Reviews Philosophy

21 Feb

The new review system* i’d like to put up in a separate place in this blog I will attempt to illustrate here. The underlying philosophies are all I can encapsulate and of course as this is more forum than publication let this be open to all revisions. The key is that it has something for everyone in its two parts. At once it is an instant recommendation system* encapsulated by a simple YES or NO followed by a one line to one word additive stressing wit with clarity not necessary. An example would be MGMT’s Congratulations as ‘NO, and why?’. Then beneath the hook, would be an in-depth explanation as to why it doesn’t merit a listen (for me because the formula of ingenious hooks combined with philosophical lyrics was a formula sustainable for at least one more album and their new sound hasn’t caught up to their old direction). For a YES album (or book, or film, I think this system works for all media) the review would focus on exactly what works from the concept to the emotions, from the lyrics to the music, from the approach to the product. Sharing good art is the goal here. Evaluating pieces qualitatively and not quantitatively is a challenge no one wants to undertake. Pitchfork often hides behind a number and then writes glowing reviews of 6s or scathing reviews of 7s. This system will be impossible to equivocate within the P4k system, meaning you cannot envision a number cut off for the YES or NO. YESes are not figurative 8s or above but instead albums that have changed something about you. This isn’t about ‘good’ music, it’s about worthwhile music which brings me to the second part.

In this system, like the rest of the blog we ought to focus on discussion rather than argument. If someone were to post a ‘YES, glory’ hook for Congratulations my job wouldn’t be to directly respond to their review, but rather to write my review in the same way with an understanding of the previous post to prevent rehash. This means more ground is covered as opposed to the same ground with different opinions. The second idea is to focus on more obscure albums. Of course we know that Arcade Fire and Animal Collective are doing something special, but who are Cloud Cult and what do they mean? Who are God is an Astronaut? Lastly the albums you choose to review, you should have pretty good mastery of them. I know music tastes will change slowly over time, but after four or five sifts you are usually left with something close to your final opinion. And hopefully that product allows us a new dimension not on other sites. Reviewing not as a way to hegemonize our opinion but as a way to share new music and connect within the dusty cellar oft overlooked art. Because somewhere there I think lies what all of this is all about.

All ideas marked with * and probably most or not all of the other ideas belong to Derek.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Reviews Philosophy”

  1. octobear February 21, 2011 at 5:50 pm #

    i’ve again tampered with the blog a bit.
    for viewing: click ‘the reel’ and then one of the categories
    for writing: categorize reviews as ‘Review’ and anything to do with our film projects as ‘Project’. Everything else stays the same.

  2. abeasty February 23, 2011 at 8:46 pm #

    Heyo! I like this system. Hopefully after 4 or 5 practice reviews the annoying pitchfork that’s been stuck under my skin for the past several years will be pried free (and oh! those few drops of blood to be spilled are tears of joy).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s