Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 11:03:49 AM

Login with username, password and session length

One day all music reviews will be like this...

Started by aaaaaaaaaargh!, February 27, 2008, 12:21:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
American Maxim magazine reviews the new album by the Black Crowes and awards it two and a half stars.  Trouble is, the journalist concerned hadn't listened to the record (and couldn't possibly have done so apparently - there were no copies in circulation).

Maxim has apologised to the band and I think the journalist in question is being hauled over the coals at the moment.

However, I wouldn't have imagine that this is the first time this has ever happened and that the journalist has been so puclicly busted.   I do get the impression that journalists sometimes do make up their mind before listening to the record, an example of this I'd imagine would have been Q's review of 'Be Here Now' which gave the album 5 stars which must have been caught up in the hype at the time.

Does anyone have any other examples similar to the Black Crowes review?

http://www.gigwise.com/news/41089/magazine-apologises-to-the-black-crowes-for-dishonest-review

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7266431.stm

Neville Chamberlain

Obviously I've not heard the album, but mere mention of the name Black Crowes is enough for me to award it 0 stars.

CaledonianGonzo

I've no examples to hand, but I think its fairly par for the course for monthly 'lifestyle' type publications to 'guestimate' their reviews.  As they only have a tiny amount of space to fill, they can bluff their way through it quite easily.

A weekly publication like the NME, on the other hand, devotes more space to a record and is issued on a more timely basis - leading to better and more honest record reviews.

*Picks up today's NME and looks at the amount of space now devoted to record reviews other than the lead review of the week and notes that they're now about the same size as the reviews in something like Loaded*

Oh..

olafr

I don't want to mention names but I know of a name(ish) music journo of both music press and more mainstream print media) that regularly does this and has done it for years - whether it's album reviews or gig reviews.

This is made all the more laughable by the fact that this no longer spring chicken actually knows very little about music in the first place and wouldn't actually buy or look out for new music if they weren't sent music to review/play.

drberbatov

Quote from: olafr on February 27, 2008, 01:12:34 PM
I don't want to mention names but I know of a name(ish) music journo of both music press and more mainstream print media) that regularly does this and has done it for years - whether it's album reviews or gig reviews.

This is made all the more laughable by the fact that this no longer spring chicken actually knows very little about music in the first place and wouldn't actually buy or look out for new music if they weren't sent music to review/play.

Paul Morley?

Ballad of Ballard Berkley

#5
Didn't Danny Baker (or Charles Shaar-Murray, or one of that late 70's NME pack) once write a live review of the Clash while getting pissed in a pub somehwere? Trouble was, the glowing review failed to mention that the venue actually burned down during the gig. I really hope that's not an apocryphal story.

Anyway, I've written many an album/live review in my time, and can honestly say that I've never made one up, as the costs (losing your job if you're found out, basically) are far too high. Why would anyone take that risk?


Famous Mortimer

I've got a funny feeling this could work against the Black Crowes, who haven't done anything more useful than fill pairs of leather trousers for about 15 years. I'd hazard a guess Maxim will give it a long review and absolutely slate it, given that the reviewer, whoever he is, is almost certainly just following magazine policy (I don't know a great number of people who read UK Maxim for the record reviews). Unless it's an absolute stormer of an album, I reckon the press will close ranks against them.

I'm sure I recall reading live reviews where the journo in question was abused by the band for claiming band members were there who'd not been in the band in months, or reviewing gigs that had been cancelled at the last minute.

olafr

Quote from: drberbatov on February 27, 2008, 01:19:53 PM
Paul Morley?

No, well he's not the one I'm thinking of. I think Morley actually likes music too much to do that, I don't know.

LeboviciAB84

My lodger was furious when NME awarded the Feeling's new album two out of ten (the two was out of gratitude that Island didn't bother to send a review copy).

Famous Mortimer

Quote from: LeboviciAB84 on February 27, 2008, 01:35:28 PM
My lodger was furious when NME awarded the Feeling's new album two out of ten (the two was out of gratitude that Island didn't bother to send a review copy).
Is he in The Feeling?

LeboviciAB84

No, but he's close enough to their lead singer to take it personally! (He buys NME every week, "even though it's crap", the odd cove.)

CaledonianGonzo

I've still got a soft spot for The Black Crowes - the weed more or less ruined their songwriting chops and they turned into too much of a jam band live, but The Southern Harmony & Musical Companion is still a great record.

Mary Hinge

Quote from: CaledonianGonzo on February 27, 2008, 02:20:46 PM
I've still got a soft spot for The Black Crowes - the weed more or less ruined their songwriting chops and they turned into too much of a jam band live, but The Southern Harmony & Musical Companion is still a great record.

I think "Sting me" might well be the greatest song that The Rolling Stones never got round to writing. Its certainly one hell of an opener. The whole album shows that if you don't try and be ironical, you can go back and pick up on a certain sound/style and make something worthwhile out of it.

