I think negative criticism is o.k., but you're right about the wrong critic reviewing certain items. I remember Rolling Stone gave Nirvana's Nevermind album 2 or 3 stars, only to find out later that it was the very definition of a 5 star album--subsequently Nirvana got "Artist of the Year" for their lackluster review.
The problem is that they run the risk of letting the general public miss out on some wonderful things.
And generally, I think of Fight Club when I read reviews--"How's that working out for you....being clever?" I think they're more interested in writing itself and being "fresh" in their language than writing some insightful text. They think "being clever" is being insightful, but I don't necessarily think it is.
Steve Spangler
- -
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:09:49 EST
From: Samerivertwice@aol.com
Subject: Re: Zappa vs. The Critics continues.......
Criticism or reviews can be helpful, insightful, enlightening or meaningless,
depending on the context. For me, a good reviewer sets parameters,
establishes criteria, before launching into an attack, a sermon, or a
thumbs-up hailstorm. When I know HOW a reviewer is weighing a CD, film, or
book, I know if I weigh my art on the same aesthetic scale. Then I can
determine if that reviewer's opinion is worth taking seriously. For example,
if I read a review about Woody Allen's latest film and the reviewer admitted
that Allen's films in general left him cold, I'd know that this is a critic
who had at least familiar with Allen's oeuvre. If the reviewer went on to
explain how Allen's latest was a departure somehow from earlier formulas and
this departure was a success, I would have some faith in this reviewer. If
the reviewer were conversely biased and flat out hated everything he'd seen
from Allen and found the recent film to be one more neurotic, narcissistic
whinefest in a series of subpar self-indulgent overrated wastes of film, I'd
know that this reviewer wasn't giving this film a chance on its own merits,
that he was exposing more about himself than the film, and that I should
probably seek out other reviews. Either way, at least I'd know where I
stood.
A poor reviewer just spews opinions in a vaccuum. "Nirvana sucks....,"
"Naked City is brilliant..." Such reviews say nothing to me. Explain WHY
something sucks or is brilliant. Show a little objectivity and intelligence,
and I'll take the review seriously, even if it slags one of my favorite
artists. Comparing the work of art to other works of art, displaying a
knowledge of the artist's intent or history, giving the work a historical
context, setting the work against some litmus test -- I don't know, something
based on a set criteria -- gives a review validity, for me.
My 2 cents,
Tom
np: William Parker Trio -- Painter's Spring
In a message dated 2/15/01 3:34:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
stevespangler@mail.otterweb.alumlink.com writes:
> I think negative criticism is o.k., but you're right about the wrong critic
> reviewing certain items. I remember Rolling Stone gave Nirvana's Nevermind
> album 2 or 3 stars, only to find out later that it was the very definition
of
> a 5 star album--subsequently Nirvana got "Artist of the Year" for their
> lackluster review.
>
> The problem is that they run the risk of letting the general public miss
out
> on some wonderful things.
>
> And generally, I think of Fight Club when I read reviews--"How's that
> working out for you....being clever?" I think they're more interested in
> writing itself and being "fresh" in their language than writing some
> insightful text. They think "being clever" is being insightful, but I don't
> necessarily think it is.
>
> Steve Spangler
- -
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:38:36 EST
From: Nudeants@aol.com
Subject: dammit
I meant 'I would SAY...'
sorry,
- -matt
In a message dated Thu, 15 Feb 2001 2:58:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, Nudeants@aol.com writes:
<< I would Cuneiform Records is a label that exists purely because Steve Feigenbaum loves the sort of music he releases.
> to sum up,Patton's work is very ecletic,so,you might wanna listen to it before buying it....so,here's my two cents:
> ftp.bunglefever.com
Forgive me if someone else has asked this; I'm subscribed to the digest.
I'd like to spread the above FTP address among my friends who haven't heard
Patton. Are those files legal? If so, please don't feel offended, I just
want to make sure I don't do anything that hurts the artists.
Thanks.
