my question would be why music reviews in the Weekly (both LA and OC
versions) have to come across as so much 'better than thou'?
don't know . . . didn't get that from these . . .
just my silly ol' opinion, though. normally, i like reading music
reviews, as a resource to check out new stuff. with the OC weekly
specifically, however, i've becomed so disgusted, i've stopped reading 'em.
i will go on record as saying that OC Weekly's Buddy Seigal is a big ol'
a-hole, worthy of the Wynton Marsallis award if anybody is...
don't have a clue about him.
Of all the reviews, the LA Weekly one stands out as
someone who's trying to talk as much about themselves as the band they
are reviewing, painting their narrow interpretation with childlike
artful representation of the
** well first off, he's trying (so you can decide if he gets
points for that). second off, i think that what he means is that the band has
something of catharsis about it (i've had more than a few people say this
after performances). to me this is actually about how the music hits him.
contrast it with a pre-"review" of a gig that someone wrote that basically
talked about a private conversation with one of the guys in the band
about a crush said musician had on another crit's wife - - whom he had
dated pre-marriage (something told in *confidence*). the music or other
players were *never* mentioned . . . never. to me the weekly thing is
damn near descriptive in comparison. i admit to feeling a little put off
by it on first reading and then got the gist of it one second reading .
. . i bounced it off of one of the other guys in l. stinkbug and he
thought it was a very apt description of the emotional nature of our
performances (cd is live stuff).
so . . . to each his own, but a different
viewpoint on it,