Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
(b) I don't think they get free tickets
(c) In general, yes, a little bit - I don't think journos just doing it for work typically have the same experience as regular attendees
they're, like, weird stalkerishly obsessed with it these days, I can't remember a review of there's I've read in the last year that hasn't made a direct reference to P4K, it's a bit uncomfortable.
this frothy mouth need to slag them off at every opportunity. its little brother jealousy syndrome.
I suppose the thing is that if you're a fan of CMG, you must quite enjoy their P4K obsession, so I suppose this is 'for you' - it's not like it was perfunctory, just a bit mental and stalkery...
but the guy clearly has no intention of approaching the festival with an open mind or enjoying it. 'we sit down,and when everyone else stands up we stay sitting down and watch their knees instead of the band'. i know it's probably supposed to be funny, but it's sad
is presumably if you read CMG then you probably enjoy their mental obsession with P4K and this probably seems quite reasonable to you. Whereas yeah, from a 'normal' perspective what you're saying is bang on.
I could be doing it a great disservice, I'm not a regular reader, but every time I read one of their reviews it just seems to be a weird refutation of the P4K review first and foremost.
I always took it seriously though - I wouldn't review a gig after strolling in halfway through or leaving two songs in, or ostentatiously discliam my criticisms throughout.
It has ruined me though - I can't queue for gigs anymore. Drives me mad.
It's not like this writer's getting paid to spend his time writing that review, and much as the P4K obsession is pretty dull, it's a damn sight more involved than your average review written by someone who's doing it 'just for work'. I mean, read the average festival review in a decent broadsheet - it's usually pretty short and vague. Say what you like about the review (I'm not a fan) but the guy's put his own time into writing it.
that's my point though, he is getting paid - in free tickets.
And likely get paid for the time they spend at work writing the article.
"This year I laid down the fliff for the three-day pass" - now, I'm no expert in Chi-Town slang, but I would guess that 'fliff' means moolah in this context. And anyway as lukowski notes above, calling Pitchfork pricks is one of CMG's modus operandi; a review of the festival sanctioned by the website would frankly be a disappointment if it didn't get all snarky.
but if that's the case it makes him a bigger tool
and now you're annoyed about someone paying to go to a festival and writing about it? Doesn't make any sense.
guy spends money on a festival he already thinks is shit before he even goes, then spends the review talking about how he'd rather not be there.
As though there's some obligation to have a good time at every event?
The guy says in his review that he's giving the festival another chance citing his own attitudes towards Pitchfork and his own inability to apply sunscreen as the reasons for not enjoying it before.
He didn't enjoy it again. If he goes next year then he's an idiot wasting his own time and money. If he goes again next year and writes another negative review of it, then his status as arsehole can be confirmed. But until then just accept it as a bad review of a festival you didn't go to.
free writing is often better than paid writing, and even in magazines you cant guarantee the writer is getting paid anyway. it isnt an exact indicator of quality.
especially the bit about shirtless sweat wiping. And sunburn. Why the fuck festival organisers can't give a shit enough about their audience to give people a bit of shade is totally beyond me.
and decided I never want to read anything from CMG ever again. Complete rubbish. His writing is stream-of-conscious blog bullshit, and slanted from the git-go. He apparently doesn't know that 'Anthem for a 17-yr-old Girl' is Emily Haines. And really, here's this guy going to a festival determined to hate it. WTF is that about?
Look, dude. Pitchfork has better writers than you guys at CMG. A gazillion more readers. And they have better taste. OK, fair enough, they're better than everybody. But there's still room on the planet for other perspectives. For example, DiS does a pretty damn good job! We make a pretty strong showing for second place and don't bitch about PF every chance we get. Like the guy above, who called CMG PF's little brother with a inferiority complex-- it's not attractive when you wear your petty jealousies on your shirt sleeve.
Personally, I don't like to go to festivals, erm, cos I don't like to go to festivals. On the other hand, if I did like to go to festivals, Pitchfork seems to gather a pretty damn good bunch of bands each and every year. I've seen BSS when Kevin Drew was so drunk he could barely stand...and it was still pretty great. This dude can't be trusted. CMG is a bad joke.
I want to go to shite festivals for free just so I can write half-arsed 'reviews'.
but the writing's stil clunky and over the top. the pitchfork hate is a little pathetic as ever. also: he complains about the "grating inability to tweet". fucking twat
that was the bit that got me too. what a bellend.
he can't go for 3 fucking days without narcissistically gloating about what a shit time he's having
But in general, do people prefer this first-person type of review these days? Most gig/festival write-ups used to be in the third-person with a bit of background, research & insightful comment, but I’m seeing more & more of these blog-style things, and they bore the hell out of me.
I just wanna read about the bands, not how you got there, who you went with & how long you queued for beers. Even the recent festival reviews on here have been LOL ISNT IT HOT I DRANK LOTS OF BEER LOL I MISSED MOST OF THE BANDS COS I FELL ASLEEP LOL DUNNO WHO THAT BAND WAS BUT THEY WERE QUITE GOOD OOH MY FRIEND FELL OVER A TENT HES WELL WACKY.
Do people actually wanna read that stuff? Cos I don’t.
Live reviews are mostly really boring. They played song x, then song y. They did an encore. Snore. It's not so much the first person perspective which is important per se, but just the injection of some fucking life into a review. It's music, it ought to be enjoyable to read, not just functional. Fuck functional. Those latitude reviews on here were good, more of that.
in the review.
Really, you have two options: either the reviewer represents a shared opinion drawn from across a team (such that any biases *should* even out) or you go for the more individual approach. I'm utterly sick of the former: it places the emphasis on scoring systems, which will inevitably drift towards the centre, and score tables ("OMFG I can't believe the Tittybiscuits album only got 93%, it totally deserved 94%"), and the anonymity just makes it easier to follow current trends.
I rather like the CMG review: the dude went in with an obvious slant, stated it, and came away with a better-than-expected opinion. If I was trying to decide whether to go or not, I'd also probably look for a 'straight' review too, but this has value as an individual response.
They seem to be filled with the unwashed masses, I don't feel any kinship with people at festivals, it's more like they're invading my space, and the whole thing feels vaguely bovine. As opposed to a Lightning Bolt/Wolf Eyes show at a warehouse where you get the feeling that everyone's there because they value something similar, which provides a sort of common ground.
I quite like half assed reviews. It's slightly more interesting than reading the same formulaic stuff over and over.
subjective reviewing is less apparent in music journalism, but it's interesting to note that there was a distinct and purposive shift in videogames journalism. Wikipedia has a nice quote on it:
"Most New Games Journalism articles are not reviews of games in the traditional sense. They can instead be understood as being analogous to travel journalism, where the writer responds to subjective experiences presented to them by the game world, as well as interactions with other players online, real-world events surrounding gameplay, and other personal experiences and anecdotes which create a unique story. The story is not necessarily indicative of the experience any other player will have with the game and will be unlikely to offer any objective value-judgements regarding the game's merits or failings. Instead attention is focused on the subjective experience of the person playing the game."
And yeah, there are lots and lots of people who hate new games journalism too.
they're journalists, it's work, why the feck should they pay for it?