The newest generation expects everything for free...and they expect it fast. The new media and social networking rapid influx over the years has given everyone the power to review or critique movies, music, art and your range of kitchen products. The “roundtable” or literal chat room debate from professional print critics to a pseudonymous book blogger over what makes for a good critic, compensation in the digital vs. print world and combing through internet reviews was littered with good ideas and realizations.
Sam Jones it appears has made his online literary reviewing foray in late 2002, or at least, that is how far back his blog dates back to. It seems as though he has fallen off the blogging wagon, having only written two blog posts in 2010, perhaps after having an epiphany from Critical Condition. Further research finds he seems to be a more avid Twitter user, maybe 140 characters was more his style.
Sam Jones took me on an interesting rollercoaster while reading his logged responses. He first grabbed my attention during the harmonious conversation on passion driving a good and well rounded critic. The moderator, Kris Vire, questions where education fits into passion for reviewing. I feel like some of the critics take her comment for a critical assessment of someone whom is not formally educated or has further education after high school. Sam thinks a good critic must have a strong knowledge base of what they are reviewing, the field and the surrounding. He writes, “Formal education is probably not more important than passion, but knowledge of the medium you’re criticizing is.” I feel like he hits spot on point. A person who calls themselves a critic should be able to understand the foundation or core of what they are reviewing and not just in a formal sense, through reading and past experiences.
When the conversation turns to making a living off of critiquing Sam takes the standard business response, “The question is whether the market appreciates the editorial function enough to pay for it.” It brings me back to a previous line when he basically insinuates that maybe his hobby or passion is writing or critiquing yet he has not devoted his career to this, “And yet I know it’s a practical fact that someone who has devoted their career to this, at their best, will be far better than anything I can do.” It immediately made me feel disconnected from him, was he possibly one of these Joe Schmoes that wrote for the sake of writing because it was free and easy.
I think overall it was interesting to see how Sam responded to the conversation being one of the little guys that it is so easy to break down. Yet, I feel he barely made a blip in the conversation to really try and stand up for his online presence.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
The Good, The Bad, and The Mediocre: A Review of a Review
The daunting task of distinguishing between a good review and a not-so-good review haunted me until I finally began the search. How am I supposed to review a reviewer, having never done a review myself? I began to flip through popular musical blogs and world renowned newspapers and periodicals.
The first questionable review I stumbled upon was on the self pronounced, “Essential guide to independent music and beyond”, and otherwise known as Pitchfork. Ian Cohen’s review of Weezer’s latest “Hurley” album left me with a dry mouth. I was unable to discern on any accounts what the album even remotely sounded like, but alas I will breathe easily at night knowing that “Nobody is going to confuse this with 1990’s Weezer.” Cohen skims around the actual sound and dives straight into the lyrics which he does little to expound upon his disdain for:
“Smart Girls” is laughably half-assed, which is more that I can say about lyrics that lack so badly for any sort of detail that you could simply replace “Smart” in the title with “Dumb” or any other Adjective.”
This review was written for those in the know; Weezer’s closest admirers or their harshest critics. It seems as though Cohen went on a tangent about all the reasons he hates Weezer, including in his diatribe their record label and of course lyrics but never really delves into why it is not up to his level musically.
My second chosen review of a show comes from the New York Times. Jon Carmanica opens his review with a bit of angst and arrogance when he mentions the arena the artists have chosen, “For Jay-Z to inaugurate the new Yankee Stadium as a concert hall: uninteresting. Playing for tens of thousands of hometown fans: been there.” My head begins to spin only for the fact that I find myself seeking the relevance. The artist must own their stage and not let it overpower them, how many other stages can these artists play, and ultimately, if there is a demand to see these artists why not hit the big stage?
I was able to appreciate the remainder of Carmanica’s review because I felt like I could truly envision the show and the artists that hit the stage. Each guest bringing a different element to the show in which Carmanica brought their persona to life in a rather colloquial way.
“A telling moment during his set came when Eminem re-emerged, rather quietly, to perform their collaboration, “Renegade.” On record, it’s two titans squaring off, but here it felt like two giants conscious of each other’s space.”
I feel like this review went into all different aspects of watching a live show. I especially enjoyed the fact that there was historical dating mentioned with nearly every song. He took the time to parlay through every song and surprise guest
Weezer, “Hurley” (Epitaph, 2010)
Review by Ian Cohen of Pitchfork.com
Jay-Z and Eminem’s “Home and Home Tour” (Yankee Stadium, 1 E. 161st Street NY)
Review by Jon Carmanica of the New York Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)