When does pretentiousness go beyond satire?

Well, that makes perfect sense. What absolute cobblers! Funny how we all immediately think of Pseud's Corner; one of my favourite bits of Private Eye.

And the accompanying video/music was none too special.

The reviews have certainly discouraged me from even thinking about getting the latest Radiohead album.

Ebor posted:

...... "The binary relationship between Rast and Stocker unpacks microscopic bits of code into full-blown programs. High notes in the glockenspiel, doubling those of the keyboard, activate those programs."

Shows a keen knack for placing an analog experience in readily appreciated modern digital terms.

While .... "where strings enhance an underlying sway and mark shifts of perspective with the inevitability of an Escher lithograph. The echo of a half-step leitmotif in the piano floats on a bed of ambience, as Stocker’s tracery marks its steps with a cartographer’s exactitude" 

Shows reverence to by-gone vocations. A nice effort to involve a wide audience and not alienate any group of listeners.

Would love to hear such reviews of Beyoncé's "Sorry" from her Lemonade album.

"The initial "S" on "suck on my balls" is vocalized with a forthright amount of sibilance to provide appropriate impact to the intended mood of the statement, yet decays ethereally and reveals a subtle underlying emotional transition to the more harshly contrasting and auto-tuned distortion heard on the "middle fingers up" lyrics that follow.

Writing about music is like dancing about architecture

Not exactly sure I agree but I like repeating it!

Bruce

I've often thought that writing about music is a lot like preaching about a religion - the only one's interested in hearing what you have to say are those that are already involved with it anyhow.

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

Writing about music is like dancing about architecture

Not exactly sure I agree but I like repeating it!

Bruce

That was just Elvis Costello being extremely pretentious!

Randy - you should be writing music reviews.  Maybe a YouTube channel.  You've got 'the touch!'

Music is like comedy, film, theatre etc in this instance so called 'clever' people love to distance themselves from the rest of us lesser not so 'clever' mortals and so they invent comedy that nobody else laughs at and music nobody else listens to and then sit around in funny glasses and funnier clothes discussing and dissecting said comedy, music, drama absolutely boring the pants off of one another safe in the knowledge they are indeed clever.   

Is this the sort of thing you're referring to, Bob?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBbpGeMyMVk

Bart posted:

Randy - you should be writing music reviews.  Maybe a YouTube channel.  You've got 'the touch!'

YouTube? Have you seen the video for Beyoncé's "Sorry"? Between her and Serena I'd have too much trouble keeping straight the use of "phat ass" versus "fat ass". And I'm not adept at appropriate usage of "twerking".

I hate to seem like I'm raking over something we've already had a good giggle at and moved on, but I've noticed that the same website has just reviewed Radiohead's A Moon-Shaped Pool, and it's chock-full of yet more gems of opaquely hilarious nonsense:

https://ecmreviews.com/2016/05...-a-moon-shaped-pool/

Given that many people here are likely to be more familiar with this album than a lot of the other avant-garde offerings on the ecmreviews site, I wondered if familiarity with the music concerned is any aid to unlocking the meaning of the reviews.

Mark

Yup, total nonsense, and hilariously so. Trying to sound clever by using big words, often incorrectly (physiognomy for example).

I could take no more when I got to 'A wall stands between you and the object of your cochlear seeking' .

Was this written by a 13yr old with a thesaurus?

What a shame you stopped there, Bruce. You've missed finding out that '[d]istant voices are a preamble to the interrogation of marrow that ensues. And then, another recurrence: that of ragdoll people, the truest images of who we are.'. And where would you be without that information, eh?

To coin a cliche, I'll have some of whatever he's on.

As the author of ecmreviews.com, I trust you won’t mind if I chime in.

Let me say up front that my goal here is not to add fuel to the fire, but to engage in honest and mature discussion around the flaws of my writing.

