Paying for Reviews....is that fair?
- Thread starter paskinn
- Start date
Alan Brown
Registered LUser
I have found this a fascinating discussion (pfm at its best). I am afraid I definitely would disappoint Fox as a reader (though probably not as a music lover) yet I don't find his argument elitist, rather, stimulating. I do feel he is advocating an ideal which although worthy is probably unrealistic (as are many/most ideals), mostly for the reasons Alan S has given. In pursuing an ideal it's appropriate to be passionate, uncompromising and brutally clear. In editing a magazine (and explaining editorial policy) it is equally appropriate to be understanding, yet pragmatic and inclusive.
I don't feel either side is a completely intractable position, reviews of music could unquestionably be elevated and readers would ultimately benefit. Balance would be required though - Philistines such as myself preferred Alan's spoof review to Fox's serious effort (though the abridged effort was tolerable). Perhaps extended versions of such reviews could be presented online in the case of HiFi+, with the abridged (almost synopsis) printed in the magazine? At least thought would be stimulated in those who seek it out.
I hope the discussion can continue, it makes excellent reading. There seems no need for offense to be taken at the opinion of some people from teh internetz. (EDIT: though such rather underscores Alan's challenging position as an editor. One wonders how to maintain a quality credible publication when the audience is so fickle - 'nowt so queer as folk').
I don't feel either side is a completely intractable position, reviews of music could unquestionably be elevated and readers would ultimately benefit. Balance would be required though - Philistines such as myself preferred Alan's spoof review to Fox's serious effort (though the abridged effort was tolerable). Perhaps extended versions of such reviews could be presented online in the case of HiFi+, with the abridged (almost synopsis) printed in the magazine? At least thought would be stimulated in those who seek it out.
I hope the discussion can continue, it makes excellent reading. There seems no need for offense to be taken at the opinion of some people from teh internetz. (EDIT: though such rather underscores Alan's challenging position as an editor. One wonders how to maintain a quality credible publication when the audience is so fickle - 'nowt so queer as folk').
Thats fine. I find it weird I get called useless in one post and eloquent in another. [shrugs] I think people are just uncomfortable that there is an entire foundations to music they can only reach if they put in some hard work....
You used my use of useless in the context of the discussion. You are effectively using my words in specific ways that suit your agenda and overlooking all the nuance. Its not for me to decide what I am good, bad, indifferent or useless at because I have no way of knowing. I have no idea if my next composition will be any good, only that it will make sense. To me. And will follow rules and structure and operate in a framework.
We can succeed at understanding something and there are empirical evaluations we can make to keep us on the straight and narrow, but you submit those judgements to supervisors and people who know better than you.
I find people writing about music on PFM a bit like a particle physicist reading a guardian article talking about the inner workings of CERN. Its why I so rarely post content in /music, i realised I cannot actually say anything at all in any field here that makes any sense because to do so would be to a: go into a field I have no knowledge about or b: use a type of writing that is essentially meaningless in a field I have knowledge about.
Limitation reached.
If I write something meaningless in my field than there are supervisors ready to steer me back.
We can succeed at understanding something and there are empirical evaluations we can make to keep us on the straight and narrow, but you submit those judgements to supervisors and people who know better than you.
I find people writing about music on PFM a bit like a particle physicist reading a guardian article talking about the inner workings of CERN. Its why I so rarely post content in /music, i realised I cannot actually say anything at all in any field here that makes any sense because to do so would be to a: go into a field I have no knowledge about or b: use a type of writing that is essentially meaningless in a field I have knowledge about.
Limitation reached.
If I write something meaningless in my field than there are supervisors ready to steer me back.
Alan Sircom
I dü werds, me
And therein lies the problem. Audio magazines are not peer-reviewed journals. And as their audience shrinks through the downturn in the magazine market and the downturn in the audio market, presenting 'uncomfortable' issues are harder to deliver, because the audience votes with its feet.
