Reviewing a "Reviewer"

[soapbox]

[quote]Originally posted by Bob Olhsson: [i]...we are seeing the tiniest percentage of new titles breaking even in history...[/i][/quote] If that's true (and I write "if" because the record labels have been known to doctor their books to suit their agendas, not because I doubt [b]Bob[/b]), there are a number of other reasons I can think of besides audio quality. I certainly think that audio quality could be a factor, but I'm a strong believer that things usually happen for a multitude of reasons, rather than a single reason, particularly when a multitude of people are involved. Other possible causes for new titles not breaking even: 1) The increased cost of marketing new titles, due to ever tighter radio playlists, skyrocketing payola, and the additional cost of making videos. 2) Piracy. Not only can anyone with a computer download any song they want; but also it is cheaper than ever to make bootleg copies of CDs that look and sound exactly like the originals and sell them on the open market. 3) Kids are interested more in songs nowadays and less in albums and artists. This is not only because they can download their favorite song for free without checking out the album, it's also because record labels do little anymore to promote the artist as the product rather than the song. 4) Innovation in the public eye is currently low. There are plenty of innovative failures, but when innovation succeeds, there's nothing like it! However, there's no room for that now. Increased marketing costs and tight radio formats make it too risky for labels to sign and push innovative artists. When the same old, same old is on the radio, people get bored and buy less. Well, that's just what I can think of now... [quote]Originally posted by Fletcher@mercenary.com: [i]Ya know, this topic has wandered so far from where it started, it should probably be closed and allowed to die...[/i][/quote] I guess [b]Fletcher[/b]'s gonna [i]love[/i] the can of worms I just opened up! ;) Sorry for derailing this thread...

[videoeditor1]

Soapbox, We could add, that 30 years ago, 20 years ago, and even 10 years ago, "audio" had to compet3e less with videos, and video games and internet programs, and all the other stuff it has to compete with (as well as compliment).

[Guest Room Warrior]

Mix FIx: I've been writing freelance for UEM for some time now, and I've never been screamed at, threatened, blown a boat load of "boss" shit or approached by anyone with anything but respect and goodwill. Like you, writing for the mags is not my primary source of income (we make commercial music for a living) and so I do it for fun and for the industry access. I don't accept studio clients that scream at people, and you can bet your ass I wouldn't write another paragraph for anyone that treated me as you describe. I'm sure you have your reasons, but I didn't want anyone to think that you were describing definitively "the way it is" at UEM.

[olhhyperback.com]

Soundscan indicates that the average sales per title are less than 800 units, an astounding figure. A tiny number of highly promoted titles are accounting for unprecedented sales. Certainly there are many reasons for this besides audio quality and probably nothing has ever been very successful strictly because of audio quality. My point is that there is not a shred of evidence that audio quality doesn't matter any more than there is any that it does. There IS a great deal of evidence that sales are far more related to massive advertising campaigns than to people simply listening to a CD and liking it enough to buy it. If sales were spread over a large number of really bad sounding CDs or even a large number of random quality CDs it would be one thing but people don't appear to be buying music based on listening to it and bad sound quality can't be helping.

[Anderton]

<> You have your mind made up about EQ, so I won't try and change it. But when you talk about UEM, you're also talking Guitar Player, Keyboard, Bass Player, MC2, etc. Your statement I quoted above is so dramatically inaccurate and misinformed, I'm truly amazed you decided to go on the record with it. It will damage your credibility to the authors who have had UEM magazines stand up for them, and to the advertisers -- some of whom STILL refuse to advertise as "punishment" for what they feel are negative reviews -- who have felt very frustrated they couldn't use ad dollars to influence editorial. I hope you research your articles better than how you researched that statement. BTW I do emphatically agree that George Petersen is one of the good guys.

[John Worthington]

I have to agree with Craig. I don't have as much experience with the music rags as the computer side. I did a monthly column for Interactivity when it was still around and did reviews for it and Keyboard. No one ever told me what to write. I tried to be factual and fair. The only complaint I had was the work to pay ratio, which sucked. jw

[THE MIX FIX]

The truth must suffer, so there are no lawsuits, or broken legs. [ 10-28-2001: Message edited by: THE MIX FIX ]

[THE MIX FIX]

The truth must suffer, so no one gets sued, or their legs broken. [ 10-28-2001: Message edited by: THE MIX FIX ]

[Anderton]

