Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
might find this vaguely interesting:
CAUTION: CONTAINS PITCHFORK
I got bored of that after 2 paragrahs
the cautionary note at the end. It's Pitchfork after all.
if its become irritating, then surely people will be irritated by it regardless of whether someone gives a ridiculously over long list of examples of meta-art with a poorly explored conclusion tacked on?
Once again, Pitchfork fails to be as clever as it thinks it is.
Thing is, there's no fourth wall in a review. It's supposed to be direct communication between writer and reader, and it's supposed to be self-aware. So the I'm-being-meta-about-meta conceit falls down, really. And the article's just the usual "look how many obscure bands I'm into" shite.
a review can be especially self referential; eg the pitchfork review of dcfc - transatlanticism. read it. you'll see what i mean.
and there werent really many obscure bands listed there to be honest.
It's not clever to be self-referential when you're writing non-fiction. Generically, there's no attempt to disguise the fact that you're a person writing about something. Fiction's masked, so it is (or was, once, briefly) an amusing trick to draw attention to the very thing you're meant to be trying to hide. Now it's become as much of a cliche as the cliches it was trying to expose in the first place.
To be more specific, about music reviews: The point is to communicate the sound of the music to the reader. I think this is best achieved using easy-to-understand sentences written in a style which reflects the music, be it fast, slow, beautiful, ugly, whatever.
If the over-riding theme of a review is anything other than the music and the effect the music has on the reviewer, then it has failed as a review.
The over-riding theme of that DCfC review was William Morris's insecurity as a writer. That may be intentional (it was certainly explicit enough), but it still makes the review a failure.
and thus you can self reflexively comment on it.
Where's the artifice? There shouldn't be artifice. Here's an album/single/gig, I'm going to tell you my opinion of it. End of. Artifice clouds things, and I don't get why anyone would want that in a piece of informative writing.
telling you what they thought?
objectivity is unattainable. any attempt at it is artificial.
I'm not seeing the connection between your two statements. Or between your post and mine.
Who said objectivity? Who said pub, or that matter?
A review is one person's opinion of the product they are reviewing. Subjective. Nothing more, nothing less. Pretending objectivity would be artificial, yes, but good reviews don't do that. good reviews clearly state the reviewer's opinion of the item they are reviewing. No artifice.
and the statements werent connected.
but there are conventions in music writing as in any other creative endeavour, and, if you step outside of the normal conventions and reflect on them, it is a metareview.
thats almost as challenging as a Mike Diver review
The only part of that review that wasn't painfully bourgious and just begging to be censored for being seditious and offensive to the masses was the part at the end where he admitted he either didn't have or forgot the point of the whole article.
offensive to the masses?