Self-review and review of review

Self-Review and reviewing the review.

Self-review

Self-reviews are part of our life, an odious task that befalls us when we seek promotion. The tour?s over. We did well all things considered. Presenting live incarnations of difficult songs for the first time (?Wanting?, ?Paraphrasing Hitler? and a new song ?Pets?) in a five-piece format was a brave undertaking. Not because of five people inherently but the fact that due to geographical distance (Auckland/Dunedin) the first time we played these monsters together was at the sound check in Dunedin. ?Pets? has 39 different chords (and God only knows how many actual chord changes), changes key often over which the lead lines (in guitar and keys) have to be played note perfect in order to work. Most of the rest of the newer material is technically of a similar order. It is a testament to Stephen Small?s and Tom Healy?s ability and professionalism that these songs could be performed at all under the circumstances. As far as the bass was concerned, these songs were born on a computer for an intended studio environment and without the least consideration for live performance. The bass lines in any subsequent verse are not then the same as the first such that they require a lot more learning. Chris did fantastically well in this regard. We all had our moments, which was to be expected, but given the circumstances it was incredibly successful from a musical perspective. The whole package of Tono and the Finance Company, Simon Comber and the Verlaines was excellent and I will cherish the memory of it forever. Great songs, great singing and some excellent drinking.

 

Review of the review.

Ordinarily a band shrinks from a bad review, files it away and hopes that not too many people get to read it. I choose to do the opposite, disseminate the review even more widely by linking it through this blog,


http://www.realgroove.co.nz/Blog.aspx?id=323

 

and reviewing the review.

 

?Right from the get go things just weren't cricket, Graeme was working the door (!).?

 

Interesting. When a publican serves behind the bar at his own establishment it is considered normal, expected and even somewhat welcoming. Why is it that it is forbidden for a musician to act like a publican??presumably because such behaviour demystifies the musician. Part of the function of a traditional rock concert is essentially religious. People on a stage, dressed fantastically, otherworldly perhaps (say the band Kiss or alternately substitute a high priest in his robes and his similarly-dressed minions who help perform the service) who command a huge instrument of sound (PA, pipe organ, amounts to the same), in a huge arena (concert hall, cathedral), and who magically appear from and return to an inner sanctum to which the audience is not privy and where they believe these intermediaries converse with God (or their muse, one and the same). The audience?s smallness and the priest?s/rock star?s larger-than-life-ness commands more than the appreciation of music and poetry, it commands belief, supplication and idolisation. OK, if it is a religious experience Ms Beatson wants I?m sure Bishop Brian has some spare pews and there are plenty of musical artists out there who operate in this quasi-religious format. To tacitly assert it to be a universal standard (that I violated) misses the point. Alternative artists of all stripes resist the star codification, whether they be the Pixies (?dressed like four ordinary people? as one observer remarks on the documentary ?Gouge?) or Leonard Cohen introducing his backing musicians more than once (to deflect attention from himself somewhat) and skipping off stage in Wellington last year in a most un-star like manner. Incidentally we didn?t have roadies or guitar techs either and so the possibility of a grand entrance on stage was always going to be marred by me faffing about with cables, foot pedals, shifting amps and everything else. And what would Ms Beatson have made of the Christchurch gig, where in Tom?s absence (he had a wedding to attend) I played bass for Simon Comber (the headlining act playing bass for the support act? What is the world coming to!), 

 

?without a working stamp?

Guilty as charged, though disliking a concert on the basis of what amounts to a clerical error mystifies me.

 

?They were late, not taking the stage till 11:30.?

Guilty as charged.

 

?their greatest fall from grace, had to restart a song because they fell so badly out of time.?

 

Yes, we messed up the beginning of ?Paraphrasing Hitler? and started again, partly because Radio NZ was recording the show and there seemed little point in wasting the opportunity to get a good live version. It is one of the most challenging and difficult songs to play and we?re human. Given the long distance preparation and the difficulty, if I was offered the certainty that this would happen only once on the tour I would have gladly taken that before a single chord was strummed.

 

?Half the songs on their set list were from Corporate Moronic, which generally sounded like safe Crowded House B-Sides?

