THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: ThePianoMan on 02 May 2009, 19:25

Title: Really, cokemachineglow?
Post by: ThePianoMan on 02 May 2009, 19:25
Googling around for reviews of the new Starflyer 59 album and I get this rather...interesting...review. (http://www.cokemachineglow.com/record_review/4086/starflyer59-dialm-2008) I usually let this kind of thing slide, but what is up with a music review site posting this kind of diatribe?
Title: Re: Really, cokemachineglow?
Post by: JD on 02 May 2009, 19:33
Like 2 paragraphs were about himself though, augh.
Title: Re: Really, cokemachineglow?
Post by: ThePianoMan on 02 May 2009, 19:36
Well, that's one guy expressing his reaction to an album in writing.

I think that's essentially what a review is, right?
I don't really see where he talks about the album itself, though.
Title: Re: Really, cokemachineglow?
Post by: Will on 02 May 2009, 19:38
Yeah, it seems like all he did was ramble about Christianity in general, rather than focus on the music itself.
Title: Re: Really, cokemachineglow?
Post by: scarred on 02 May 2009, 19:40
Pitchfork occasionally does the same thing. Whenever this happens, I tend to look at other reviews.
Title: Re: Really, cokemachineglow?
Post by: a pack of wolves on 02 May 2009, 19:45
Yeah, it seems like all he did was ramble about Christianity in general, rather than focus on the music itself.

I thought that was kind of the writer's point though. By identifying themselves as a Christian band (not to mention being on a label like Tooth And Nail, which has long been notorious for its conservative politics in addition to just identifying as Christian) he feels they force him to assess the music as part of something much larger instead of taking it purely on its own merits. I thought it was quite interesting myself, after all reviews are always a subjective opinion and that was more interesting than most.
Title: Re: Really, cokemachineglow?
Post by: KharBevNor on 02 May 2009, 19:57
Oh come on, this doesn't even begin to approach some of Pitchforks most infamous articles. Though even those are preferable to statements like

Quote
Exactly how and why Radiohead's  Kid A  has come to stand as the definitive artistic statement for rock consumers born after 1975 is almost ridiculously difficult to discern.
Title: Re: Really, cokemachineglow?
Post by: Tom on 02 May 2009, 20:10
It's all relevant to the record though, it's not like he's talking about scoring crack from a Venezuelan pimp or something.

I agree, I actually like to see/read how a record has moved or provoked someone to think or reflect on something. Just cause the review doesn't present your views or follow an "ohh this songs nice I like the guitars and the drums and then the next song is wow" structure doesn't necessarily make t a bad review. He delivered an interesting review with personal insight that effectively tells the reader that Starflyer do nothing new and if you like generic, contemporary christian music that is aesthetically pleasing this record is for you.

Move on, not everyone thinks like you and Him, Piano Man.
Title: Re: Really, cokemachineglow?
Post by: boneykingofnowhere on 03 May 2009, 09:50
I gave up on CMG ages ago. I can understand why a lot of people hate DCFC but when you spend half a review talking about how your friend's cousin's husband twice removed saw Ben Gibbard in public and said he was a douche I find it hard to take your opinion seriously.
Title: Re: Really, cokemachineglow?
Post by: David_Dovey on 03 May 2009, 09:57
He does briefly talk about the album, to the extent of identifying it as being inoffensive and unoriginal enough to not warrant actually being analysed to any serious extent. Fair enough, I say!