First, let me say THANK YOU, and I mean that sincerely. Writing about music is a labor of love for me. Unfortunately, the freedom of a blog means I don’t get the benefit of an editor to keep me in check. The obscure language I tend toward is usually something I’ve carried over from the random notes I take when listening to an album for the first time. These include images and impressions that might make perfect sense to me at the time, but which mean little or nothing to a reader who hasn’t approached that music in the same way, if at all. The criticisms made against me on this forum have been largely valid, and you should know that I take them to heart. In response to Mark’s initial post, I have given my review of Nik Bärtsch’s Continuum a total overhaul, and I trust you’ll find the revised version much more user friendly. I’m always trying to give my readers a sense of what music feels like, not just who’s playing what and why. But this can be a tricky enterprise and, as you’ve all pointed out, I’m prone to getting carried away with unclear, even meaningless, wordplay. Comments like yours are therefore a big help when I’m trying to weed out any strange or outright incorrect turns of phrase. (On the latter note, a special hat tip to Bruce for flagging misuse of the word “physiognomy” in my Radiohead review. I’ve since replaced it.)

This brings me, however, to my major second point, which is the only criticism I would offer in return (and again, this is not to be antagonistic, but simply to level the playing field). I understand, and with good conscience, that you dislike at least a couple of the more recent reviews you’ve all been keen to dissect. What I cannot understand are the flagrant judgments you’ve taken it upon yourselves to make about my character.

Allow me to clarify the following:

• To start off with, the very title of this thread assumes that my writing is a sign of “pretentiousness.” Nothing could be further from the truth. As I hope I’ve already made clear, I’m totally open to criticism when it’s on target, and take your observations about the mechanics of my writing very seriously. My blog is something of a listening diary. As such, it’s very personal and expresses, I hope, my humble passion for music in many forms. I also mean it to be an honest reflection of my musical education. I don’t know much in the way of music-related terminology, and so I resort to the more “poetic” vocabulary that I’m used to. If anything, I write in this way to lay myself bare as a listener who takes music on its own terms. In no way am I trying to be self-important about my writing, nor do I believe it to be better than anyone else’s on the subject.
• I’m baffled by the running assumption that I’m “using some very serious chemicals” or otherwise “on something” in order to have come up with (some of) what I’ve written. I’ve never written a single word with the aid of any other drug than the music itself.
• My intention has never been, and never will be, to separate myself from readers like yourself as if you were all beneath me. In no way am I trying to show off any sort of “cleverness” or “intelligence,” but merely attempting something that is very difficult: to write about the medium of music using the medium of language. You’re all entitled to your opinions, but believe me when I say I don’t see myself as being above you, or my regular readers, in any way.
• In light of this, to dismiss the entire archive of my writing—which, if I’m taking the implication correctly, is the direction in which some of you are leaning—as being “total nonsense” is very hurtful to me (I’m not looking for sympathy; just being transparent about my feelings). Over the past six years, I’ve produced an archive of at least 1500 reviews, totaling nearly one million words, and I pray you might find something more worthwhile than the few you’ve singled out from among them. I also write regularly for legitimate magazines, both online and in print, and even have a book of music criticism coming out this December. If anything, such endeavors validate what I do, and tell me there is a market for my work. Admittedly, though, I tend to be a lot more careful when writing for others.
• I suppose I should be glad that my writing has given you cause to laugh J Better to bring smiles rather than frustration or anger to your lives. Still, I can assure you my blog is no hoax, and I hope you might exercise a little more caution in making assumptions about me as a person, even if you genuinely dislike what I do.
• If a review I’ve written has discouraged any of you from buying the album in question, I think you must either be crediting my writing with far too much power for its own good or not recognizing your own agency as a listener. I’ve never been a huge Radiohead fan, for example, but I thoroughly enjoyed the new album. I wouldn’t presume to deprive anyone of its pleasures just because of some sentences I threw together about it…
• On 5/21/16, Joe (?) wrote, “I’ve often thought that writing about music is a lot like preaching about a religion—the only ones interested in hearing what you have to say are those that are already involved with it anyhow.” You may be on to something there. Though I do have what to me seems a big readership (currently over 3000 followers and more than a million hits), I’ve gotten unanimously positive reactions from the musicians about which I write. Yet most of my readers, too, have enjoyed my writing, if only because it is off the beaten path, and criticisms have been rare, at least in blog comments. Surely, I’m doing something right, no?
• On 5/31/16, Mark wrote, “I wondered if familiarity with the music concerned is any aid to unlocking the meaning of the reviews.” You could be right about this, to a certain extent. My descriptions of music may indeed make much more sense once the reader has heard it. I try my best to keep the hyperbole to a minimum, but sometimes my personal filter just doesn’t kick in.
• Finally, in response to Bruce’s 5/31/16 post: I’m not a 13-year-old but a 37-year-old Ph.D. candidate in his final year of graduate school. Academia encourages the overuse of unnecessarily big words, and I’m always struggling to break the habits of this conditioning. Unfortunately, some of those habits bleed into my non-academic writing, and so I always appreciate having the rough spots pointed out to me. Perhaps this is where the illusion of pretentiousness comes from, and for that I apologize.