 

Really! For those not at the gig the songs from CM included ?Paratai Drive?, ?Paraphrasing Hitler?, ?They that Once were Eager fellas?, ?Wanting? and ?Rootless Cosmopolitan?. I can only wonder at what shallow patina of sound Ms Beatson was listening to that could pass as safe. Alternately, if anyone can point to a Crowded House song, b-side or otherwise, as vitriolic as Paratai Drive, that employs three-part counterpoint as that song does, has the word ?penis? in the lyrics (?Wanting?), or is as dissonant as ?Paraphrasing Hitler? I would be most interested to hear it (and I mean no disrespect to Crowded House in saying this?their song craft is as near beyond reproach as anyone?s. That their aesthetic is different to ours reflects badly on neither party, in fact Ms Beatson?s comments tars both of us negatively).

 

?Add to this the fact that they steadfastly refused to play ?Jimmy Jazz?

 

From the mouth of the average punter this would be na?ve (but understandable, and I respect the genuineness of the request). From the pen of a purported music journalist, it is flatly ignorant verging on childish. An uninformed punter might believe we have God-like powers such that we can open our mouths and a song simply appears. That is not their fault and I feel regret when we cannot comply. The unpalatable truth is that songs have to be rehearsed and a music journalist should know that. But take special note of the verb ?refused??implying we had the wherewithal to acquiesce to the request from the floor, but withheld it?I am sorry, but I am not prepared to let slander go unanswered. I could have played JJ badly on my own with possibly Darren making some fist of it. But Chris and Stephen wouldn?t have known what to do with themselves. A reviewer?s scorn at the pitiful result (had we tried) would have been most deserved. Scorn at our inability to acquiesce is not.

 

? . . . and deigned only a handful of times to play anything from their greatest hits album and you had the makings of a dire evening.?

 

My wife has just purchased a display cabinet, which houses all the Verlaines albums. There are 11 of them and upward of 130 songs. If we are to be pilloried for not being human jukeboxes then I will publish the set list of any subsequent gigs so that Ms Beatson can review the performance on the basis of song selection from her living room and not trouble herself with actually attending.

 

?Perhaps then they'll have some incentive to pander to the plebs and play the songs their fans want to hear.?

 

A mentality that in previous times yelled ?Judas? at the Royal Albert Hall. Next week we begin rehearsing songs for a new album to be recorded in May, and the problem of song selection and playing ?hits? will be exacerbated further. I will do my best to rotate the so-called ?hits? in future concerts, but in light of present productivity any substantial alteration of tactics is unlikely. My present fecundity is hard won territory born of a lifetime?s hard work. From this state of affairs I do not need ?saving?.

 

Here endeth the review of the review.

 