Gamantyo
- -
------------------------------
Date: 15 Feb 2001 16:41:56 -0800
From: bobjectify yourself <galloway@www.com>
Subject: Mike Patton
Hi,
I would suggest perhaps a procession in an order such as this:
1. Mr. Bungle (self-titled/Zorn produced -- this is his foundational essence, no less, and more)
2. Faith No More - Angel Dust (contiguous to #1.--perhaps a reaction)
3. Faith No More - King for a Day, Fool for a Lifetime (absolutely timeless and raw, Trey Spruance from Mr. Bungle/Secret Chiefs 3 plays guitar on it, which is why it's their best album.)
4. Mike Patton -- Adult Themes for Voice and Microphone (Tzadik)(his first official noise release, with several connections to early experimental rock vocals, i.e. CAN, and composers vocals, i.e. Xenakis, Henry, Stratos. Recorded on the recent FNM tour in hotel rooms, using only the voice and stuff in the room. Plus, it's a good primer for Disco Volante.
5. Secret Chiefs 3 -- First Grand Constitution and Bylaws: The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend (Mimicry Records <www.webofmimicry.com>) -- Not Patton, but all others from Bungle plus Eyvind Kang; also crucial to fully and accurately appreciate the non-Patton in Bungle, especially Disco Volante (although Mikey comes out to write stuff like this on California!, aside from usually having a say at some level in most of what he's in).
6. Mr. Bungle--Disco Volante (Warner Bros.)--an eschatology of sorts; the Phoenix's flames become visible.
7. Secret Chiefs 3 -- Second Grand Constitution and Bylaws: Hurqalya.--an anti-eschatology of sorts; the Phoenix is realized as complete flame.
8. Mr. Bungle -- California (Warner Bros.)--a pivot into a serene yet haunting pop "Paradise"; the burning of the Phoenix was but a death-pivot to a commencement.
9. Mike Patton -- Pranzo Oltranzista: Banquet Piece for Five Players (Tzadik) --debut as "composer"; Marrinetti's "Surrealist Cookbook" put to aural-scape; the wingspan of flame is but the breadth of the Sarcophagus of the Social yet to re-animate en feculahemoth.
10. Maldoror -- She (Ipecac Recordings - which is the bloke's own label) Patton with Masami Akita, rendering several B-movie classics en electronique; great primer for Fantomas' debut.
11. Fantomas -- (self-titled; Ipecac Recordings) a group entirely Patton formed and composed, hyperstructured yet extemporaneous, and not surprisingly, has nothing in common with any neo-metal.
Hope this helps. I completely owe my discovery of experimental music to this man. Were it not for him, I would have not so easily sat down to Darin Gray and Jim O'Rourke sets at Cicero's here in St. Louis back in '95. I would not have done a billion things as soon or easily--which was fucking late as hell anyway, heh heh.
Bob Galloway
<www.geocities.com/captaincaptain777/>
> Re: Mike Patton> on 2/13/01 4:07 PM, Me at frunobulax@mpinet.net unthinkingly blurted:
>
> > I am a huge fan of Mike Patton's work
>
> Okay kids. Today's assignment:
>
> I've only heard FNM and a few Bungles. What's the list of essentials for
> someone wanting to buy his son a stack of Pattons? (so he can then borrow
> them...)
>
> Thanks for responses,
> RL
.com
I know, appealing modern music is lacking, thats why
you should take me, Bob, for what it's worth and visit
www.webofmimicry.com and listen to everything you can
right now like a good little shopper! And...
HEY! AND PAY NO ATTENTION TO THESE GODDAMN ADS AT THE
Subject: Zappa as a significant influence on Zorn...
Do you think Zappa is a major influence, or is it more that they just happen to share major influences? I tend to believe this a little more--although I think Zappa's influential, I think the Varese/Stravinsky/etc. influences are shared more than passed from Zappa to Zorn.
Also, both men seem to be interested in black music along with their--whatever black music is --classical influences. I know that Zappa was inspired by old r&b records and Zorn seems to hold some roots in the old hard bop players.
Do you think this is significant--I'm not sure that I think so.
Steve Spangler
- -
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:13:44 -0500
From: Matt Teichman <mft4@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: zappa again...
It seems likely, doesn't it.
Two things for me that both have in common:
a) incredibly prolific
b) genre mixing
However, Zappa's nuanced satire and sense of humor in general don't seem to
have an analog with Zorn.
At 01:32 PM 2/16/2001 +0000, thomas chatterton wrote:
>I would definitely have to cite Zappa as a significant influence on Zorn...