With all that said, I welcome any future criticisms you might have about my writing, but please, if only for the sake propriety, I ask that you keep the flaming to a minimum, and that you take my response in the good spirit with which I’ve offered it.

With kindest regards,
Tyran

Tyran Grillo posted:

On 5/21/16, Joe (?) wrote, “I’ve often thought that writing about music is a lot like preaching about a religion—the only ones interested in hearing what you have to say are those that are already involved with it anyhow.” You may be on to something there. Though I do have what to me seems a big readership (currently over 3000 followers and more than a million hits), I’ve gotten unanimously positive reactions from the musicians about which I write. Yet most of my readers, too, have enjoyed my writing, if only because it is off the beaten path, and criticisms have been rare, at least in blog comments. Surely, I’m doing something right, no?

Tyran,

Thanks for your well elucidated post. Brave as well, in that you certainly could have let this topic pass anonymously. 

My reply you cited above was a general observation of a another's quote, not directed at you, albeit possibly at your profession as a music reviewer. My point being, those reading an album review are those already considering whether or not to buy it.

I hope you found my direct comments on your writing (follows) neither inflammatory nor negative.

"Shows a keen knack for placing an analog experience in readily appreciated modern digital terms."

"Shows reverence to by-gone vocations. A nice effort to involve a wide audience and not alienate any group of listeners."

Admittedly, my comments above may point to some level of 'grasping'. It must be difficult as a reviewer not to use the same terms over and over and I appreciate that you have to seek new analogies to keep the reviews fresh both for you and the readers.

You're obviously very passionate about music and we should all appreciate that common ground.

Tyran.

it would be most interesting if you could put forward what system is used in replay for reviews.

Creative Writing out of Academia is hard to contextualise in normal day to day life , that you have a context within a music review blog that is read by others, creative writing is more than appropriate and nothing to apologise for.

cheers.

Tyrant

Big hand corresponding so positively. My personal experience of your reviews is that the language obscures the meaning almost completely. Using a phrase like 'cochlear searching' adds nothing for me compared to 'listening'. Great language is fun but not if it gets in the way. Writing about music is difficult, it is important you enjoy it and I do also think it can add to your own appreciation and pleasure of a piece. A review that just says 'awesome, check it out, it rocks' is pretty pointless.

When you share it you will always open yourself up to criticism and comment so it takes some bravery!

Can I offer some suggestions for places to look for inspiration?

Pitchforkmedia generally publishes music reviews of good literary standard. Although I may not always agree with the conclusions they tend to be well researched and argued. Not always but fairly consistent.

For writers check out Graham Greene as an example of someone who with utter simplicity can deliver great emotional punch and descriptive power. His writing is incredibly lean and efficient, never using two words where one will do. His books are usually pretty short but they contain a great deal.