Gimme a break. Let's compare reviewer styles: "Jerry Springer" review style: "This software sucks! It has bugs and the new shit sucks even worse!! And that's the truth, which magazines are too chickenshit to print!" "Mats Nermark" review style: "Several basic problems with the audio engine are not offset by some genuinely innovative features, as these are not fully developed, and probably should have been held until a future rev." Now, the Jerry Springer style is entertaining, in its own Neanderthal way. But I want magazines to be FAIR and PROFESSIONAL. I believe part of this requires that reviewers not assume they speak for all potential users when they write a review. You may think something "sucks" because it adds distortion. Someone else may think it "rules" because it adds distortion. I don't care what either one thinks. I just want to know how much distortion, what kind, and how much you can alter it. Now, some moron may say "Well, gee, with a 'Mats Nermark'-type review, you have to READ BETWEEN THE LINES to get the TRUTH!!" What a load. Reviewer "Y" is not arrogant enough to think people need to be TOLD what to think, but rather that if you describe something fairly, people are intelligent enough to make up their OWN minds. Of course, some reviewers are going to be more thorough than others, some magazines are going to be more principled than others, and yes, the pay is pretty bad, so it's hard to find qualified writers -- they're off earning more elsewhere, or supplementing their gigs so they can do what they enjoy (my situation). And some reviewers are going to be more self-righteous and arrogant than others, and maybe even more entertaining, for at least the short term. But when all is said and done, I want to know what something DOES. Saying it sucks doesn't tell me anything. Once I have facts in hand, I'm more than able to make up my own mind, thank you.

[John Paterno]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b]But when all is said and done, I want to know what something DOES. Saying it sucks doesn't tell me anything. Once I have facts in hand, I'm more than able to make up my own mind, thank you.[/b][/quote] Right on, Craig. I wrote a product review for the first time last Febuary for PSN, and I tried very hard to keep asking myself 'what would I need to know about this thing if I was seeing it for the first time?'. My review basically dealt with applications, instead of the 'here are the published specs' approach for that reason. Fortunately, it was something that i really like and honestly use all the time. Nothing worse than reading an extension of the press release... Cheers, John [ 10-28-2001: Message edited by: John Paterno ]

[chessparov]

Thanks Curve for giving me hope for my nanocompressor. Maybe it will become "vintage" like NS10's!

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Curve Dominant: [b] I don't want to hear anything related to Enya in my Jeep, especially not her fucking "angeles," thank you very much. E :) [/b][/quote] If I buy a Jeep, does Enya's fucking angels come with them automatically? Enya's Fucking Angels (EFA). Great name for a band if you ask me.

[Chip McDonald]

Reviews: Don't mean a thing unless you know something about the reviewer. Unless they're Vulcan. Musician's have too varied of tastes. I've been reading Craig's articles/books for over 16 years. At this point I think I have a general idea of what he's about and what his perspective is probably like - for instance, I know he's probably going to be more forgiving of a digital guitar amp than maybe Mike Fuller. That's the value of being a net junkie: you learn who knows what they're talking about, and absorb through a filtering process. A filtering process established by observing tendencies that weigh the balance of things. Magazines need to present a full bio of the reviewer. They need to present concurrent reviews of the same items. Multiple, really. They need to establish guidelines for the bottom line of their potential readership. Eliminate superflous chaff. AGAIN: Let people here (or elsewhere in the "real world")suggest some questions for reviews and interviews. For most new gear there's 1 or 2 simple straight forward issues involved that are never addressed in reviews. I would guess this is likely because the people doing the reviewing haven't lately been in the market for the things they're reviewing? Skewed perspective. A person shopping for a Manley preamp doesn't need to be told there isn't a wall wart, a person shopping for a $250 guitar doesn't care about the latches on the case. You know what I mean? There's always a bottom line. That's why a lot of people here view magazines, EQ included, with suspicion. It's not that the review isn't fair, or isn't critical. It could be that the review ignores the bottom line. For instance, there could be a known clear-cut established product at a certain price point. Certain things are used this way clearly: SM57s, Mackie1604s. Others are not... A person in the market for a $250 kick drum mic will have certain criteria *other* people in the market for the same thing has, and when that's ignored in a review (by not bringing up what appears to be "the obvious") that looks suspicious. Doesn't mean that it is, but it leaves the reader thinking "but I still don't know where this product stands against (well known trend setter product)". EQ still has the best reviews, but I'l admit I only skim them mostly in part because I know most likely I'll not be able to contrast the information with other products. That Microphone R sounds "good" doesn't tell me if microphone S sounds better that's at the same price point. Would the same reviewer yield an equivalently "good" review of microphone S that another reviewer gave somewhere else? There's no 1:1 correlation. If that were established things would be much better. The problem would be establishing some sort of known baseline, which probably isn't probably since it would appear to be an endorsement - which is effectively what Shure gets everytime someone refers to a 57 for snare, Mackie gets the same with their preamps in utilitarian situations, etc. One thing would help would be establishing a lineage to the reviewers, which is why I mentioned Craig. Other reviewers are featured in random fashion, reviewing disparate items - one time a mic, one time an amp, etc. Craig - you know where he's coming from, that he knows what he's talking about. Now and then I read a review and think "er... this guy says he prefers to mic bass drums with small diaphragm condensers and he's telling me what's good about this other microphone?" There's no telling what they're thinking. I can think of one exception to this, I can't remember the guy's name (for another magazine) who reviewed microphones, and always referenced other mics and actual prior reviews. That lineage made his information much more useful. I'm not complaining really, I just think it could be better.

