Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
What a prize fucking idiot.
Am going to burn his house down I think.
What a prize cunt. Atonal?! No structure?!
I fucking love it when papers send the wrong man to gigs! Superb. 'There's nothing wrong with music that's... downright strnage'?!! Brilliant! What a tit!
That's his cry of bewilderment.
Is that how we're spelling 'discernible' in Bristol these days Lee Hanson? And twice in two sentences too. Tool.
You know I still aspire to be the 'ents and events' guy for a local paper. Livid that the big leagues ignored me, baffled by the bands that the cool kids all adore and hell-bent on calling your demos 'professional, rocking, competent and tight'. It would be brilliant.
I am very tempted to start sending in my own reviews. Like a right loser.
I hate the name Lee too. Such a scuffy name and when said with a camp Bristol accent just sounds horrible.
for the southampton paper. wish i still could, was one of the best ones in tut country,.
that would be a plum job. I fear I might have to start my own local paper to fulfil my rock hack destiny.
He's written his view of the gig as he saw it and seems to have done it fairly reasonably. He seems to have not liked it and said why he doesn't like it and, whilst most on DiS will disagree with him, he's entitled to his opinion.
You could argue he's the wrong person to review the gig but I can't see why he's being an idiot about it. It wasn't to his taste and he said so. People are still allowed to not like things aren't they?
Because the problem is that he clearly doesnt know anything about music, and therefore his opinion is irrelevant. Which is pretty fundamental for a reviewer.
So, yes the paper should have sent someone else (who is more than welcome to not like it) but he is an idiot for puting himself forward/agreeing to do it.
Like I would be an idiot if I agreed to do the commentary for the rugby this weekend.
I don't understand you're basis for that statement.
To quote Andrew,
'Is that how we're spelling 'discernible' in Bristol these days Lee Hanson? And twice in two sentences too. Tool.'
If you have an opinion and are a journalist, at least write properly.
don't really see what the problem is except he doesn't like a band that you do.
Its like me doing this commentary for the rugby:
"There are some big blokes on a field, with some sticks at each end. One has the ball in his hands and is running about a bit and has now thrown it to another man who has been pushed over. Its shit"
I didn't have to watch, it wouldn't bother me. If everyone who was Battles fans reviewed the gigs it'd be boring. Some would say as boring as their music. Not me though, oh no.
Is that if you said they were boring I would respect it as you would probably demonstrate some understanding and have some context (i.e. you have heard some bands and seen some gigs).
he's heard the record and knows where they're from.
Sometimes people go into gigs not being a big fan of the band and get won over by them. This hasn't happened on this occasion. It doesn't mean he can't review it.
He talks about the Battles record itself (and indeed how the live show differs from it) which clearly implies he's heard it (and, from what he says, likes it more than the live set). Clearly that implies understanding and context?
You might be talking it though.
Now I'm excited about the rugby. It was better last week getting excited about ATP. Could someone ask Jamie Summers off the internet to start speculating about Minehead weekend so I can make it 'til tomorrow please.
It's hardly as if he doesn't know anything about music. You're assuming he's ignorant 'cos he doesn't like a band you do. There's absolutely nothing I can see in the review - except the prejudice you have from actually liking the band - to back up your statement.
Whether he likes it or not, that comment suggests he doesn't really know what he's talking about...
If he couldn't discern one and said so then I don't know why that's a problem.
As bobbygeorge has said he's heard the album, liked it enough to go and review 'em live and been disappointed by what he's seen. That's fair enough in my book.
To my mind a bad review is one where the reviewer in question has already made their mind up they don't like something, has listened to it with the intention of hating it and then talks about how terrible it is. Such as here (not that I'm a huge fan of the song in question myself but I think this is a particularly lousy review of it):
I honestly find this thread to just be indie snobbery of "local journalist doesn't like band DiS people like. Therefore local journalist must be an idiot and not know what he's talking about."
from what you'd find in some reviews on this site.
I've seen far worse reviews written here and lots of other places.