23 Daves

A friend (and ex-colleague) of mine used to work for a regional entertainment magazine, and had a very odd editor with delusions of grandeur.  Quite famously, Ignition management insisted that Creation Records could not send out any review copies of "Be Here Now" until some ridiculous date - a day before the bloody album came out, I think, if that - and his editor wasn't having any of it.

"We're a well-respected publication!" he lied.  "You can get a copy of this for us!"
"Er... I can't," he replied.  "Even the NME can't get one."
"Yes they have, I know they have!" he screamed, no doubt frothing at the mouth as he did so.

So anyway, fearful of getting his P45, my friend just made the review up, giving the CD an exclusive "quite good" review way before the NME, Q, Melody Maker or indeed anyone had managed, or before he'd successfully heard a note.  Creation, for the record, found the whole affair hysterically funny, told us so, and burst out laughing every time we phoned after that...

I'm sure it goes on in other similar circumstances as well, especially where rabid editors who "must have their copy!" are concerned.  Sometimes it's quicker just to lie, although I've never done this myself.  I doubt any of this applies to the Black Crowes, though.

Marty McFly

reminds me of when The One Amiga used to review games before they'd been released (or even finished) by playing the PC versions - and sometimes publishing screenshots from them - instead.

I'm tremendously enjoying all these 'lazy rock critic' anecdotes though, please keep them coming.

Quote from: Marty McFly on February 27, 2008, 07:14:08 PM
I'm tremendously enjoying all these 'lazy rock critic' anecdotes though, please keep them coming.

Me too.  I know someone who did a 3 word review for an Aerosmith record and got away with it.

Heat magazine's (yes, I know) reviews seem to be phoned in.  I would wonder who buys Heat for the reviews though I guess.  If something is rubbish it''ll get three stars.  If something is so bad the individuals responsible should be facing jail time it'll get two stars.

boki

Anyone remember Crash magazine's parody of Sinclair User in which they lampooned SU's obsession with exclusives throughout, at one point reviewing a game from the top deck of a bus that had briefly stopped outside a software company's window. 

I'd already read about the Black Crowes thing, and IIRC the mag just pretty much said they do that stuff a lot and so does everyone else, didn't they?

jaydee81

Quote from: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on February 27, 2008, 01:24:24 PM
Didn't Danny Baker (or Charles Shaar-Murray, or one of that late 70's NME pack) once write a live review of the Clash while getting pissed in a pub somehwere? Trouble was, the glowing review failed to mention that the venue actually burned down during the gig. I really hope that's not an apocryphal story.

Anyway, I've written many an album/live review in my time, and can honestly say that I've never made one up, as the costs (losing your job if you're found out, basically) are far too high. Why would anyone take that risk?

I remember in an anniversary edition of NME they mentioned a similar story where the journalist wrote something along the lines of 'the drummer was good' except he'd died in a car crash on the way to the gig. I think... maybe I dreamt it.
If you're basing what records you buy from Maxim's record reviews you deserve to get burnt.

Brundle-Fly

There is also the story of the journo who reviewed an advance copy of Lennon's Double Fantasy back in 1980. He slagged off Side 1 saying it was uninspired but raved about Side 2 proclaiming the single track of an atonal fluctuating hum was 'groundbreaking', 'brave' and 'truly progressive' etc. However, the cock was playing the wrong side of a one sided acetate. He resigned shortly after the review went to print.

LeboviciAB84

Quote from: Richard Williams in [i]Melody Maker[/i], 15.11.1969". . . constant listening reveals a curious point: the pitch of the tones alters frequency, but only by micro-tones or, at most, a semi-tone. This oscillation produces an almost subliminal, uneven 'beat' which maintains interest. On a more basic level, you could have a ball by improvising your own raga, plainsong or even Gaelic mouth music against the drone."

That review of John and Yoko's The Wedding Album, like the myth that Lindsay Anderson had no artistic control over the monochrome sequences in if...., is much-cited as an example of critics being clueless dolts. How dare they try to analyse mere pop-culture?

I'd say that's a counterexample, really: instead of letting hype and intuition dictate his copy, he looked for meaning in the grooves of the record itself. Lennon himself clearly approved of Williams' method, sending him a personal thank-you. (Such faux-naïf passive-aggression is also a great way to damn with faint praise, and as such combines three of my favourite hobbies.)

The Mumbler

Beaten to the Richard Williams review.

The Heat reviews, if you can call such gushing guff "reviews", are so gridlocked into categories that it's laughable. Not sure what the point of having "What's Right With It?" *and* "What's Wrong With It?" when (as so often happens) they've given something five stars. Ditto having "Best Track"/"Worst Track". If you've given something full marks, everything's a Best Track.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Music reviews are much worse when the 'critic' listens to it, I think.

The Mumbler

Danny Baker used to say that when he reviewed the singles for the NME, he used to stress how much of the time taken to write the review was spent gazing at the sleeves' artwork, rather than listening to what was inside. But that's ok, because - certainly in that era - he was one of the funniest writers alive.