[videoeditor1]

Disclaimer: 1. I'm one of the "little" guys. No need to bite my head off if you don't agree with my perspective. 2. I have an attorney on retainer only until 3/31/02. Please, no threats or hints of litigation. :D 3. The following is my opinion, and mine only. ------------------------------------------------------------ When I saw "Mixfix's" two posts (now edited) addressing the business of magazine articles, I was intrigued to hear from someone so immersed on the "inside". I was also thinking... "uh-oh". By the time I got to the end of the post(s), I was thinking.....[b]oh shit! The shit's gonna hit the fan!![/b]. So I did a cut and paste in a word document, knowing that his post COULD NOT possibly last more than....72 hours. I am constantly reminded (via "good" & "bad" emails) that what we say and do on these forums are pretty much like "The TRUMAN Show". It's all out there baby. Freedom of speech and expression are great, but me, personally, I felt that much of what Bob put in the public domain could have, should have remained private (even though it WAS intriguing.... :) ). Finding and maintaining a balance between what we know that irks us, and what we share publicly is always going to be a challenge. I just hope the ... shit ends with Bob deleting/editing the posts. Maybe the guy no longer gives a flea's ass, but I still hope it's A NON ISSUE. NYC Drew ps - To cover my ass legally, I deleted and trashed the post I saved.

[THE MIX FIX]

NYC Drew: You are correct. That's why I deleted my posts. All that stuff is in the distant past, and is a non-issue. I should not have made ANY personal information public, and I apologize for that. BUT, Craig: 1. I have NEVER said "This shit sucks", in ANY review for ANY magazine. Read my KRK V-88/S-12 review in the this month's (November 2001) MIX, if you even care to see how I review equipment, before you assume that I say "This shit sucks." I brought up what I found to be both good AND bad with the units. 2. George Petersen DID NOT FOLD, and printed the comments I made, GOOD AND BAD, even over any protests, and I HAVE to give him, and MIX, credit for that. 3. I HAVE been told, by TWO companies/publications, how, and what, to write for certain articles, reviews, pieces, companies, and manufacturers. It's the truth. Believe it, or not. I don't care. 4. Writing IS a supplement to my income, NOT my full-time gig, even though I've been doing it since 1983. 5. As for criticizing me, feel free to fire away, anyone and everyone, about anything I do. It's all part of the business. I've seen MANY people TRASHED on these boards, most of whom NO ONE even knows personally, just because they have product out there. They are, elsewhere on these boards, sometimes refereed to as *Pantloads*, which is OK, since this is, (or USED TO be) a free country. It's even more okay if someone knows them, personally, and gives their PERSONAL opinions on them, or their work. And ANYBODY can criticize ANYONE else's work. I just HATE to see younger people, just starting out, rip into guys who have had a TON of hits, only because they are successful, either as engineers, producers, or, artists, well, I'd better call them *acts*, so I avoid even more criticism for having the nerve to all a 'Britney Spears' type singer an 'Artist'. We ALL know the TRUE *Artists*, are people with day gigs, and home studios, who 'would never stoop as low as doing commercial Music', for a living. Like, I'm sure that 99.9% of the posters here would turn down a $500.00 an hour, guaranteed Platinum Record gig, doing a quick, emergency overdub session at their home studio, recording N'Sync, because they were on tour in the poster's hometown, and N'Sync's producer needed a background vocal part changed, THAT DAY, to FedEx to LA, and found the poser's, er, I mean POSTER'S studio in the local Yellow pages. IF they were even offered the chance... 6. Criticism works both ways, too. I won't even mention what the 'House' engineers and assistants told me about the competency and talent of a certain guy who recorded, a few times, at the old 'MIDI CITY' room at Unique Studios, in NYC, (when I used to freelance there, starting in the late 1980s, for 10-12 years). BUT I, personally, NEVER attended any of the sessions, so I'll reserve my judgment... ;) Of course, *pantloads*, like Tom and Chris 'L-A' started at Unique, so what would ANY of the regulars there know, concerning taste or talent?... :p :D

