Re: Looping back to Krispen's old critics thread (was sorta: using laptops for music"

[Travis Hartnett <travishartnett@gmail.com>]

Pretty much other than the name of the act, the location, the date and
the cover charge--after that it's all a bit questionable.  Even the
choice on the part of the writer as to which "verifiable facts" to
include is a series of editorial decisions (as you found out with your
own writing and the paper's editors).  People's ideas of what's
historical or verifiable vary quite a bit.

TravisH

On 10/26/05, Kris Hartung <khartung@cableone.net> wrote:
> Such as historical or verifiable comparisons regarding melodies, 
>techniques,
> tid bids about the band history or members, other things that readers 
>find
> interesting and indicate that the reviewer gives a shit about 
>understanding
> the band, the context in which the CD was recorded or produced, etc...you
> don't think music reviews areall about value statements do you?  Good
> reviews most always contain a healthy balance of factual and evaluative
> commentary.
>
> Kris
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Travis Hartnett" <travishartnett@gmail.com>
> To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 12:19 AM
> Subject: Re: Looping back to Krispen's old critics thread (was sorta: 
>using
> laptops for music"
>
>
> Verifiable facts?  Were you writing for the sports section?  Otherwise...
>
> TravisH
>
> On 10/26/05, Kris Hartung <khartung@cableone.net> wrote:
> > ...I was
> > very precise with my language on my reviews, clarifying when I was 
>stating
> a
> > verifiable fact vs. my own emotional response to the music (i.e.,
> > distinguishing factual from emotive statements), ...
>
>
>
>