Re: The prickly subject of reviewing/AHN-- longish

[Philharpn@xxxxxxx]

Greetings, harp fans: I concur with what Winslow has said about reviewing and 
it is often a lose-lose situation.

I've always tried to follow the idea (I stole from literary criticism) that 
focuses on 
- --What is the artist doing?
- --How well was it done?
- -- Was it worth doing in the first place?

Basically, what this comes down to is providing enough information about the 
book (harp) or CD so the reader can make up his/her own mind.

Consequently, I eschew statements about routine or average performances to 
focus on what the performer is doing.

Of course, if I really like the album it's much easier to write because I 
have more to say about it, without being fulsome.

Time is another issue. When I covered concerts (Ella Fitzgerald was one in 
Detroit) I had to write it up the next day (I had already interviewed her on 
the phone the day before the concert). When I write reviews nowadays for AHN, 
I have to steal time between my two day jobs and I don't have the luxury of 
spending a day on one review -- because I have to do several articles if I am 
ever going to get done.

AHN often prints submissions from free-lancers: that mean's everybody other 
than Phil and Al -- the only permanent staff. 

I would rather have an enthusiastic reviewer tell why he/she really likes the 
playing of somebody than have to listen to a CD of someone I've never heard 
of before.

Often AHN runs reviews of one enthusiast whose comments range from "d--- fine 
playing" to "he's a h----of a player" and I try to edit out the D' and H's 
(sometimes I miss) and what is left is a "wow oh wow, what a great player and 
great album" review. But it serves one purpose: points out the artist's new 
release it out.

It also means that I don't have to run another picture of an antique 
harmonica to fill the space. For those of you who don't publish and face 
deadlines, this may be a novel concept.

In terms of recordings: It's really difficult to screw up classic blues 
songs; it's really tough to make a great album of original blues songs. So 
the covers usually turn out better than the "originals." But it's not a 
matter of one is great and the other stinks.
It's just that it's tough trying to come up with a song that will match one 
of Muddy's greatest, or the Big & Little Walter and Sonny Boy 1 and others.
 
If you like Howlin' Wolf, every Howlin' Wolf song is great because it comes 
up to the standard.

I have purchased probably as many Rod Piazza CDs as I have received as 
promotional review copies. I just recently received a compilation in the mail 
that I have been listening to while driving back and forth to work. He was 
always good from the start and he never put out a bad album. Some of the 
songs are different from others, some are more bluesy or jazzy than others. 
And it's often difficult to pick a favorite from an album. I know his next CD 
won't have a clinker on the disc. But that is not the point: it's Rod has a 
new album out and this is what it's like.

One of the biggest disappointment for a reviewer is being disappointed about 
a book (or CD) that he had waited for and hoped to praise. (NYT reviewer said 
that, but it has happened to me several times. I just can't NOT review the 
book or CD. I want to cover it (in the newspaper sense) as a newsworthy item: 
this is what is being released now. (American Harmonica Newsmagazine used to 
be monthly, now every two months is still somewhat timely, I like to think.)

Some of the best sources sometimes disappoint.
Even the New York Times allowed someone to confuse Big Walter Horton with 
Little Walter in a review recently. 

A defunct blues magazine once blasted the then-latest album of a guitar 
player who had played in the Muddy Water's band for being a terrible playing 
just ripping of Muddy's legacy. Only problem was, review had the WRONG album 
name and other glaring errors (did he misspell the guitarist's name?) that 
made it clear the reviewer just didn't like the guitar player.

Mostly, I read lots of reviews on the AP feed to the newspaper where I work 
on the copy desk and in the slicks: Time, Newsweek, Entertainment Weekly, 
People, Esquire, Playboy -- then I check them out on the Web for more 
details.

I never heard of Nora Jones until the New York Times started doing feature 
stories on her -- before the Grammy's, and ended up buying her CD and DVD.

Even articles written AGAINST movies, books or CDs sometime persuade me to 
watch them or purchase them because I disagree with the importance of the 
writer's objections.


In a message dated 4/14/2003 5:27:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
winslowyerxa@xxxxxxxxx writes:


> 
> 
> I've been following with some interest the fallout from Bonfiglio's
> post about his Florida concert.
> 
> At various times I've approached people I considered to be
> knowledgeable and good writers about writing reviews for HIP. Quite
> often, they wanted nothing to do with it, and acted like I'd handed
> them a hot potato. They were afraid of offending someone and injuring
> their goodwill. At times, I've managed to offend people even by writing
> positive reviews that were somehow misinterpreted as negative.
> 
> In order to encourage people to write reviews, and to give guidelines
> on how to do it well, and how to live with yourself while doing it, I
> wrote a reviewer's guide, which can be accessed at:
> 
> 
> http://www.angelfire.com/music2/harmonicainfo/resource/critguid/critguid.htm
> 
> It includes sections on why reviewing is a valuable activity and what
> it is and is *not.
> 
> Good criticism equals good thinking and is, I think, essential to the
> development of any art. Writing about the harmonica by its friends has
> for decades involved a lot of rah-rah puffery that is embarrassing to
> read, lacking in content, and helps no-one. Writing by the ignorant and
> the unfriendly is no better, but to be honest isn't much worse.
> 
> Winslow