gordon,
Spin writes bad reviews on music all the time, but it doesn't cover the
music urb does... I like the 99% positive reviews that URB prints, it's
a waste of paper if they can't say anything good about something
-mike
Gordon Hurd wrote:
>
> this is a good point. however, i do think music press (especially national,
> newstand publications) has the obligation to discuss obvious releases of
> interest to their audience, whether they are good or bad. if moby's new
> album sucks, we should be able to read that honest review.
>
> we, as consumers and readers, really need to have the press give us a
> counter-balance to the mega marketing bucks that hypnotize people into
> buying mediocre music. i think everyone on this list is pretty discerning
> when it comes to music purchases, but it'd be fair to say that the mediocre
> music far outways the good stuff. i think there's a connection. Good reviews
> for bad/mediocre music = more bad/mediocre music sold = more bad/mediocre
> music being produced.
>
> keep in mind, i'm also not even really talking about music that is
> absolutely terrible. i'm just talking about constructively critical reviews.
> you don't see those very often in URB or music magazines in general, for
> that matter. i still think that it's to every ones best interests to have
> both good and bad reviews. balance is key. i understand the need to save the
> space for the good shit, though.
>
> sorry for the length on this, if people don't really care about this topic.
> i just have an especially critical eye on the music press industry. i don't
> mean to pick on URB in specific.
> -g
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > I can't speak for the other Urb writers, but personally I tend not to
> > even give ink to releases that aren't any good, hence the reviews
> > that get written up are positive. Space is tight, and I'd rather see
> > artists that deserve it get their props.
> >
> > Joe
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 01 2000 - 09:35:30 MET DST