I Think I'll Go Home And Mull This Over 'Fore I Cram It Down My Throat
[Note: The opinions in this blog do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Collegian Inc.]
Reviewing albums kind of sucks sometimes. I mean, granted, you have to take the bad with the good, but here's why it sucks: while most people with opinions on albums are free to change their minds at any time, sometimes without explanation, a music reviewer can't just do that. Once that shit runs in the paper with my name attached, I'm married to those opinions. I can't write a retraction without calling my credibility into question.
And I guess that offers more motivation to make sure you get the review right, but sometimes you just can't do it. I couldn't have written a review of the Arcade Fire's new album. I have no idea how I feel about the album. I know I wouldn't have given it an A, but I also know I don't know what I'd have given it.
I gave The Shins' new album a C. I sometimes feel like I'm being the typical rockist asshole who respects artists from the '60s for being innovative when they really weren't, all the while killing new bands for being derivative and unimaginative when they're really making great music. I feel like I may have come down too hard on the Shins' new album because I felt it wasn't nearly as good as their first two albums. I still feel that way, but I don't know if it warranted a C. I had "Phantom Limb" stuck in my head all day today without even having listened to it in weeks. It's a really great song. And every time I start whistling that opening verse, there's this gigantic "C" staring me in the face.
When Rolling Stone originally reviewed Weezer's Pinkerton, it got 3 stars. It was later voted the second-worst album of the year in the Readers' Poll. Granted, most readers of Rolling Stone are idiots, but still. Every so often, Rolling Stone does these "Hall of Fame" reviews in which they'll basically re-review an old album, or review an old album they just never reviewed before. They're always either 5-star or 4.5-star albums. They did one of these for Pinkerton and gave it a glowing, cock-sucking 5-star review. Originally, they bashed "Across the Sea" for being juvenile or something, which is ridiculous since it's one of the five best Weezer songs ever. Now the old review is wiped clean from their archives. I think about this every time I look at a Rolling Stone review. Actually, I more often think about how arbitrary their star system is, but it still crosses my mind sometimes. It's a piece of shit magazine. I know this. But then I think about how I've written reviews I wish I could have back, and I just can't take them back. One of these days I'm going to throw an 86 MPH fastball to Joe Carter and I won't be able to have that one back.
You'll often hear people talk about albums being "growers." I hate this term. It's a completely subjective justification of the supposed quality of an album. When someone tells you they don't like an album, you can just say "It's a grower" without backing it up and all of a sudden they're an idiot for disliking it.
But that's one of the problems with reviewing an album. Some albums actually are growers. It's a real problem when you're trying to write a review and trying to convince yourself that yes, this album does indeed suck. Modest Mouse's new album sucks, after a few listens. But what if, after another five listens, it's awesome? Then I feel like a douche for giving it a bad review.
I realize that nobody really cares about this, I'm sure. James Mercer is not reading The Daily Collegian's Arts in Review page and saying "Hey! Fuck you, Kevin Doran!" I also just blanketly assume that nobody reads our Arts in Review page, even most people who are fans of music in general. So really, I'm just getting my panties in a bunch for no reason. And when I worry about my future as a music reporter, publications aren't going to scour the Collegian archives to find the reviews I fucked up on. They're going to look at the ones that I show them, the ones that are kickass. My predicament is a bit like committing a victimless crime. Nobody else is hurt by it, and in the end, I benefit from it, but I have to live with the knowledge of my failings for the rest of my life.
But I'm pretty sure the new Modest Mouse album sucks.
Reviewing albums kind of sucks sometimes. I mean, granted, you have to take the bad with the good, but here's why it sucks: while most people with opinions on albums are free to change their minds at any time, sometimes without explanation, a music reviewer can't just do that. Once that shit runs in the paper with my name attached, I'm married to those opinions. I can't write a retraction without calling my credibility into question.
And I guess that offers more motivation to make sure you get the review right, but sometimes you just can't do it. I couldn't have written a review of the Arcade Fire's new album. I have no idea how I feel about the album. I know I wouldn't have given it an A, but I also know I don't know what I'd have given it.
I gave The Shins' new album a C. I sometimes feel like I'm being the typical rockist asshole who respects artists from the '60s for being innovative when they really weren't, all the while killing new bands for being derivative and unimaginative when they're really making great music. I feel like I may have come down too hard on the Shins' new album because I felt it wasn't nearly as good as their first two albums. I still feel that way, but I don't know if it warranted a C. I had "Phantom Limb" stuck in my head all day today without even having listened to it in weeks. It's a really great song. And every time I start whistling that opening verse, there's this gigantic "C" staring me in the face.
When Rolling Stone originally reviewed Weezer's Pinkerton, it got 3 stars. It was later voted the second-worst album of the year in the Readers' Poll. Granted, most readers of Rolling Stone are idiots, but still. Every so often, Rolling Stone does these "Hall of Fame" reviews in which they'll basically re-review an old album, or review an old album they just never reviewed before. They're always either 5-star or 4.5-star albums. They did one of these for Pinkerton and gave it a glowing, cock-sucking 5-star review. Originally, they bashed "Across the Sea" for being juvenile or something, which is ridiculous since it's one of the five best Weezer songs ever. Now the old review is wiped clean from their archives. I think about this every time I look at a Rolling Stone review. Actually, I more often think about how arbitrary their star system is, but it still crosses my mind sometimes. It's a piece of shit magazine. I know this. But then I think about how I've written reviews I wish I could have back, and I just can't take them back. One of these days I'm going to throw an 86 MPH fastball to Joe Carter and I won't be able to have that one back.
You'll often hear people talk about albums being "growers." I hate this term. It's a completely subjective justification of the supposed quality of an album. When someone tells you they don't like an album, you can just say "It's a grower" without backing it up and all of a sudden they're an idiot for disliking it.
But that's one of the problems with reviewing an album. Some albums actually are growers. It's a real problem when you're trying to write a review and trying to convince yourself that yes, this album does indeed suck. Modest Mouse's new album sucks, after a few listens. But what if, after another five listens, it's awesome? Then I feel like a douche for giving it a bad review.
I realize that nobody really cares about this, I'm sure. James Mercer is not reading The Daily Collegian's Arts in Review page and saying "Hey! Fuck you, Kevin Doran!" I also just blanketly assume that nobody reads our Arts in Review page, even most people who are fans of music in general. So really, I'm just getting my panties in a bunch for no reason. And when I worry about my future as a music reporter, publications aren't going to scour the Collegian archives to find the reviews I fucked up on. They're going to look at the ones that I show them, the ones that are kickass. My predicament is a bit like committing a victimless crime. Nobody else is hurt by it, and in the end, I benefit from it, but I have to live with the knowledge of my failings for the rest of my life.
But I'm pretty sure the new Modest Mouse album sucks.
posted by Kevin A. Doran at 1:53 AM
1 Comments:
" I also just blanketly assume that nobody reads our Arts in Review page, even most people who are fans of music in general."
-not true, i read your reviews pretty addictively. and that was before i met you!
Post a Comment
<< Home