Thanking people for reviews

[jameslaco]

Is it just me or is thanking a reviewer really fucking gay? It's possible to care too much you know.

[David]

I was actually going to say the same thing.

I was also gonna say, i think the Last Project said they would take the reviewers critcism on board and learn from it and improve? does that actually happen?

I realise its better than moaning about a review, but if someone said something was shit about my band, we wouldn't change it. We'd scoff. Loudly. probably.

[EuanLastProject]

twas the drummer who said that. we've only been a band for 2 months, and were allready aiming to improve on harmonies etc, but when a fair few people at the gig said we should to me then it clarified the fact we thought we should. its always just nice to know that people appreciate something you're doing for kicks or whatever. if you think its gay that it makes people feel better about their m usic when someone gives them a good review then fair enough, but being our first review, after only our 8th gig i was fairly happy.

[carlsavage]

They're just annoyed because they have bad colds.

[David]

im assuming you're writing the best songs you can.
so if somebody says
"you need to write better melodies"
surely you try and do that anyway. if thats your bag.

[EuanLastProject]

i said harmonies, as in harmonies in the vocals.

[jameslaco]

EuanLastProject said:

i said harmonies, as in harmonies in the vocals.

As in you know what his point was anyway, don't be fucking pedantic.

[EuanLastProject]

plus we're not writing to the best of our ability as a band really, seeing as we've only been at it for two months the vast majority of the set either me or fergie have wrote seperately, with a fw collaborations, we're gonna start working together more aswell.

[blair_omnibus]

Yeah, critisism is good, most of the time but the Projects showed up a few people on the night in my opinion.

Keep up the good writing, and your welcome back to show up a few more bands anytime mate!

[jamie-ldm]

David said:

I was actually going to say the same thing.

I was also gonna say, i think the Last Project said they would take the reviewers critcism on board and learn from it and improve? does that actually happen?

I realise its better than moaning about a review, but if someone said something was shit about my band, we wouldn't change it. We'd scoff. Loudly. probably.

people usually say thank you for a review if its flattering and constructive. hence why i dident thank you for your review david because it was neither flattering or constructive.

[jameslaco]

jamiekts said:

people usually say thank you for a review if its flattering and constructive. hence why i dident thank you for your review david because it was neither flattering or constructive.

I'd argue that there's no such thing as a constructive review of something, but that's just my opinion of course.

[David]

Jamie, a review OF your band isn't FOR your band.
It is for the reviwer to express his opinion to other people who haven't been so fortunate as to hear your band, so they can decide whether or not they'd give you a listen.

If I wanted to flatter you, I'd come up to you and say how good you are as a band, if I were so inclined.
If you want constructive criticsm, start a thread saying "how can i improve my band?"

But that isn't what reviews are for.
If I reviewed your band using constructive criticism and you changed because of it, I'd think a lot less of you.

[jamie-ldm]

the point is a review is a person giving there opinion on the music. not writing a complex essay of patronising remarks about the band's chosen genre/music.

[Luke]

jamiekts said:

the point is a review is a person giving there opinion on the music. not writing a complex essay of patronising remarks about the band's chosen genre/music.

The point of a music review is whatever the fuck the reviewer wants to talk about.

The greatest music journalist of all time, Lester Bangs, regularly wrote articles that had no relevance whatsoever to what he was supposed to be talking about, and largely consisted of fabricated conversations with musicians who he thought were pathetic.

His general harassment of Lou Reed is one of the funniest things I've read.

Christ, I just actually read David's review.
It was about as fair as you could ask for. Not only did he accurately describe your band, but he also made some neat points about issues that arise from the music in its wider context.

Stop whining. If I was reviewing you, I'd probably sum up your shitty band in a paragraph and then talk about John Coltrane.

[Liamperfecttragedy]

Luke said:

Stop whining. If I was reviewing you, I'd probably sum up your shitty band in a paragraph and then talk about John Coltrane.

Thats a bit harsh luke man, they're trying at least, and besides ian the cockmuncher has left, and they're soun=ding better,

[jamie-ldm]

Luke said:

The point of a music review is whatever the fuck the reviewer wants to talk about.