Also have a read of something by Will Self (books or journalism). Here is a man who revels in the complexity of the language and vocabulary but it never obscures the meaning. His use of writing is rich and complex but it always serves the purpose of the article and never obscures it.

Cheers

Bruce

Bruce.

me thinks that smacks from the prescriptive droll one has to come up against when being creative in an creative arena . For every time that someone thought they had come up with something original there is always someone to say that someone did it before and did it better.

studying at art schools , having the guts to think " well **** them" is needed to empower yourself to actually create something, Unless fear would be the ultimate mind killer.

your recommendations of writers to influence are hopeless , imagine  Will Self putting his thoughts over a record review - he would be more interested in how insane everything was in the hysteresis of the individuals involved.

Sorry Toby, don't agree

I think it is odd advice to any 'artist'  to suggest that they should produce their work totally hermetically. Experiencing other artists is not to make you feel small, and should not restrict what you do but surely you can benefit from exposure to those that have gone before-even if all you do is reject it should you so decide. I think the artists (visual, musical and literary) that I enjoy have all been influenced by other artists, and may indeed specifically reference them but that does not limit their creativity. Surely all of us can learn from others without being stifled.

I never went to art school so maybe this is utterly heretical!!

The specific writers I suggested are about stylistic differences not specific to record reviews. I was trying to be helpful, not prescriptive.

Bruce

PS Interesting discussion.

Bruce.

Yes your right of course. In my day art schools did obviously say that you shouldn't be creative in a vacuum, but also vouched for a rip it up and start again ideal. Creativity is finding the spot in the middle that informs and acts as a conversation...but we are digressing.  This guy is in his PhD finals so should know the difference between his onions and his shallots.

Writing is a form of communication and communication is attempting to pass a thought to another person with the minimum of error or static.

When, possibly in error, we attempt to think in words about music we find no pre-existing one-to-one correspondence of sign and thing signified and resort to metaphor and simile in an attempt to nail down the smoke.

If the reader can take the simile and reverse engineer the 'meaning' we have a form of communication.

If the words merely throw the reader into a void - the writer stands, essentially playing with himself.

A kind word for this might be "pretension".

And that's your onion shallot

.

My background is in science and there concision is key. State your intended purpose in the fewest words possible. Verbosity is verboten. I'm not sure this applies to the arts where subjectivity has to be somehow expressed. The degree of wordplay a reader is willing to tolerate is another matter and entirely subjective.

With apologies, Tyran, for the relatively late reply - I haven't checked into the Forum for a week or so, and missed your brave and full posting. As the OP, I feel I owe you a reply at the least, even though many others have beaten me to a quicker response.

Most importantly, if anything I've written has caused you pain, I can but apologise. The only response I've had to the writing on ecmreviews was not dislike at all but simply bewilderment followed by amusement at the very particular way in which your enjoyment had been expressed. Amusement is obviously not a response you were aiming for, but I respect your honesty too much to be anything other than equally honest in return. Your passion for the music is clear and, for that and the willingness to communicate it so extensively, you should be applauded.

Mark

Hi Tyro,

I'm trying to reverse engineer the term 'aqua-dynamic contours' in your review of Kancheli, Part and Vasks 'Midwinter Springs'. Without success.

Jan

(in a void)

Jan-Erik Nordoen posted:

Hi Tyro,

I'm trying to reverse engineer the term 'aqua-dynamic contours' in your review of Kancheli, Part and Vasks 'Midwinter Springs'. Without success.

Jan

(in a void)

 

Hi, Jan-Erik! It's just the water equivalent of aerodynamic. Rather than follow the convention of describing such beautiful music as "soaring" or some such metaphor involving flying, I imagined it being closer to earth and aquatic in nature, perhaps flowing like the snow on the album's cover melting in spring, as implied by the album's title