Comments

Judging from the comments on the RG page Ms Beatson's readers don't share her opinion either. There's hope yet. Your response was intelligent and clearly well thought out, as opposed to "trying too hard to be clever", which was the impression I got from the Beatson piece. (Plus - all credibility was lost with the CH comparison.) Anyway... eagerly anticipating the new album. If you snap any pix of the display cabinet I'd love to have a peek.
Posted by bg on Tuesday 30th of March
Do Stonehenge!
Posted by Ashley Noel Hinton on Wednesday 31st of March
Good on you bro - the evolution of a group on any tour, no matter how short or long can sometimes take a couple of gigs before really firing up, and sometimes it's good straight out of the gate. May I review your review of the review? Some crazy "if/endif" scripty/html?/what-have-you is showing up in IE and interrupting a great piece. Best wishes for your next record!
Posted by Stevie J on Wednesday 31st of March
Generally speaking, reviewers aka critics, are talentless leeches who, unlike the everlasting works of artists, are becoming increasingly obsolete with the democratisation of public opinion. One point to technology, ten points to The Verlaines for not letting it slide.
Posted by Penelope Sell on Wednesday 31st of March
While I agree that Ms Beatson is obviously swimming in a shallow pool of context, I also think that this might have something to do with her age [guess - perhaps a douchebag attempt). I do not think we should tar all other critics with these same feathers. I much enjoyed Graham's response and whole-heartedly concur.
Posted by Miss Noma on Wednesday 31st of March
Nuthin wrong with reviews. They should however show some insight and understanding of the subject and demonstrate that sufficient research has been done. Otherwise it's just bad writing. It's also unfair because it disseminates inaccurate information that becomes received truth.
Posted by dazza on Wednesday 31st of March
with regards to Penelope Sell's generalisation: "Generally speaking, reviewers aka critics, are talentless leeches who, unlike the everlasting works of artists, are becoming increasingly obsolete with the democratisation of public opinion." I often I have to wonder about this logic that reviewers must be somehow compared to the artist/subject they are reviewing. It's as useful as comparing a bicycle to a car and saying it's not fast enough. Critics do their own thing- no they aren't producing "everlasting works of art"- they do what they do in their field, which while is going through difficult times, isn't obsolete just yet. The only fair comparison is some are good at what they do , some are bad. Haley obviously has a limited frame of reference, and she does sound "young", but that happens with most youthful writers- the only way to improve is to learn from your mistakes and write more. Learn about context, how to strengthen your voice, sound confident about what you're writing without loving the sound of your voice.
Posted by Eric on Friday 2nd of April
I'm really glad you took the time to break Corporate Moronic down, it's been a friggin mystery to me. As for the door thing, you've gotta understand you are a God to me, really a god. In fact I had recently found out that I might have a potentially life threatening illness and went to your gig to take my mind off that, that's how much of a bloody god you really are to me. So for me seeing you on the door, I felt like some other lackey should be there, but if that's your bag then work it buddy. Hope you wont hold one review against me, I am as ever an adoring fan :)
Posted by Haley Beatson on Friday 2nd of April
PS The lack of objectivity can be put down to the fact I'm not a journalist at all, I'm just their unpaid intern. Until they pay me a dime to get off my arse and turn in a review before noon the next day then I'm going to be a fan.
Posted by Haley Beatson on Friday 2nd of April
Oh gee - just a little sarcastic humour at reviewers' expense for a change. It's their turn! Was 'talentless leeches' too harsh? Of course it was! And I'm not comparing a review with the work it's reviewing - just making a point, as Eric has, about their differences while the opportunity is open. (I was in a subjective and disdainful state of mind at the time - lighten up). I do question the purpose of reviews though. Any artist worth their salt is continuously self reviewing and often garnering the critique of others. Critique and feedback are often helpful with evolving work. In the case of published, public reviews about something that has already been performed/written however, I have come to wonder - who are they written for? Those who missed out? Those who can't make up their own minds? Those who don't want to leave the house? Whether conscious or unconscious, a public and printed review will hold sway with a public already swamped with choice. And unfortunately, (and this is not the fault of the reviewer but a case in point all the same), they are all out of proportion with the time and effort that has gone into creating the work. Too often have I seen talented friends be discouraged, (sometimes permanently), by a bad review. This is a loss to art. Are they too sensitive? Perhaps, but reviews do hold sway and usually there is no comeback (my point in favour of technology). It should also be noted that sensitivity is a component of creativity. For the record I have reviewed and been reviewed. The reviews I was asked to write were apparently informed and insightful but it was a distasteful process I don't want to repeat. After having my own work reviewed (which were mostly positive by the way - this isn't a case of sour grapes), I was left none the wiser. What some praised, others critiqued, sometimes for the same reason. They played on my vanity and the only value may have been in summarising. I've also had my work used to set English exams questions that even I couldn't answer. People come to a work of art with the whole of themselves before it - knowledge, taste, prejudices, social and economic backgrounds, indigestion ... Perhaps we should just let things exist without having to judge or give opinion all the time. Isn't it just vanity in the end? The conclusion I come to is what I've felt all along - everything is subjective.
Posted by Penelope Sell on Saturday 3rd of April
Go Graeme. This review comes from a magazine in which a recent reviewer gave The Beatles' Sgt Pepper's LHCB 1 star. As they say, 'go figure'. I'll be coming along next time you play to make up my own mind. Your recent music sounds challenging and damn interesting. Thanks for articulate response to a poorly written and ill-conceived review.
Posted by Justin McLean on Tuesday 13th of April

Post a Comment

(Required)

(Required, will not be published)


Tick this box to join our Mailing List. We'll never spam you or sell your email address.


Play "Paratai Drive"

Alternate

Play "Yangtze Cod and Chups"

Alternate

Play "Stop Messing Around"

Alternate

Connect on FacebookConnect on MyspaceBuy music on iTunesBuy music at Dunedinmusic.comSubscribe to RSS