cd/lp/tape etc. REVIEWS

[karen eliot]

Burial Hex - Scry of Ab Raza (Spatter) cdr

Gripped this from Mr. Ruby himself on my recent sojourn to Madison for the gig with The Haters and it's a stone cold killer. Over an hour here of excruciating old school PE. Don't be lulled into a false sense of security by Burial Hex's more recent gloom-pop direction, this is screeching, rumbling metal abuse and violent shouting like only a very few can produce these days. Fans of Streicher,Mauthausen Orchestra,Sutcliffe Jugend etc. will eat this up.

Probably out of print at the source by now but I see a few copies on Discogs at a reasonable price.

ps For those who were asking recently about Harsh Judgement, these recordings were produced by Clay Ruby in collaboration with Harsh Judgement's Adam Higgins.

[cipher chris]

I guess saying honest feelings about any band - big or small - is doing everybody a favor.

And toning it down because of the person behind the work is, in my view, disingenuous.

But realistically, the feedback I have is that most people appreciate an honest approach rather than a cock-sucking approach.  I've had many artists obviously not necessarily agree with a negative appraisal I did of their work, but still appreciate my comments and thanked me for it.

[RyanWreck]

I personally don't put reviews for albums I dislike on my blog, not because I care what the artists will think but rather I sometimes don't see a point in explaining what it is I do not like and why for an entire review. If I feel that parts of a certain tape or record suck but the general album as a whole is good then I will give some criticism but I don't see doing that for the entirety of a review. It has always felt somewhat counterproductive to me personally, maybe not to the artist since they would benefit from criticism as someone else mentioned, but for me it feels as if it will just be an empty review and I don't want to do any reviews like that. But I do not think that negative reviews as a whole are counterproductive at all, quite the opposite actually, if all reviews were good a lot of people wouldn't know if they should buy something or trade or whatever. That would be more harmful than anything. It is just a personal thing for me and the labels/artists who send me stuff generally tend to know that if the material is not up to par with what I like and what I like to review then they won't get anything out of it; i.e. I will never force a "good review" on the basis that someone sent me something for free and I just had to do it and either tell why I like it or give any criticism. Same goes for interviews. I don't want to sit down and run through questions to send to someone artists that I don't enjoy.

When it comes to little playlists, threads like this, in a conversation, etc. then I will review everything good or bad. I've had a few artists like Sharpwaist and Climax Denial actually PM me and asked what it was I disliked about their albums when I wrote a quick one in the playlist thread or something.

Negative reviews are more based on constructive criticism, while positive more on individual fetishism. But it's only my point of view. And I hate those good, but [+ bonus suggestion that lowers that "good"], nothing special [+ bonus suggestion that highers that "bad"] - this type is most insincere I think.

I agree. Saying something about different tracks in this way is fine but to gather a whole album into a review and then say "this is bad and makes the album less appealing" or whatever, and then 3 sentences down there may be someting like "the production and these final tracks make up for everything making this album good."

[ImpulsyStetoskopu]

Usually people connect review with valuing. I guess this is a wrong way. Reviewer should write (I think about serious press reviews, not bland private opinions) about content without value ot that.

[RyanWreck]

That is true for some, yes but I would call that more of "reporting" (summarizing) than reviewing. When someone is reporting/summarizing then they are expected to be objective and simply describe, letting little to no opinion in, instead they are there to simply show what the thing they are talking about is, sounds like, etc. rather than analyzing and critiquing, which is what reviewing is, by definition reviewing is writing up a critique, not to just simply recount and describe that thing: " Review; imply careful examination of something, formulation of a judgment, and statement of the judgment, usually in written form. A review is a survey over a whole subject or division of it, or especially an article making a critical reconsideration and summary of something written." Maybe this is what you meant by "value"? I think this also shows why a lot of reviews in papers, magazines, internet etc. sometimes have a rating system (5 stars, or 10 thumbs up, or whatever) which isn't giving an objective opinion but rather is the reviewer judging whatever his subject is and attaching a rating to it which is, of course, going to be subjective opinion.

[ImpulsyStetoskopu]

Maybe this is what you meant by "value"?

No. I talked about situation when reviewer writes that, for example: "composer created bad (or boring, or not original, or weak or flat) noise music". He may optionally write something like that but he has to explain such opinion (the same situation with sentence where reviewer wrote positive thoughts). This explaination can not based on subjective impressions but on real examples in music (he should write about them). To sum up, I can tolerate every value of music but earlier the reviewer must do analyse a content. If  he want to express his opinion, no problem, but he should do it in the end of this review. I can't tolerate reviews where reviewer writes about his impressions, about his esthetic preferencies... I don't want to read about reviewer, I would like to read about music, about a release.

[ImpulsyStetoskopu]

I sometimes agree with this, but coming from someone who wrote an encyclopedia that has occasional value judgements in it?  (Example from the Die Form entry:  "After 1993 the group turned towards a more banal, and consequently more commercial approach to composition, and also a live manifestation of sexuality, often bordering on kitsch and self-plagiarism.")