There's also that section of Collins/Maconie/Quantick's Lloyd Cole Knew My Father where Quantick "reviewed three concerts in one week, yet only listened to three songs - all of which were by Elton John" and Maconie reviewed Jefferson Starship's Reading Festival set on Radio 1 in his car rather than watch it. This sort of thing inspired some angry responses from fans of what tends to be called "real music".

I once read a review of Aerosmith's 'Shut Up And Dance' single which said:

QuoteWhy?  Are you going to play me some Sheep On Drugs or something?

To think that someone allegedly got paid for that.

In a more recent example, one of Marillion's Astoria shows got reviewed in a popular mag without the journo having been there...

Brundle-Fly

Quote from: LeboviciAB84 on February 28, 2008, 03:20:25 PM
That review of John and Yoko's The Wedding Album, like the myth that Lindsay Anderson had no artistic control over the monochrome sequences in if...., is much-cited as an example of critics being clueless dolts. How dare they try to analyse mere pop-culture?

I'd say that's a counterexample, really: instead of letting hype and intuition dictate his copy, he looked for meaning in the grooves of the record itself. Lennon himself clearly approved of Williams' method, sending him a personal thank-you. (Such faux-naïf passive-aggression is also a great way to damn with faint praise, and as such combines three of my favourite hobbies.)

Ah, my mistake. Perhaps I should resign now? 

Some stories of review-based awfulness:

:: I reviewed Patrick Wolf's last album based on about an hour's worth of flicking through it in the office (it's a long story but the time constraints weren't my own).

:: I once based a band's single review entirely on a weak joke about their name.

:: A formerly-famous band's press woman once threw so much Red Stripe down my throat that I couldn't remember much of the gig (other than DRONING FUCKING MONOTONY) and had to write my review based on blurred memories and a few spins of their promo.

:: If you're reviewing for a newspaper, who often want copy half an hour before the act is due on stage, it's useful to have a good idea of what you're likely to say in the review before you turn up.

:: The clubbing editor of a national listings magazine never goes clubbing and rarely did even when he was young enough to legitimately do so.

Basically, the whole racket is unfair, unprofessional and unlikely to get much better.

Monthly magazines like Maxim are basically fucked in the future, 'cos lead times mean bollock all to a record company that just wants to get an album into the shops before thousands of people steal a leaked copy off the internet.

CaledonianGonzo

My brother is a journo and was supposed to review the unsigned bands stage at T in the Park a few years back.  Unhappy with the prospect of spending all day in the tent watching competition winners and so on, he just went and saw all the other bands he wanted to see and tried to piece together a review of all the bands based on their names and what he could find out about them from Google.  The result is one of the most embarassing articles to ever feature in the broadsheet press.  No legitimate future big names were there, but one Edinburgh hip-hop collective allegedly still smarts from him comparing them, sight unseen, to Goldie Lookin' Chain.

23 Daves

I should say at this point that back in the day when I was asked to do this sort of thing, I usually had a personal rule that I would listen to any album I was sent for review at least three times before putting pen to paper.  The idea was that this would mean I wouldn't be unfair to any "growers" or albums that baffled or confused on the first listen (a practice which would pay dividends on a number of occasions).  I pissed numerous housemates and girlfriends off with this rule, listening to things several times over that in their words "couldn't possibly get any better".

In eventual reality, however, sometimes it was a case of "review this now or it's not going in at all!" meaning one listen had to do, and my own personal prejudices about the act came into play.  I'd like to think I never fucked up badly, but I'm almost certainly wrong.  I agree that magazines should pay journalists to sit around all day listening to CDs they're supposed to be reviewing, but sadly the constraints of time mean it's really not the case.  If you've got a busy week ahead and the Stereophonics new album has landed on your desk and on first listen you think it's a dreary pile of cack, you're probably going to ignore your own rules and review it as such, ignoring the 0.01% chance that they may have somehow broken  new ground with it somewhere. 

Looknorth

The time I've reviewed albums for a magazine, it was a tabloid-esque type of affair and I had to write to a strict word count and make the reviews bright and breezy. How I managed to do that with In Utero, I'm not quite sure, but it went in (there I'm showing my age again now).

Famous Mortimer

Quote from: Looknorth on February 29, 2008, 09:31:39 AM
The time I've reviewed albums for a magazine, it was a tabloid-esque type of affair and I had to write to a strict word count and make the reviews bright and breezy. How I managed to do that with In Utero, I'm not quite sure, but it went in (there I'm showing my age again now).
I remember with fondness the posters for some music shop or other that used "I Hate Myself And I Want To Buy" as a hookline, just after Mr. Cobain's failed attempt at extreme dentistry. Loads of Nirvana fans threatened to boycot them so they changed it, the pussies. I'd like to have seen the breezy magazine reviews for "Metal Machine Music", myself.