Elbows Music Blog Community

earbuddy

Just curious about something:

My PR reps always ask for coverage links to posts that my staff writers and I write for their artists. My question is how do you handle the stuff that you don't necessarily like? There's been many times where we've gotten albums that just sucked, and we're not going to pretend to like it in our reviews. Do you still shoot the publicity reps a link to the post even though you pretty much shredded the artist that they're representing?

Nick

Tim

I just don't write about it if I don't like it - I find it a complete waste of time to do so, especially with so much good stuff out there.

If the PR is getting pushy about a review - say you don't like it and they will magically stop hassling you. They would prefer no review over a bad review too.

earbuddy

But if your blog posted nothing but good reviews all the time, wouldn't it hurt your credibility as a critic? Pitchfork shreds many artists without any concern though I understand they are the biggest medium for any indie artist to get exposure so they're not going to lose PR reps. Are they more likely to stop contacting blogs if they don't receive praise all the time?

apocketfullofseeds

Posting negative reviews is always a bit difficult to grapple with.

I like to see a blog that has clear opinion and isn't just adding to the general consensus that The National are a good band (for example). The main issue for me is that people dont really want to hear bad music so it's not a great way to approach readers, also it's not fair to give a small band with almost no coverage a load of abuse. That being said if you run a site whereby people are particularly interested in your opinion (like Pitchfork or Song, By Toad) then you have more freedom to do something other than suggest good music.

Try it out see what happens, don't worry too much about PR relationships, if they represent artists you don't want to listen to then it really doesn't matter

Tim

It depends on whether you're looking at a music blog as a general music site or just a blog I think.

Pitchfork (and any other more general music site that pretty much reviews *all* releases obviously need to post bad reviews. Not all music is good, not all mid-sized label indie music is good. If your modus operandi is to review it all then you *need* bad reviews otherwise, yes, your credibility would be hurt.

If you just pick and choose music to talk about, then I don't think it hurts your credibility as a blogger.

If you want a job in music journalism, then you will need to show how you treat music you don't like - so then yes you would need to share bad reviews.

Different horses for different courses and all that.

Slowcoustic

I am almost thinking that posting a bad review can hurt a blog as much as it helps a budding "music critic". Obviously if you are a music site of numerous contributors there often isn't a single genre or overall style of music covered which I guess is fine and would lead to some authors not liking bands/albums and then posting on it.

I don't post negative reviews - I might mention that I don't like Band A's 2nd album versus their 1st and 3rd albums, but I don't put aside space and make a post to tell others it sucks. I don't see the use of it at all - no coverage is more than good enough in my books. I guess posting a review on an album you were really looking forward to that you ended up hating might be okay, but putting together a post to slag a band that you are not a fan of in the first place is simply trolling for hits.

This crosses over on the "blogger" versus "music critic" portion of the discussion and let's be honest, some bloggers fancy themselves critics in the true sense but overall the public don't always equate music blogger with music critic. I actually think the people who would are in the minority. Maybe I am old school and don't pretend to be searching for some magical future in the music industry, so I wonder why people think that peppering their blog with negative reviews somehow makes them more legitimate.

I also don't want to be gotten wrong, sometimes I love reading a review where the band gets trashed...unless I like said band, then I hate it! ;-) I also think throwing Pitchfork in the mix is funny as they are not even close to being a music blog - that is a business now, plain and simple (and good on them for doing it). And Song, by Toad - that guy is just an asshole who likes drinking and swearing.

$0.02

squashed

if you stand by your post, then send the link and be frank about it. You have to be able to say it honestly. I have good reason to write that unpleasant review.

but in general, never write negative review unless you know your readers urgently need to know the information. (eg. highly anticipated/expensive purchase/over hyped/extremely damaging ego maniac project/way over artist's head/total sell out/crap of the century/crime against culture/corrupting mind of youth/wtf is this garbage? They actually push this shit?)

But in my opinion, this sort of situation is fairly rare if you run a good blog. My favorite approach to review still is straight forward. Here is the album. the good part, the ugly part, where the album comes from/context, why this album is worth your attention. As a blog, you have to be able to justify, why you waste readers time reading your review. What's in it for your reader in context of the album. Never write a negative review just because you can post it in your blog. Negative review should be rare. VERY RARE.

If you just want to entertain readers with a post, and strickly write negative album review, do it using different form other than "review". (eg. humor post, irreverent top ten list, ha ha, weekend comedy hour folks, ...etc. be creative.)

but Don't waste people's time by trashing album in a review because you can.

More importantly, be forgiving to new artists. It's your job to foster new music. You don't owe jack to PR person. Your responsibility is to readers, artist and music.

earbuddy

I was referring to 'bad reviews' as a review that doesn't necessarily praise the album. We don't go out of our way to trash any particular artist or seek to troll any of them. If we get a release from a band that one of my writers or I necessarily don't like, we pass it off to someone else that might have a different opinion so that our own personal bias won't come across as that. I agree with forgiving new artists, and many times I refuse to review their albums in favor of just promoting their songs or doing an interview with them -- that way I shield them from any potential bad press. If they make music I don't like, then I just don't promote them.

I think you owe it to your audience to point out whether or not you believe an established band is phoning it in though.

squashed

In that case, send the link. It's too bad if the PR person doesn't like your reviewing style.

(my definition of "bad review" is squarely about warning reader what crap of an album they are about to spend money on. Bad review is not about pointing out the good and bad part of an album.)

SFCritic

I think there are bad reviews and good "critical" reviews. If you can explain in a coherent, productive way WHY you don't like something then I think it's good content. Simply saying it sounds like something that is already been done is a pathetic way of saying "I don't know anything about this music but I don't like it."

tiana

I don't even know how I would have time to post bad reviews o_o.. too much good stuff I can hardly find time to post

earbuddy

It's easy to find time, especially if something is embarrassingly bad and insulting on some levels, then I find pleasure in it. Has anyone heard the Black Belles album? It's the most recent bad review that I had to write, and it's because the band is an exact carbon copy of the White Stripes and Dead Weather. Jack White produced them and released them through Third Man though, so that's most likely the reason.

Elbows Music Blog Community

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories