Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
what are your constructive suggestions? or rather, what do you hate about music journalism/journalists?
Honestly, whenever I write one I think: how would those PF fuckers do it? and then infuse my commentary into it. It's gotta be some seemless blend of fact, description (ie Emily Moore always says to me: TELL ME WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE BY THE 2ND PARA!), and opinion.
So Weingarten's point about avoiding the "it makes me think of the time I was sitting on a purple mountaintop with Tibetian monks" makes sense, but there are exceptions to the rule. There are times when it's okay to bring in a personal experience, but I'd say it's better to make your point quickly and bring it back to the main subject eg the record, as within a line or two. But, yeah, it can be a handy device in which to bring about a satisfying circle in an intro and concluding paragraph.
I got Morley mixed up with Weingarten. Whoops. Anyway, there was a really good thread a couple years back where Billy Hamilton was talking about how he went about putting together his reviews.
I miss Billy being here. :( ...Lukowski ought to send him an olive branch to come back.
With some writers it's just annoying and they barely reference the band at all, but others can make you look at the album in a different light. And you do want to out enough of yourself into the review to make it noticeable, otherwise it could have been written by any number of faceless journos.
Basically try writing in both styles, direct and long-winded, and see which reads better to you afterwards and then stick with that.
...and I'm specifically thinking of Melody Maker here. Yes, it was often pompous, self-indulgent drivel but, hell, it was good drivel. Seriously, though, I thought there was a great deal of creativity in music journalism in that era which you don't see so much now. To me, it all started to go downhill post-Britpop.