Curiously, the music reviews about which I have received most complaint have been the ones that have been the most well structured and, to my mind, interesting. The one that was worst received was a review of Dutilleux' Correspondences, although I think the Pulsinger/Pennesz In Four Parts and Recomposed Four Seasons in the same issue will set a new record of classical music review vitriol. Why? Because it's not typical Dead White European Male music played by an orchestral layout fixed in aspic at about the time of the Franco-Prussian War.
Moreover, I learned an important lesson in my NTCJ training. The closer you get to the mainstream, common usage trumps correct usage. Every subeditor I know (and I do know some very good ones, just ones that I could never afford to hire) is well aware that, "it begs the question" does not mean, "it invites the question". One particularly good sub I know who works on a national newspaper was a philosophy graduate; imagine how he must feel seeing, "it begs the question", knowing the incorrect use of the phrase is effectively poisoning the well for future petitio principii use. If you try to change it, it just gets changed back, because the public understand 'begging the question' (even though their understanding is incorrect) but don't understand 'invites the question'.
Under 'common usage trumps correct usage' rules, it is difficult to discuss any complex concept without locking horns with the language. In photography, it took generations to break the incorrect link between the word 'reciprocity' and the term 'reciprocity failure'; this only went away because reciprocity failure is more or an issue with film and chemistry, and is not a common effect seen with sensor technology. People think searing 'seals in the juices' of meat, where every good chef and food writer knows it's a caramelisation process that actually loses water, but that gets overlooked or 'corrected'.
Audio and music are no different here.
Yank
Bulbous Also Tapered
Does anyone print bad reviews anymore?
gordon
self-righteous, but never right
this wasn't what i was getting at when mentioning reception (or reader-response) theory. there seem to be two ends of the spectrum. 1) absolutism - there is only one possible meaning, one authorial intent, one valuation of a piece of work. 2) there is no meaning whatsoever, other than what someone makes of it. if i had to lean one way or the other, i'd lean towards 2, but i'd also greatly appreciate the thoughts of those who are more knowledgeable than i on the subject. solipsism is bad, but so is taking someone's word for it, if that makes any sense.
just throwing some ideas around, feel free to bat them about.
PigletsDad
My intelligence test came back negative.
I think there is a spectrum: statements like "Two is a prime number" are true in most conceptual systems - the relativist position would be that only certain people, with a given educational background, would view it as relevant or interesting.
"Justin Bieber is the greatest musician of our times" is a value judgement, and has more room for divergence of opinion.
Arkless Electronics
Trade: Amp design and repairs.
This has gone way of topic... 
Did your training emphasise accuracy...it's NCTJ (National Council for the Training of Journalists.)
And I would have thought your exposure to academic philosophy might have led to the view (re Mr Wittgenstein) that meaning is defined by usage. Indeed, one might say that the usage is the meaning.
In which case, normal usage can't be wrong.....it's logically impossible.
Or something......
No, but I am not sure they ever did. You have to assess degrees of enthusiasm in the reviews, daming with faint praise if you like. I have read somewhere, that magazines don't tend to print bad reviews, it is wasting space. I am not sure what they do with really awful kit, perhaps ask the manufacturer if they really want a poor review printed.
I was listening to a radio programm on Amazon consumer reviews. It said that manufacturers really care a great deal how many stars I might give to a CD and send free ones to regular"sympathetic reviewers". That is only a solitary review hidden amongst thousands of others.
I have read some of the HiFi mags for years and not because AS may be looking over my shoulder, I have found Plush, to be the best. It seems the most literate and interesting to read and I think you can gauge degrees of enthusiasm quite easily. Despite the comments about it's music reviews, they have been the most useful to me, having found a number of artists I had never heard of, whom I enjoy.
Having said that, I have bought it since issue 18 I think and I am not renewing my subscription. Partly because there are more reviews of things I am not interested in, like headphones, though I am not complaining about them being there. Mainly, having refound my early 80's enthusiasm for HiFi, in about 1998, extinguished by marriage and kids, I know have a settled setup I am happy with and don't want to develop any more urges to buy kit I don't need, by reading reviews.