[-]

Can we drop this thread? It seems that it's lived past its usefulness... Besides, stuff is being said that might be OK in a private conversation but only gives off bad vibes in a worldwide public forum. Just my 0.000000000000002...

[Anderton]

<<1. I have NEVER said "This shit sucks", in ANY review for ANY magazine.>> I didn't, and wouldn't, say you did. Many of my comments in forums are generic, and are triggered by the comments of others. <<2. George Petersen DID NOT FOLD.>> Did I not say George is a stand-up guy? This is based on knowing him for, I don't know, 20 years or so, and having played on a couple of his CDs. <<3. I HAVE been told, by TWO companies/publications, how, and what, to write for certain articles, reviews, pieces, companies, and manufacturers. It's the truth. Believe it, or not. I don't care.>> Did I not say "some magazines are more principled than others"? << 5. As for criticizing me, feel free to fire away, anyone and everyone, about anything I do. It's all part of the business.>> The only thing I criticized was your statement about UEM never standing up for authors, because it was factually incorrect. More than anything, I'm criticizing those who think of the world so simplistically that they think saying a review "sucks" or "rules" is all you need. Gear is complex, and serves different needs for different people. <> Put me down as one of the 0.1%. "Pop" is cool. I'd be proud of engineering or producing that. Bob, this isn't personal, except for your one comment that was factually incorrect and required correction. You can pretty much say whatever you want to say on this board, I let the people who read these boards make up their own minds. I'm just tired of those who bash magazines and reviewers. Having said that, I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing with respect to reviews, and frankly, I think I do it well. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to do so, but I'd appreciate hearing why; I'm constantly looking to improve my craft.

[THE MIX FIX]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b] Bob, this isn't personal, except for your one comment that was factually incorrect and required correction. You can pretty much say whatever you want to say on this board, I let the people who read these boards make up their own minds. I'm just tired of those who bash magazines and reviewers. Having said that, I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing with respect to reviews, and frankly, I think I do it well. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to do so, but I'd appreciate hearing why; I'm constantly looking to improve my craft.[/b][/quote] Craig: I THINK you know I DO like and respect you. IF you think that what I said was 'factually incorrect', then I apologize. However, I am adamant that, for ME at least, in ONE publication, NOW owned by the company in question (I CAN'T be sure of who owned it when these events occurred; it was several years ago, and I don't have dates, yet alone the hard copies..), I WAS told *how* to 'react' to SEVERAL pieces, and it was even brought to the point of a 'Spanish Inquisition' - type round of questioning, at one point in time. Let me qualify this by saying, it was by ONE individual, who, I see by the Masthead of that book, no longer works for the publication in question. AND that these events happened two editors ago. Also, the pieces were NOT reviews, but SR pieces. Still, is that what you consider 'Standing up for it's Authors'? ALSO, IN ADDITION, a friend of mine (whom I will refer to as 'that person'), is an Ad Rep for an Equipment Manufacturer, and WAS yelled at, and 'threatened' with NO more editorial space for the companies' products, by a CURRENT Executive of the same publishing company in question, when 'that person's' company decided to spend their ad dollars, elsewhere. This was told to me by 'that person' first hand, in private, and 'that person' had no reason to lie. I was also told, DIRECTLY, by the Editor of ANOTHER publication, NOT affiliated with the first publishing company, that he would give no more editorial space to a certain manufacturer, because they hadn't spent any ad dollars with him for a while. This is NOT a Disneyland World, and anyone can feel free to believe whatever they wish. I really don't have the time, want the attention, or possible problems, that would occur if I just 'made this stuff up.' I really would rather get some sleep, than be 'defending' myself on BBS sites. That being said, these events DID occur, IN MY CASE. Email me, in private, or call, (if you still have my phone number), if you'd like the details. So, at least for ME, the statements were NOT 'factually incorrect.' I'm done with this topic. But I'd like to close my post here with several quotes that a friend of mine, Rich Wielgosz, who USED to frequent this site on a regular basis, sent to me in a recent email. I don't think he'd mind them being posted here.... :D "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Ben Franklin 'If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.' --George Orwell "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." -- Noam Chomsky PEACE, everyone!! :D :cool: [ 10-29-2001: Message edited by: THE MIX FIX ]

