Boards
Appalling Kev Kharas review of Sam Issac in the NME
http://www.nme.com/reviews/sam-isaac/10733
Is that supposed to be a critical appraisal of an album? You may not like the music, but to get published (and potentially paid) for writing an album review which gives nothing that could give a reader any kind of informed opinion on what the album sounds like is pretty shocking
Surely the job of a reviewer is to review, not to spout cack handed attempts at humour that wouldn't look out of space of a 15 year olds music blog
"jointheclub Aug 3, 2009"
"This has annoyed me so much I registered especially because I felt the need to take some direct action. I've never even heard of Sam Isaac, but I just want to reiterate everything posted above, this is the worst review I have ever read. Contemptible."
pretty much sums it up. I thought the NME had been getting better recently?
kev kharas is one of the best music writers in the country without a doubt
but this sort of review only works if it's funny and this is just not. maybe if he thought it was so bad that it didn't deserve a real review then it also didn't deserve a funny review... or maybe it's just shit.
The thing about writing reviews on shitty records
is that you've gotta listen to them more than once. I remember doing reviews for DiS and then saying, "Hey Mike. Find somebody else. I can't listen to this shit again."
So I imagine Kev got lazy here. Cos, yeah, he's usually quite good.
I haven't read it yet
but some of the reviews he wrote on DiS were utter wank - so smug and self-important, looking for a cheap laugh without actually telling us anything of value. It certainly sounds like him.
I'm assuming this is just another pointless piss take review, one which achieves nothing but making himself sound like a total bellend, lets see...
oh god, it's worse than usual
that isn't even a review, how on earth did it get published?
Exactly, nothing about the music
Just venomous bile
Haha - i quite like it!
Just read it again
Laughed a little more!
I've not heard of sam isaac, is he any good?
"I've not heard of sam isaac, is he any good?"
A review is meant to at least help answer part of that question. Clearly, Mr. Kharas has failed...
Nope
Apparently, some people's opinions on music can differ. I thought it might be nice to see if anyone was a fan.
Mr Kharas' opinion on the matter seemed pretty clear to me, and i can quite confidently say that he has succeeded in not only informing me of this, but also entertaining me in the process.
Cheers!
Did you read a different review to me?
I dunno, maybe
Did the one that you read have some sort of reference to your mum? Just that you seem in a bit of a grump about it?
Cheer up, it's just a review!
Ah, a Mum joke!
Good to see DiS reaching the 12 and unders.
Your bitterness and contempt saddens me :(
I too like stereolab and don caballero, and dislike razorlight (although i'm not sure that i could rate mansun as 10/10). Perhaps we could be friends? :)
nah
its pretty funny.
I think
music reviews as a whole are a pointless, empty vehicle, and pieces like this are far preferable to someone writing a pointless dissection of music upon it's merits, because I don't think music can be encompassed by words.
But he hardly mentions the record
or why it's complete shite. It's not even a review, that's the issue people are having.
^ Fucking hell ^
I have to agree - I have the Sideways single and some other stuff
& the record is just not up to standard - its actually pretty shit. I hope Sam can one day put out a record that captures his promise but its not that one.
Wow,
well.. I can't say I agree with you really. To me a music review should not only convey the reviewers opinion on the album (clearly this one did that) but it should also tell the reader what the music is all about and give him/her an impression of whether they'd like it even if the reviewer doesn't. This isn't easy, but its what a good review should do imo. True, music can't be entirely encompassed by words otherwise we'd just read music books the entire time instead of actually listening but that doesn't mean someone can't give an impression of what an album is all about.
i guess you have to ask whats more damaging for the artist
what looks like a deliberately incoherent review giving it 0/10 that people can get up in arms about and dismiss as "not a proper review", or one where he actually explains why he hates the record so much with detailed and reasonable analysis of the songs, and still gives it 0/10.
A laregely nonsensical 0/10 review is far preferable to a standard one of the same, or even slightly higher score, so I don't understand the fans asking him why he couldn't have reviewed the album "properly".
I guess no review at all would have been best for all parties, but perhaps he was forced to review it?
I dunno. I haven't heard the album, but I've played with Sam Isaac a couple of times and thought he was really good at what he did, so feel a bit sorry for him.
"No, slag it off properly this time!"