Looking at it from the other side, the magazines that don't have adverts, I am thinking of HiFi critic and Bound for Sound in the US, they have different problems. I have chatted with editors of both and they can find it difficult to get kit to review. Manufacturers seem to think an advertising budget gives them some hold over the content of reviews. Thus they may feel they have no control over these publications, where there is no budget. For that reason they don't seem to publish bad reviews either, or they won't get anything to review at all, unless they buy it. I am not sure how they handle that, perhaps just send the kit back saying, " you really don't want my review of this product"
Alan Sircom
I dü werds, me
Wittgenstein also said, "a good and serious philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes", which is probably the best thing ever written in, of, and about academic philosophy.
My NCTJ training did emphasis accuracy, as well as grammar and proof-reading. I would have been in the dog-house for 'NTCJ'. You would have been in the dog-house for putting that full stop on the wrong side of the parenthesis. And for making up your own style of ellipsis...
That's the beauty of grammar pedantry; some love it, but it is fewer interesting than a lot of other things to most people.
whatsnext
Naimless
This has gone way of topic...
Agreed but I guess the right people like that.
Norman Green
pfm Member
Quote : Two is a prime number (is) true in most conceptual systems..
Im lost.
2 is a prime number by definition (of a prime number).
In what conceptual system is it not true ?
Im lost.
2 is a prime number by definition (of a prime number).
In what conceptual system is it not true ?
there is no intellectual cachet in witty quoting, anyone can use google.
I had a nightmare made manifest: my last dinner party (before I went whacko) a few years ago... where people (all computer magazine journalists, and me, a former comp journo from way back) were sitting round a dinner table and they were all cross referencing in real time what they said with their smart phones. Seriously! I was wondering if I was witnessing an emergent social phenomenon, but it was pretty messed up. I am a numpty so my battery had died from using google maps to get me to the venue and I was at a social disadvantage and a social advantage at the same time... I just watched and thought, this is ****ed and kept quiet.
There can be eloquence in non technical music writing expressing emotional response to music that is almost poetry. But I think it would not look go down well on the magazine page and once in while I see someone get there online. But not here. Its usually when the writer intuitively finds the reference points of a work and expresses it in long winded but wonderful nomenclature that is so nicely put together you can just sit back and appreciate the verbiage.
Incidentally, I never agreed with the sneerers with the often sneered at "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture" (ha "even a fule like me can quote), but surely that is some of the most satisfying dance to watch, what better than an exploration of space and motion in non architectural speak than dance?
I have said too much and annoyed some people. In the long run A Good Thing if kicking me gets you doing it with more thought than there average post here about cable directionality and attacking foo.
I had a nightmare made manifest: my last dinner party (before I went whacko) a few years ago... where people (all computer magazine journalists, and me, a former comp journo from way back) were sitting round a dinner table and they were all cross referencing in real time what they said with their smart phones. Seriously! I was wondering if I was witnessing an emergent social phenomenon, but it was pretty messed up. I am a numpty so my battery had died from using google maps to get me to the venue and I was at a social disadvantage and a social advantage at the same time... I just watched and thought, this is ****ed and kept quiet.
There can be eloquence in non technical music writing expressing emotional response to music that is almost poetry. But I think it would not look go down well on the magazine page and once in while I see someone get there online. But not here. Its usually when the writer intuitively finds the reference points of a work and expresses it in long winded but wonderful nomenclature that is so nicely put together you can just sit back and appreciate the verbiage.
Incidentally, I never agreed with the sneerers with the often sneered at "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture" (ha "even a fule like me can quote), but surely that is some of the most satisfying dance to watch, what better than an exploration of space and motion in non architectural speak than dance?
I have said too much and annoyed some people. In the long run A Good Thing if kicking me gets you doing it with more thought than there average post here about cable directionality and attacking foo.