The greatest music journalist of all time, Lester Bangs, regularly wrote articles that had no relevance whatsoever to what he was supposed to be talking about, and largely consisted of fabricated conversations with musicians who he thought were pathetic.

His general harassment of Lou Reed is one of the funniest things I've read.

Christ, I just actually read David's review.
It was about as fair as you could ask for. Not only did he accurately describe your band, but he also made some neat points about issues that arise from the music in its wider context.

Stop whining. If I was reviewing you, I'd probably sum up your shitty band in a paragraph and then talk about John Coltrane.

no luke. a reviewer is supposed to review the music. your little essay above is one of the most pretenious things i have seen. a review is not meant to be funny, or insulting. it is meant to express the reviewers opinion of the music. anyway i dont care if you dont like btfs because i dont, ian is the wourst vocalist i have ever heard.next time answer with more maturity and less petty comments.

[David]

jamiekts said:

the point is a review is a person giving there opinion on the music. not writing a complex essay of patronising remarks about the band's chosen genre/music.

Complex?
I was simply putting your band in a wider musical context for people who were not savvy to the ways of the genre in question. I'm not going to water down how i write so you can "read it ded betta".

Patronising?
"Flair to burn", "techincally stunning", "whirlwind dynamics", "refreshingly creative" and "countless alterations in song thematic" is hardly patronising.

If you think I'm mocking your chosen genre, then yeah, i honestly believe no one will give a shit about metalcore in about 5 years, and i explained why.
But I think its was a shame, because I enjoyed listening to your band. a hell of a lot more than when i listen to some other bands of your genre.

I think I gave a fair balanced review. I noted your pros and cons (in my opinion) and typed them up.
Can you say fairer than that?

[richskiddle]

Sorry if my post misses the point, i couldnt actually be arsed reading most of the thread.

Thanking people for reviews, it could be a bit gay on a 'local' scale, but then it all helps. On a larger scale, its PR people sending out stuff to review, which you do, and then whether its good or bad they thank you for your opinion and send you more stuff. But thats just a job after all.

I was reviewed the fisrt six tracks of sonic youths new album. Google picked it up, as then did geffen records who thought skiddle was a us site and emailed to see why we didnt have the full album. I replied and 2 days later Kim Gordon rang me to ask i if i wanted the full album as i liked the first 6 tracks so much. So that was kinda nice to be thanked.

MOre recently i spoke about prefuse 73. Steve from warped rang up to say it was the best thing he had read, because of just writing about the music i wrote about the hows and whys i was listening to it. More enjoyabke than, track one did this and track two did that

Every style is different, and whether you like it or not its up to you. But at the end of the day, who gives a fuck...

[Luke]

jamiekts said:

no luke. a reviewer is supposed to review the music. your little essay above is one of the most pretenious things i have seen. a review is not meant to be funny, or insulting. it is meant to express the reviewers opinion of the music. anyway i dont care if you dont like btfs because i dont, ian is the wourst vocalist i have ever heard.next time answer with more maturity and less petty comments.

Okay. I'll try and answer with more maturity.

1. There are no defintions for what a music review should or should not be.
2. Reviewers have no obligation to avoid "being funny or insulting". In fact, I have no idea what you mean by this. The best music reviews I've read have been humorous, and some bands deserve to be insulted.
3. David's review used words like "super!" and "great stuff!" to describe your band. What's the problem?
4. You're obviously fucking stupid.
5. I am immature.
6. Sorry for the petty comments.

[jamie-ldm]

Luke said:

Okay. I'll try and answer with more maturity.

1. There are no defintions for what a music review should or should not be.
2. Reviewers have no obligation to avoid "being funny or insulting". In fact, I have no idea what you mean by this. The best music reviews I've read have been humorous, and some bands deserve to be insulted.
3. David's review used words like "super!" and "great stuff!" to describe your band. What's the problem?
4. You're obviously fucking stupid.
5. I am immature.
6. Sorry for the petty comments.

i never said i had problem with how fair david had been in the review. just the fact that he dident direct much attention to the music, more to listing why he thought the genre sucked.