Tinnitus and Tigersuits: Critical Hit… That Is Super Effective!

Columns, Top Story

A cynical, elitist snob of a vulture; feasting on the reputations, successes and failures of others like a scavenger attempting to cough up a following for itself. Scathing critique and hyperbolic praise to the undeserving are its tools as it callously disregards the sweat and effort of the poor, victimised artist with tooth, claw and word processor.

An album reviewer can be all these things, especially from the point of view of a band on the wrong end of a recent judgment, regardless of how paltry their attempt was or how utterly deserving they are of the winning golf score of a mark given to them.

Complaints flood in: the proper context of the album was ignored, the artist’s live performance was not taken into account, the criticism was too harsh and uncompromising and, of course, the review should have focused on what the band did right and not on whether or not they completely ripped off someone else’s work.

Perhaps my approach is old-fashioned and outdated, but a review should be written for the benefit of the listener. It should be a recommendation, warning and/or suggestion from the personal view of the reviewer to their readership. The writer is not there to shamelessly promote an artist who isn’t up to standard because they’re told to or pressured by external influences, butter up reputations in the hope of improved future relations and perks, allow for rampant plagiarism to be passed off as a good thing regardless of how well executed the theft is or hand out constructive criticism and free development suggestions to artists up for a review in the form of a friendly, pleasant sounding board. A reviewer generally isn’t paid enough (if at all) to dole out tips on how to not suck. If a band needs such prods in the right direction then surely that’s just an even clearer sign of why their work is unworthy of a nice high mark from the nasty writer man.

A review should be fair, and to make that possible, each and every artist and their submitted pieces should be judged to the same strict levels of quality, ability and creativity. Obviously trite and derivative acts and albums are going to falter in the creativity department due to failing to come up with any of their own ideas which will probably negatively affect their songwriting ability and overall quality. In the same way, bad recordings and terrible, out-of-time performances are going to cause scores to head south for the winter too.

If you’re going to send out your release for review, and put it out there to the general public for sale, you’re indicating that it is a finished and worthy piece of work and therefore open to critique. You’re not allowed to get precious or excuse any justified negative reception as an unfair slight that should have been presented as useful suggestions to do better next time. If the listener is being asked to exchange their dough for your supposedly finished record, then it’s too late for feedback. Holes in your songs are no longer opportunities for development, but failures and mistakes and should be judged as such in a review.

Would it be unfair to slate a plane whose wings fall off at cruising altitude or a pair of shows that gnaw your lower limbs off? Surely the people should be informed that the deadly plane/show combo is an ill-advised purchase that won’t end in a happy, fairy-tale finale, put in an entertaining and readable manner discussing how and why these products are completely awful.

Hell, you could call it a review!