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 : Fri Jun 30 2000 - 21:07:00 MET DST