Battles: Trinity Centre
REMEMBER those kids who were always picked last for games at school? Well, they formed a band.
Alas, the New Yorkers have decided to exact revenge by becoming one of those bands that make a reasonable record and decide that, when playing live, it would be better to refrain from interaction with the audience and play music that has no discernable tune, melody or point. [I CANT SEE HOW ANYONE CAN THINK THIS IS A FAIR POINT. SURE, DONT LIKE THEM, THINK THEY ARE BORING OR SHIT OR PRETENSIOUS, BUT YOU MUST BE ABLE TO SEE VALUE IN SOMETHING SO UNIQUE, EVEN IF IT IS PURELY THE ABILITY OF THE MUSICIANS]
By no means an easy proposition on record, live the band dispatched with the concept of entertainment and decided to play guitar solos with no discernable end within a framework best described as 'loose'. [THEY ARE THE OPPOSITE OF LOOSE. THIS GUY SURELY DOESNT THINK THEY ARE JUST JAMMING?]
The only time that a cohesive song came to light was with their most accessible moment, Atlas, and it is no coincidence that this is the single from their album Mirrored.
A capacity crowd showed that there is a market for this kind of atonal noodling, [AHEM] but anyone who had paid money to be entertained must surely have left feeling unsatisfied and more than a little bewildered. [RAPT AUDIENCE, PEOPLE STREAMING OUT SAYING ALL THE USUAL BEST-GI-EVER- TYPE THINGS]
There's nothing wrong with music that is off the wall or even downright strange, but when it is as shapeless and meandering as this, people should vote with their feet and stay away. [I DUNNO WHAT IT IS ABOUT THIS STATEMENT BUT IT JUST SCREAMS OF HIM WANTING TO SAY 'why dont they just do some nice songs like Razorlight' BUT YES I ACCEPT THIS IS PROBABLY ME THINKING TOO MUCH]
He didn't enjoy the show and actually assumed the rest of the crowd would feel the same.
He said that he thought anyone who expected them to be 'entertaining' would be disappointed. People can enjoy things they might not find entertaining.
that EVERYONE there was there to be entertained. What was he expecting the gig to be? Chitty Chitty Bang Bang??
'live the band dispatched with the concept of entertainment'........... i dunno
That senstance alone demonstrates that he didnt understand, and again there is a sort of horrible implication that it wouldnt be like that at a Keane gig, or something.
Oh I dunno.
Barbara Streisand gig instead.
it's just a cutting way of saying he didn't find it entertaining.
The stupid attitude some people have that, if someone wants to be entertained at a gig then either
a) they must know nothing about music
b) they must like bland stuff like Keane or Barbara Streisland.
a) I cannot see how the fuck anyone would equate Keane or Barbara Streisland with entertainment in the first place.
b) The concept of entertaning an audience isn't a dirty word.
I've got no idea whether Battles were entertaning or not, or if they did just play endless guitar solos and not talk to the audience.
But the idea that somoene not being entertained by a band and not being happy about that is equated by some people as meaning a liking for Barbara Streisland or Keane actually really disturbs and angers me.
gig is the opitomy of entertainment. All we're saying is the review is written in a non-objective mannor with little or no evidence of research OR information about the gig.
We're not saying he has to be a fan and write the kind of one sided Battles worship sermon. As was said earlier, it'd be like me going to review the rugby. It's just a bunch of blokes running around a field throwing a oddly shaped ball around isn't it. Is THAT entertainment?
Barbara Streisand though.....
That is the point I have been flailing around hopelessly, put much better.
He's heard the album, admits to quite liking it in the review, went to the gig and reviewed what he saw based on how he felt about it.
It's not that I don't understand the points you're making. I just disagree with your view that he is being particularly unobjective or ignorant as reviewers go.
They are from New York, had a single called Atlas and an album called Mirrored. I don't believe for a second he has listened to that album more than maybe a cursory skip through the tracks on their myspace page.
where any argument I'd make'd see us both make assumptions that we can't possibly back up for sure. So the conversation would be fairly pointless really.
if i say that he hasnt demonstrated that he has heard the record.