Yes, nobody perfect :) Nobody said that I am perfect man/reviewer. Besides, I talked about concept that should be considered by reviewers, by me too. Besides, my biographies - entries in "Encycklopeadia ..." aren't REVIEWS. I hope you see it. Here aren't place for analyses. Of course I could not use such words like: "banal", "kitsch" or "self-plagiarism" but If there, in history of this group, were differences in esthetic? I hope that there aren't too much such judgements...

[heretogo]

I have to say that most "objective reviews" are boring as hell. A good idea but very difficult to pull off in a way that makes for an interesting read. I prefer explicitly subjective reviews where the reviewer uses his/her personality and doesn't care too much about objectivity or rigorous analysis. Entertainment spiced up with a bit (or a lot!) of information, that makes a good review in my book.  My golden standard for record reviewing is still Forced Exposure, stuff that you can re-read again and again!

[ImpulsyStetoskopu]

A good idea but very difficult to pull off in a way that makes for an interesting read.

What is more valuable? Making something that is easy to do or involving more efforts and time? I prefer to take a lot of doing from myself (as author) and the same from receiver. What is interesting in reading, it depends on man, and his expecting. Anyway, I don't want to question different views in this matter, only I would like to show this is possible and interesting, at least for me.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

I think many of the reviewer, who do it for long periods of time, have the consistency and logic, which will be revealed. I think experienced reader, who would go through something like AS LOUD AS POSSIBLE, be easily aware who out of characters as SILVUM, SIENKO, GROVES or such is behind the review. Or reading harsh noise review of SODDY or just "some guy". Subjectiveness doesn't hurt, when many people will eventually see the context. You don't need to explain everything as if reader is noise newbie or analyze till death, if this will reveal itself in bigger picture.

Like myself, I don't need or want to go into details why some band sucked due use low bit rate digital effects. It can be expressed that it did suck, yet further analysis might not be always needed, when this distaste and reasons for it has been elaborated over and over again in other reviews. I doubt that noise reviews is a format, that is read by random people. I believe they are read by very specific people, who don't read just one or two. They can connect the dots easily.

I do like that review talk about the album at hand. I don't like too much the popular reviews/descriptions where it's 100% everything else but the album. BUT, I do prefer that it includes still MORE than just the album. A vast amount of music or noise has substance which is meant to awake feelings and ideas. That go beyond "wow!! what a drumfill!!" or "man, what a sick flanger vocals!". I'm much more interested to read combinations of music analysis and texts inspired by content, than mere technical data. This including also critical view towards packaging and other external things what without doubt influences listener who has the actual object in his hands. The balance how much to comment sound & subject matter is crucial and also how much you add further information. Of label, of phenomena, of specific era. I don't you don't need to try to "objectify" and "isolate" the case.  Like if you review one CD, you can easily cover not only that, but band in general, label that put it out, the genre it belongs, the substance, packaging, any idea these things awake. By expanding from minor details to bigger picture, I would believe it goes much easier to context.

[ImpulsyStetoskopu]

Subjectiveness doesn't hurt, when many people will eventually see the context. You don't need to explain everything as if reader is noise newbie or analyze till death, if this will reveal itself in bigger picture.

I believe they are read by very specific people, who don't read just one or two. They can connect the dots easily.

I think that reviews shouldn't be adressed only to potential receiver but also to artist who created music / release....
I share the most of your thoughts. Some of them stop in the point which will not solved because everybody has different expectations.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

yes, but I believe creator of music in such case IS the reader.
If he expects us to know his works, its history and progression, reviewer can expect artists to understand context of review. Even if all points would not be deeply analyzed.

[ImpulsyStetoskopu]

yes, but I believe creator of music in such case IS the reader.
If he expects us to know his works, its history and progression, reviewer can expect artists to understand context of review. Even if all points would not be deeply analyzed.

I (and I think that every or the most of readers) don't expect deeply (academical) analyses. It would be normal, not complicated... but ok... what is more... who are for you readers? People who like this kind of music but they are flooded by many releases and they don't know what is worth to buy? Are you (other reviewers) "shepard" who feel the mission to guide those lost (not enough educated) sheeps? Or maybe somebody who wants to keep track of tendencies in industrial/noise phenomena (circles) and to describe about that? Hmmm, I suppose that you will write that you would like to be both of them... :) But, what is more important for you?

[cipher chris]

I'm surprised that people are avoiding publishing negative reviews.  Part of understanding where a reviewer comes from, and how he or she is analysing the content at hand, is know his/her prejudices, tastes and distates.  Negative reviews are an essential piece of the puzzle.  The main problem I have right now from this high-level self-editing is that the overwhelming amount of positive reviews leave me personally no better informed - all I read is positivity, yet how do I measure someone else's worth of an object when I don't know what they find worthless?

I will alwys respect/take note of Mikko's reviews because I know what he doesn't like and what gets him engaged.  It largely corresponds with aspects of my own tastes, so consequently the weight of his comments are FAR greater than someone who only ever seems to praise things.

[ARKHE]

You who review at the scale of 'zines, do you receive a lot of promo material, or do you only mainly review the stuff you buy for yourselves?