
revisions - made while writing for Guitar One, except for experiences
similar to Per's comments (following). My take is, I trust my co-reviewers
at G. One more than the guys at G. World. Even tho' the guys at World are
nice and all, I've seen what they've done to my writing, soooo.... (D'ya
think there's a "tell all" trash true story in this?)
Per wrote:
> Every mag has its own set of guidelines (or templates) for which
> areas of the product a review has to go into. All Swedish magazines
> I'm writing for usually send a copy of the manuscript to the
> manufacturer, or product agent, before it goes to print. So if the
> reviewer should have misunderstood something, it can be corrected. If
> the product is found to suck and gets bashed in the text, the agent
> has the chance to send in information on eventual plans for upgrades,
> special customer support regarding that product etc.
In the case of Guitar One, if we get a product that really sucks, we
don't review it. We return it to the manufacturer, and I usually provide
the
manufacturer with a detailed explanation of why it was rejected. We also
provide the manufacturer with a copy of the text before publishing for a
"fact check." The manufacturer can (and should) correct any factual errors
at this point, and can suggest rephrasing to correct misleading
impressions,
but I reject any attempt by them to sweeten or rewrite a review.
Interestingly, I just finished a review of a Mesa Boogie Lone Star Special
amp, and compared its 30-watt output very favorably to a 50- or 100-watt
amp. Boogie - one of the coolest companies going, im my H.O. - actually
requested that I remove the comparison because it was "too positive!" I
kept
the comparison in.
Dave continues:
> How come reviews in the 70s and 80s seemed to be a lot more honest?
Hmmm.... Maybe because it was a newer field, and the bucks weren't as
big...? I've got a lot of the old mags from the day, maybe I'll crack a few
of them and see how they phrased things.
> And how come, sometimes, *within the pages of a review* there are
> full page ads for the product that is being reviewed?
Per nailed it:
> Any company can buy ads in a magazine. Without the income from
> selling ad space there wouldn't even be possible to put out a
> magazine. And if a review is happening the ad buyer typically does
> request ad space on neighboring pages.
Reviews and advertising space unfortunately go hand in hand. We have a
limited amount of space available in the magazine for reviews. Advertisers
get their product reviewed first. And placing an ad next to a review is
just
a perk for the advertiser.
> Why do a lot of
> reviews spend half of the words telling you the features- you can look up
> the ad in the same issue to see those.
Most ads don't explain the layout or function of the features. I like to
integrate descriptions of features with a sense of a product's function.
"The knobs do this and this, and the taper of the tone pot was a bit
sudden..." That sort of thing.
> I don't mean to get down on you, I honestly am trying to figure out why
> reviews are either non-committal or overbearingly wonderful. I know there
> isn't that much great stuff out there.
You're not getting down on me/us at all, Dave! I like this kind of
dialogue,
and honestly wish the editors at my magazine would discuss the review
process more in print. As to why reviews are "either non-committal or
overbearingly wonderful," well, I would hope that mine *range* from non-com
to wonder. As I said earlier, we don't review stuff that's flawed or really
sub-standard. And quite honestly, I believe that there *is* a lot of great
stuff out there. I'm amazed at the quality of the Korean and Chinese
guitars, and effects processors are getting better with each new product.
Also note that Guitar One has its "One" Award, which I only give to about
one out of five or six products. With our magazine, you can look at it this
way: If the product is getting a review at all, it's decent. If I point out
specific flaws in a review, there is cause for concern. If the review is
non-committal, then the product didn't excite me. The more excited my
prose,
the more positive I felt about the product. And if it gets the "One" Award,
it's truly exceptional. You can also *hear* the product on our magazine's
CD. When I review a product, I record it myself, so you can hear *me*
putting the product through its paces. Really good products inspire better
playing on my part.
> I honestly think it would be cool for a magazine to review the whole
> purchase process...from store to home. Go to a store, buy the product,
bring
> it home. You get to review the salesperson, the condition of the
equipment,
> as well as the item.
Personally, I'm not interested in the "store" aspect. It would be very easy
to get buddy-buddy with a reviewer and be sure he/she gets preferential
treatment. And stores are *local.* The guys on 48th St. in Manhattan are a
whole different animal than the yobbos in the 'burbs, who are yet again
different from a mom 'n' pop in the country. On the other hand, I do take
packaging and manufacturer response into account, although it might not
appear specifically in print.
> They wouldn't be hand picked items the manufacturer
> sends.
Ah, Ha, ha, ha! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! You should see some of the crap that
gets sent to me. You would *think* the manufacturer would send something
special, something tweaked just right, with a better grade of wood, a
flawless finish, knobs tight and fresh batteries. You would think, and you
would be wrong. So we either send it back, or point it out in the review.
And by the way, I think Harmony Central is the coolest thing in the
world. If you're gonna drop some coin on a product, check out what HC
posters say. Believe me, I often cross-check my evaluation with HC posts to
be sure I've covered everything, or captured the vibe of the product
correctly.
Douglas Baldwin, coyote-at-large
coyotelk@optonline.net
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where pimps and thieves run free and good men die like dogs.
There's
also a negative side."
--- Hunter S. Thompson