The biggest surprise at this end was finding that Sam Isaac's only just releasing an album. He seems to have been around for ages.
indeed
anyone remember what Pitchfork's destroying of Travis Barker's first solo LP did for his career?
travis morrison?
in fairness it's a pretty weak record
apart from the secret track at the end which is one of the best recordings he's done.
i don't know how much it destroyed his music career, the dismemberment plan splitting up destroyed his music career.
Personally...
...im really not a fan of Sam Issac by any stretch, but as usual the NME go overboard with their comments, it smacks of lazy journalism and someone that clearly isn't taking their job seriously.
However, it would have just been better if they had just written, that the album lacks any direction, vision or musicality. It's poor at best and reeks of lazy and awkward song writing from Issac...to say it's complacent is an understatment...it's rubbish is more accurate...
Yes the NME wrote another poor review, but this is something we have all come to expect...but do we really have to be subjected to poor songwriting on a regular basis by Sam Issac...i think not
I-S-A-A-C
Not Issac.
^the important thing
^apparently
...sorry about the mis-spelling...but the view still stands
It's Luke Leighfield
I actually like the album
it's like indie for kids, has a nice enid blyton feel to it. It's a really nice listen from start to finish! I reckon it'll be a great autumn album.
It doesn't deserve anywhere near that amount of bile though, there's nothing of any value in that review at all is there?
It's pretty funny
and surely "Terrible beyond the capacity for rational reviewing" lets you know what you're in for. If Sam Isaac's album is "so devoid of personality it’s difficult to believe he actually exists", I can imagine Kev Kharas thinking "Yeah, I could sit here and write a 500-word hatchet job, but wouldn't that just be a waste of everyone's time?"
I've never heard of Sam Isaac.
Won't be tracking it down. Kharas' review has done a job. I don't think the review is that bad. Made me smile a bit anyway.
Ho hum.
i really don't think it's that bad....i mean...it's not really funny
and it gets a bit bitchy at the last, but apart from that...who cares.
at least it's openly not giving anything 'that could give a reader any kind of informed opinion on what the album sounds like'.........i'd much rather this than some bore faffing on and still not doing the above......so many reviews fly under accusations like this because they fill it out with loads of banal shit...
I was standing with Sam Issac's Promoter
when he read it. And he laughed heartily.
It was a mini-review anyway, barely a sentence; can't really expect it to be reasoned and protracted in such a tiny caption. Besides, all I seem to read on here is how people listen to the music themselves and make up their own mind.
...with his national promoter?
that's quite bad
Not really. He just realised the ridiculousness of it all.
You can micromanage as much as you want but can't control everything. Good thing too.
I laughed quite a lot when I read this
It's certainly preferable to a hundred words of standard music journalistic prose explaining exactly why he thinks the album's terrible.
That review makes no sense to me
And I keep re-reading it. But..no. I'm lost after 'I didn't shave and...'
I like humourous reviews, but I like it more when there's a point being made. He should have started the review proper after 'but ‘Bears’ is so devoid of personality it’s difficult to believe he actually exists.' instead of waffling on, stringing lots of phrases and random descriptive words together for no other reason that to impress. I don't know why; when every NME writer attempts it, it rings hollow.
I think
if you're going to give something 0/10 and you've only got 100 or so words to play with, you might as well do something spectacular with them. Fuck it, some music deserves to be dismissed.
Enough of this back slapping/outrage - can we review some of the comments please; they are more brilliant than the review itself.
"You have turned music journalism into an ego-trip" - HAHA!
"After reading this review I woke up... NME's dignity had completely vanished" - GENIUS!
"This is not a legitimate opinion of an album. It's BULLYING." - RIGHT ON SISTER!
"So what did you think of the album Kharas?" - THINK IT THROUGH BRAINIAC!
Criticism - isn't it fun!
.
Having listened to the music itself, i commend Kev on a great review.
I think
it actually says quite alot about the music. just listen to the guys myspace, the review's absolutely on point if you get past your standards of boredom. it's a bit absurd perhaps, but that's just great.
