Boards
DiS Reviewers
I'm wondering about your process. Specifically, let's say you can't stand a band. Sean or Colin says they'd like you to review the new Jet album. You sorta sneak a peak at the Pitchfork review just to double check this is going to be a slam dunk. But horror upon horrors, Pitchfork gives it a 9.9. In fact, every publication you respect gives it high marks. You say to yourself, well the Red Sox won the World Series anything is possible. (OK, maybe you say Liverpool won the Euro Cup.) You listen to it and it's the same old Jet. And Jet suck.
Of course, you pan the shit outta them. Cos you've got integrity. Fine. But now how about a "love 'em or hate 'em" band like Fiery Furnances or Architecture in Helsinki? Or how about a mediocre band like Foo Fighters? Given Foo Fighters' sound, could they ever get a good review outta ya? My question is how to you suppress your prejudices in order to give an album a fair shake?
And now a question for the editors, Sean and Colin. Do you pass out assignments even considering your reviewers' biases? For example the official DiS party line is the last British Sea Power record is a good one. But sean rates them very low overall. (I like that for some reason. DiS loves BSP, but its editor hates them.)
I guess what I'm driving at is this. DiSers are very keen to slam the NME for championing garbage bands. But let's face it. DiS champions it own favorites. I'd bet if Patrick Wolf farted for sixty minutes he'd get a rousing round of applause from DiS. What is it that separates DiS from the NME beyond taste preferences?
My guess here is that while the editor of NME makes very conscious decisions about the latest "it" band, DiS mostly throws caution to the wind. That sean and colin don't take specific party lines about anything, which is why it succeeds where the NME fails.
Of course, it's really none of our business how the inner circle works at DiS. However, if any of the top brass would like to share I'm sure the readership here would be interested. Also, DiS regulars may wish to post their thoughts on what separates the integrity of an honest review versus just some fanzine.
(And no, I not writing a research paper! I just happened to catch a case of mr fullerov's insomnia is all. ;-) Think I'd better go find a book to read.)
Of course, you pan the shit outta them. Cos you've got integrity. Fine. But now how about a "love 'em or hate 'em" band like Fiery Furnances or Architecture in Helsinki? Or how about a mediocre band like Foo Fighters? Given Foo Fighters' sound, could they ever get a good review outta ya? My question is how to you suppress your prejudices in order to give an album a fair shake?
And now a question for the editors, Sean and Colin. Do you pass out assignments even considering your reviewers' biases? For example the official DiS party line is the last British Sea Power record is a good one. But sean rates them very low overall. (I like that for some reason. DiS loves BSP, but its editor hates them.)
I guess what I'm driving at is this. DiSers are very keen to slam the NME for championing garbage bands. But let's face it. DiS champions it own favorites. I'd bet if Patrick Wolf farted for sixty minutes he'd get a rousing round of applause from DiS. What is it that separates DiS from the NME beyond taste preferences?
My guess here is that while the editor of NME makes very conscious decisions about the latest "it" band, DiS mostly throws caution to the wind. That sean and colin don't take specific party lines about anything, which is why it succeeds where the NME fails.
Of course, it's really none of our business how the inner circle works at DiS. However, if any of the top brass would like to share I'm sure the readership here would be interested. Also, DiS regulars may wish to post their thoughts on what separates the integrity of an honest review versus just some fanzine.
(And no, I not writing a research paper! I just happened to catch a case of mr fullerov's insomnia is all. ;-) Think I'd better go find a book to read.)