[halljams]

Uh, Korn Rulez

[Curve Dominant]

Bob, seriously, bro, you need Valium. E :)

[THE MIX FIX]

Curve: I've had a script for 25 years. 10 mgs. 120 a month... ;) Hey, at LEAST I was wrong about NYC getting any Anthrax. :p My car insurance card is coming from Princton; the Post Office they just closed down for 3 days because of finding Anthrax there. I'll BET you'd ALL like me to be SURE and sniff the envelope when it arrives!! :eek: :rolleyes: ;) :D :cool: [ 10-29-2001: Message edited by: THE MIX FIX ]

[batman]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Ben Franklin 'If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.' --George Orwell "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." -- Noam Chomsky "There ain't half been some clever bastards" -- Ian Dury "You're a pink toothbrush, I'm a blue toothbrush".. -- ?? Best t'all... P.S. cut me in for some o' that valium.... ;)

[Mats Nermark]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b]"Jerry Springer" review style: "Mats Nermark" review style: But when all is said and done, I want to know what something DOES. Saying it sucks doesn't tell me anything. Once I have facts in hand, I'm more than able to make up my own mind, thank you.[/b][/quote] Craig, Not knowing who Jerry Springer is I really don't know what to think. But your last paragraph gives me hope that the work I do is OK becuse facts and circumstances are exactly what I try to bring up in my reviews. I you have any international needs, please let me know! Best regards, Mats N

[Fletcher]

[quote]Originally posted by popmusic: [b]Can we drop this thread? It seems that it's lived past its usefulness... [/b][/quote] A-fuckin'-men...

[soapbox]

Hey, speak for yourselves! I haven't had so much fun lurking since I joined this BBS! ;)

[Anderton]

How can you possibly drop a thread when someone has just said: <> Shouldn't we explain to our Swedish friend the incredible cultural experience he is missing because he has not seen Jerry Springer? Short form: Jerry Springer used to be the mayor of a reasonably-sized American town, then became a talk show/television celebrity. (Already, you can see he's doing things backwards: the general protocol in the US is to go from entertainer to politician.) He is best known for doing a show where people of, shall we say, liberated sexual habits, who are generally in some kind of dysfunctional mess, get on the show and basically fight with each other. Following is a condensed version of a Jerry Springer show. "Tonight on Jerry Springer: Nephews Who Love Lesbian Nieces" guests: Guy A (Nephew), Girl A (Lesbian Niece), Girl B (unknown to Guy A, is girlfriend of Girl B; unknown to Girl B, is starting to date Guy A). Sample dialog: Guy A: You're just a [bleep] whore. Girl A: Well you're a dickhead with a little [bleep] Guy A: Oh yeah? Girl A: If you were a real man I wouldn't need someone else to satisfy my. Guy A: [expression of shock and anger] Jerry Springer: "And now, let's bring out Girl B, who is simultaneously having an affair with Guy A and Girl A." [audience flips out. "Guests" swear at each other and push each other around. Security guards make a big show of separating people. Confusion occurs. Many commercials follow. Jerry closes out show with his "thought for the day."] Get the picture, Mats? :)

[Fletcher]

A wonderfully told description of the Jerry Springer Experience...which is entirely irrelevant to the original topic...which was the tale of an incompetent "reviewer/writer"...where this has gone in the last couple of 'pages' is nowhere productive... I don't run this dog and pony show, but if I did, I would have closed this thread quite a while ago, then again the dog and pony show under my control has fewer than 500 posts, never mind close to 40,0000...so Craig must have a way better sense than I about when to clamp down a thread when it's lost all semblance of relavance.

[-]

[quote]Originally posted by Fletcher@mercenary.com: [b]A wonderfully told description of the Jerry Springer Experience...[/b][/quote] Sounds like a pretty good band name...

[soapbox]

[b]Fletcher[/b], I never know how seriously to take your comments (we really need to work on that sarcasm post plug-in!), but if you really want this thread killed, I'm not going to stand in your way.

[Curve Dominant]

[i]FLETCHER - THREAD KILLER[/i] E :)