And he's only got a limited wordcount.
As a reader I need to respect his opinion, and regardless of his word count he needs to make me believe him. That can be done very easily.
This is the difference between a punter and a critic.
Precisely because reviews can only ever be subjective (and that's fine), the reviewer has a responsibility to acknowledge their own starting point in their write-up - when done skilfully, this should be implicit in the prose. That is, not by saying 'I quite liked the album, but...' or whatever, but instead by using measures and references that are appropriate.
It is never enough for a critic, unless she or he is established enough, to just offer their opinion because then the piece is more about the critic than the work. Why do we care what Lee Hanson says? Most of us could write better than he does; many of us already do!
I don't care whether Lee Hanson gave Battles a good review or not.
For one, I saw them last night and they were awesome. End of.
Secondly, I am growed-up enough to make my own mind about things without worrying too much about reviewers.
However, there is a caveat. This is not to say that it doesn't ever bother me when reviewers dish out the turds for acts I like. When criticism comes from writers who I respect, or who write/articulate in a way I respect, I digest it.
But I think that that's really what the problem is with Lee Hanson - I don't care cos I don't respect him cos he clearly just doesn't get it. And I think this point has been missed by the distracting accusations of 'indie snobbery' and getting uppity cos a review disses your favourite band.
Whether or not Hanson's opinion is valid or not is not at issue, and neither is it a matter of him being 'right' or 'wrong'; it is just clear that the boy Hanson don't get it.
Jimmy HS's rugby commentary analogy is spot on. Round peg, square hole. Although having said all of that, it really is an inappropriately smugly written review. But that actually heightened my enjoyment.
you are wrong. "End of". I have seen Battles live. I thought they were shite. Please tell me how I don't "get it".
Is it simply because I don't agree with your precious opinion?
Posts on here need fucking footnotes, don't they...
'End of' referred to me being lucid and firm in my opinion - ie not swayed by other reviewers.
And when did I say *you* didn't get it? I said the hack in question (who really really wouldn't deserve this much attention if it were an expertly crafted piece) clearly didn't get it based on his criticism - 'discernable tune, melody or point...' '...cohesive song', and the general vibe of the piece suggest to me that Battles thang was not his from the off.
And as for your little barbed remark at the end, I am not at all of a precious disposition when it comes to my opinion about bands - as I said, it's not an issue of Hanson being right or wrong; it is his opinion, his judgment. It just clearly comes from a perspective of someone who expected something he just isn't going to get from a Battles gig. He may as well have judged them on their clothes.
its been the same as on record, basically.
did they do something different at this gig? if so, the writer isnt an idiot. if not, he is.
is just plain daft. Nonsensical. What are you talking about?
best new way to say hello. Thanks Lee Hanson
and this guy isn't far wrong with some of his comments. Lay off him. Let him have an opinion. As for him "knowing nothing about music"? That's just snobbery.
people are just not used anymore with reviews trying to argue why they didn't enjoy a show.
They want rave review or mockeries.
He made his points.
You can think otherwise, but after all, perceptions are personal.
i'd say it was a terrible review
atonal and lacking structure are not words i, nor any sane person, would associate with battles
I can't believe how much I wanted to slit the throats of the cunts who were jumping up and down to Atlas at the Scala earlier in the year.
Just replied calmly to your rather arsey reply to mine above. But now I can see - you're a bit of a knob, aren't you?
but I did very much dislike Battles (and the whole world) that night. You know that mood? Maybe I had it last night as well. Hmm.
I don't agree with the first bit, but Lee Hanson definitely gets my :D vote. The boy is a star - he should definitely send his CV to the Framley Examiner.
Mmmm Bop? Mmmm yeah.
It is deeply pretentious not to try to engage with your audience.
with the audience.
He thought they didnt because they are instrumental and didnt say "thanks you guys are great" after every song.
I think the lesson we can all learn from this is: don't read local rags in Bristol.