I don't know why anyone bothers reading anything
Kev Kharas writes. He was a terrible writer when he was on DIS.
but do any of you consider anyone to be a good writer?
genuinely curious. it's one thing saying something is bad but you offer no alternative.
lukowski's a good writer
This:
example of a good review
www.guardian.co.uk/music/2000/jan/20/popandrock
example of a good long article
www.guardian.co.uk/music/2007/jul/20/popandrock2
example of a good interview
www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/feb/15/popandrock.electronicmusic
I used to love keith cameron's radio show
I hope he's doing well.
Works for Mojo
as a sub-editor
Is that a good thing?...
(i don't know if mojo is any good, and i'm not entirely sure what sort of a position sub-editor is) It sounds pretty good, so i'm glad for him.
Mojo is the bible for 'heritage rock'
The current issue has the Arctic Monkeys on the cover and articles on David Sylvain, Queen and the Housemartins, amongst others.
A sub-editor's job involves adding headlines and correcting spelling/punctuation/grammar for articles submitted by writers and making sure they adhere to the magazine's house style, and
Not the most exciting job in the music business but it pays the rent.
Sounds fairly respectable
I'm not sure i'd choose to read it myself, but i'd probably quite enjoy a similar job.
Cheers for the updates, and keith, if you're reading this, i dunno... keep on truckin'?
mike diver
I like that review.
I get annoyed by people objecting to reviews by saying, "it doesn't tell me anything about the music," or, "he doesn't tell us what it sounds like."
This review captures the spirit of the album well. Just because it doesn't quote lyrics, or describe his sound, or liken him to another artist doesn't mean that it's not a legitimate way to critique an album.
yes, knowing what
something sounds like is just two clicks away, I dont need a reviewer to describe it to me for seven paragraphs.
this review annoys me
not just because of the fact that it doesn't describe what the album sounds like or make comparisons but simply because it doesn't say anything at all although kudos to Kev this will probably be talked about for sometime.
It reminds a little of the pitchfork review of the Black Kids album in a way.
the Black Kids review was genius
or if not genius, totally on mark, perfect mix of knowing apology and giving that dreadful piece of desperate to be famous shit the shoeing it deserved.
Agreed, on both accounts
Scott Plagenhoef is an amazing writer. Even when he only uses one word.
I think he must be the genius behind Pitchfork.
I liked the Pitchfork review for the second Jet album.
pitchfork's reviews for both jet albums are incredible
as well as Louis XIV's Slick Dogs and Ponies
www.pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/11106-slick-dogs-and-ponies/
and Daft Club
www.pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/2135-daft-club/
whenever i'm feeling sad i read them to cheer myself up
the review is amazing
people who complain that "he's not even discussed the music" are super lame. It's not like there is a giant rulebook detailing what a reviewer can and can't do. It's his fucking job so people should stfu and stop criticising him. If you don't like, then you try and write for the nme and stop acting like some kinda stoopid blogosphere thought police.
Nice idea
Shame about the witless execution.
it's gonzo
And I'm a big fan of gonzo. But it's rubbish gonzo.
This review made me check out Sam Isaacs.
It's not quite as horrendous as the review says - certainly no worse than the singles from Penaté's first album (although maybe even more lacking in ambition)
He lost his nuts,
show some compassion you heartless bastard.
shit, this the reaction to nme reviewing Sam Isaac?
imagine if they reviewed Luke Leighfield... carnage.
Having heard the album
this is no way Kharas could of written 100 words about the music, its the dullest thing I have heard in ages!
omg
this is the emo accent I was trying to describe!! (descroiiibe)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZI1ro0AWR4
I wish kev kissed me on the mouth more often
so I could catch some of his AWESOMENESS.
I think that review
is awesome. I got the gist of it. The record has no nuts and if you listen to it you have no nuts. Review WIN.
ho ho ho ho ho
"It's gonzo. And I'm a big fan of gonzo. But it's rubbish gonzo."
xxxx
it's just basically trying to be like VICE
but not funny or stupid enough like the VICE record reviews (occasionally). Whatever. Most record reviews are bullshit anyway. They should at least give you some information.
Who reads the fucking NME anyway? Free papers and the internet surely mean you don't have to. Fuck em I say
Kharas has always been the worst
remember his Jamie T review on here?
He's in the NME now?
Fair play to him! I used to love it when everyone got mad at his news articles on here.
This thread is three years old
I think he's moved on since.
I KNOW DUHHH
oops