Reviewers no more? The disappearing advance copy
This has already been quite a year for quick releases. A few weeks ago, it was Nine Inch Nails’ Ghosts I-IV and then soon after, it was the Raconteurs and Gnarls Barkley who decided to rush their latest albums on to the market. What’s significant isn’t just the speed that these are coming out (no doubt to try to thwart downloads) but also that they were sprung on the marketplace without giving reviewers an early start. Bad movies are usually released without any critic previews because they already know that they’re gonna get panned with what’s with these albums? Rest assured, it’s not because the artists think they’re gonna get panned.
With the advent of online zines, blogs and in some cases, built in fan bases, some artists figure that the critics just shouldn’t be a consideration in their release schedule. In the Net/download age where everything seems to be instantly available, having fans wait weeks or months ahead for an item that’s already making the rounds in critical circles seems like pre-digital-age dead-weight that needs to die. As a fan, I understand that thinking—I want the music NOW and not wait for the damn stuff while a select few at national mags get to chew over the tunes.
But I’m a writer too and I worry about this trend. I have no problem with launching tunes as soon as they’re ready but I also know that when I write (even this blog), I rarely like to spill my thoughts without taking some time to think it over first—what I’m writing in this post right now has been fermenting in my brain over the last few days. As such, I’d hope that musicians would do the same thing sometimes and make sure that they’re really happy with what they’re putting out. Sometimes, doing and redoing only waters down and dilutes good music but other times, some perspective can tell you that all of your work ain’t genius and maybe it’s not something you wanna release with your name attached to it.
The other thing that concerns me about the quick release schedules is that it might make criticism less important. I know, I know- some music journalism is indeed crapola and deserves to be taken out back and shot. But for all the good writing that does exist out there, having it mean less makes the whole music community a poorer place. The best music writing doesn’t just give a thumbs up or down but also creates dialog, ideas and context for the music we love. It can deepen our appreciation of it or make us see it in a new way. If that becomes less important as a result of the quick releases, then I think all of us suffer in the end.
With that in mind, check out Adrian Serle: ”Critical Condition” (The Guardian, 18 March 2008). It’s yet another ‘death of criticism’ article but also one that makes a good case about why the average reader should be concerned as well as a warning to scribes about what their mission should be.
Being iconoclastic, slagging off artists and institutions, gets a critic noticed. Anger, undeniably, is also a good motive for writing in the first place. Controversy, the smell of blood, the whiff of scandal—this makes careers. It also sells newspapers and magazines. Of course it is the duty of the critic to be iconoclastic, and to be reckless; but critical terrorism is no good as a long-term strategy. It becomes predictable, and the adrenaline buzz soon wears off. It is also disingenuous, and ultimately a false position. There is such a thing as bad faith, and lousy opinions.
I’m sorry, but this argument makes no sense. Advance reviews are really just glorified buying guides, turning the reviewer into a little more than a thumb in one direction or another (unless you are talking RS, where you have to account for star inflation rates for anyone Jann Wenner has or wants to fuck - see e.g., REM, Mick Jagger, et al.). Personally I have no interest in a review and can’t make much sense of it until I have heard the record. Then it can prompt thought. Rushing records is good for the fans. And it will be good for the reviewers who have something to say. Those who are shills will see their roles reduced. And a smaller, but more valuable field of critics will remain. Like VHS and BETA, it’s a blessing in disguise my friend.
Comment by jeff from LA — March 25, 2008 @ 10:41 pm
Yeah, music criticism makes a huge difference in what I buy, especially since ‘critics’ do things like review albums without even listening to them. Good riddance. I can listen to full song samples so easily now that I can (oh my god) decide for myself if I like it.
“Writing about music is like dancing about architecture...”
--Elvis Costello
Comment by Mike from Raleigh — March 26, 2008 @ 8:48 am
Mike, don’t live your life through the quotes of others. It’s also funny you use a quote by somebody else as the crux of your argument about deciding things for yourself. tsk tsk
Comment by matt from New York — March 26, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
Is that pic at the top from Bonnaroo? That’s what it looks like to me.....
Comment by Dr. Kyle Gerrard Stark The First from CANADA — March 26, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
Dear Mike from Raleigh,
Yes, you can listen to full song samples easily now and (oh my god) decide for yourself if you like it. In fact, PopMatters links to previews and video in every music review. But where are you going to hear about music that may interest you if there are no music journalists? Word of mouth is sketchy at best and, if you hold a full-time job, you’ll find it pretty hard to browse every single MySpace and Last.FM page yourself while trying not to read any text. Think of critics as a Brita filter, distilling sound into words that make your choices easier. I, for one, take no critic’s word as gospel, but if they’re doing their job, I’ll at least know who made it and what it sounds like. What more do you need?
Comment by Filmore Mescalito Holmes from Vansterdam, BC — March 27, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
Artists owes nothing to critics/journalists. If they want to make their latest contributions for reviewing purposes in advance, fine. If they don’t, fine again. The argument that “quick release schedules is that it might make criticism less important” is at best feeble.
Anyway since when a good critic needs the “collaboration” of an artist to do his work. By definition a good critic as to be as independent as possible from any external influences.
Comment by Pierre Allard from Newbury Park, CA — March 30, 2008 @ 11:56 am
, if you hold a full-time job, you’ll find it pretty hard to browse every single MySpace and Last.FM page yourself while trying not to read any text. Think of critics as a Brita filter, distilling sound into words that make your choices easier.
Condos for sale in Toronto
Comment by Toronto Lofts — April 19, 2008 @ 3:19 pm