March 31st, 2008
Seven deadly words: review hell
Last week, The New York Times Paper Cuts blog ran a post entitled ‘Seven Deadly Words of Book Reviewing. The comments run to 230+ and every reviewer, book or otherwise, will probably shudder in recognition at many of the examples suggested by readers (”luminous”, “eschew”, “gripping”).
It reminded me of a recent conversation with a fellow journalist, where we got talking about the language used in music reviews. Everyone has words that they just can’t bear, but there are words specific to album reviews that make your skin crawl. If I come across the word “soundscape”, I have to stop reading. (My friend’s biggest beef is with “visceral”). “After the jump” makes me similarly twitchy.
What words do you hate when you see them in a review?
March 31st, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I know I’m guilty of using a lot of those no-nos, including soundscape and visceral! Waargh!
I like words like crunchy and chugging (or maybe I just like that kind of music). Words I don’t like to see in a review? Anything haughty. Can’t be more specific than that, sorry, blame it on the hour of sleep I lost last night
March 31st, 2008 at 2:21 pm
“NME approved”, “Kate Hudson”
March 31st, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Here, what does ‘after the jump’ mean anyway?
March 31st, 2008 at 2:35 pm
‘Chewy’ or ‘flavoursome’ or ‘meaty’ - anything that sounds as though it would be better off in a restaurant review. Although I’m sure I’m guilty of a lot more than seven myself. I don’t like anything too superlative either, although it’s hard not to use them sometimes
March 31st, 2008 at 2:36 pm
In film reviews I just hate it when they talk about their seats (”you’ll be on the edge of your seat,” “you’ll jump out of your seat”) and I also hate when they refer to a film as a “rollercoaster ride.”
March 31st, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Not so much about reviews but one thing that should be banned from political press releases is ‘devastating blow’. Anyone who writes this in a statement should suffer a ‘devastating blow’
March 31st, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Just two words, “Sinead” and “Gleeson”.
ONLY MESSING!!! APRIL FOOL!!!
Seriously, though, if someone is going to do a lot of review they can’t help repeating themselves now and again, and if we start creating taboos for them, then in effect what we’re doing is reviewing the reviews, then where would it end?????
I agree with redmum on Press Release Speak, by the way, and the phrase I hate the most is “going forward”. What the hell does that mean?
March 31st, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Uncanny, the first word to pop into my head was “soundscape”, and then there it was.
These days, when people refer to the spaces between the notes, hits, et cetera, I want to set the internet afire.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:13 pm
In one newspaper I worked in we had a thing called the Wall of Shame where we hung up bad press releases and press release mistakes. My favourite was the Dandy Warholes :).Jeeaysis.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:36 pm
-Achingly beautiful
-sun drenched harmonies
-Like [group name] on [mind-bending drug]
-lush production (i.e. it’s got a string quartet)
March 31st, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Dandy Jaysis Warholes? Christ on a crutch.
I’m an awful one for using ’shimmering’ or ’sun-drenched’, and ‘lush’ for that matter. Guitars are often ‘robust’, ‘angular’ or ‘calorific’ in my reviews for some reason.
*Hangs head in shame*
I also hate when people are comparing someone, they call them the ‘bastard lovechild’ of so-and-so. Layyyzeee!
I’m sure I’ve done it myself
March 31st, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Non-US reviewers who use the term “sophomore album” should be hung, drawn and quartered
March 31st, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Hugh has already mentioned a few of my least faves. I actually shudder to read them…
I seem to recall that the likes of NME used to review (heavy) guitar band gigs in wildly irritating fashion. A bit like this…
“Toward the end of ‘Song X’ the wall of guitar noise rose, behemoth-like, to monstrous proportions - threatening to stomp over the assembled masses like some vast sonic Godzilla”
I’m crying as I write this…
March 31st, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Can I also had “delicate”, “esoteric” and “multi-”, unless it’s multi-instrumental, a genuine term in itself.
What about the negative words? No one says “shite” enough in reviews.
March 31st, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Edel - fear not, every reviewer (me included) is guilty. When I think back to some of my earliest reviews, I cringe. Re: after the jump. Not sure, but there was a stage when it seemed that every US blog I read kept using it so it has bugged me since then.
Ian - surely these days being “NME approved” is the kiss of death?
Claire - agreed, it’s hard not to be descriptive, especially if you have a very minute word count.
Medbh - I always think the seat references are too subjective, and weirdly, when I see them, I imagine I’m going to have the polar opposite experience to the person who’s written those words.
Red mum - politics and PR are full of lingo bingo. There are way too many to hate!
JL - I completely forgot about April Fool’s Day. Dang. I would have tried something on himself.
“Seriously, though, if someone is going to do a lot of review they can’t help repeating themselves now and again”
- I’m sure I’m guilty of that. I don’t mean to review the reviews, merely to point out the odd lexical hasbeen that gets my goat.
Niall - do people really refer to the spaces between the notes? That’s detailed.
Edel Coffey - I would love to visit this wall of shame you speak of. It sounds like a magical place.
Hugh - you’re spot on. I know I’ve done the band reference thing, but without the drug refs. “achingly” anything makes me think something will be painful to listen to. I NEVER use “lush” anymore. I used to, but it even bores me senseless now.
Tanya - “calorific”? I like that! I’ve used “angular” a few times myself. I love that word.
Jim - indeed.
Fústar - NME, and particularly Sounds, were terribly for that monster-behemoth stuff. They thought it was hilarious, no doubt.
Dave - “esoteric” is a definite crime. I don’t mind multi-layered as it does what it says on the descriptive tin.
You have a fair point about the lack of negative examples of cliche here. I mentioned the story of my friend and “BRUTAL” before. Details here:
http://www.sineadgleeson.com/blog/2006/07/22/kevin-smith-and-brutal-or-brutal/
March 31st, 2008 at 9:20 pm
I’ve used angular so many times, but I love music that sounds all angular and spiky (there’s another word I always overused). As for book reviews, I’m ashamed to say that I’ve used gripping and compelling far too often.
April 1st, 2008 at 8:20 am
All my worst offenders have been mentioned - lush sun/soul-drenched, and the main offender “soundscapes”. I roll my eyes when I read that last one.
Shudder
April 1st, 2008 at 9:48 am
“Seminal” has to be the worst one when its misused to mean ‘critical’ or ‘important’. Though that is a crime most commonly committed by sports broadcasters (Billo and Tom take a bow). “Visceral” is pretty annoying too.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:55 am
I LOVE the word soundscapes, and use it all the time but in a live-theatre-score-context not a music-review one.Can I be forgiven? Or should I find a new word to avoid the scorn I never knew about.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:56 am
‘groovy’ & ’soundblast’
April 1st, 2008 at 10:59 am
Sinead,
Have a gander at this Google query of the egregious Pitchfork Remedial.
I’ve also made a game out of Stephanie Zacharek’s film reviews for _Salon_. SZ likens an actor’s performance to dancing. Take a drink.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Dearie me, I’ll get my coat…which happens to be both angular AND esoteric
April 1st, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Not sure what happened to the markup in my previous post, but here’s the link to the Google query:
http://www.google.ie/search?q=the+spaces+between+the+notes+site%3Apitchforkmedia.com
April 1st, 2008 at 9:03 pm
What offends me about popular music reviewing is that the people claiming expertise very rarely know how music is made and, worse, they have no interest in finding out. Beyond basically saying “I liked it” or “I didn’t like” it, they are in no position to properly describe the music at all. So unless they are bringing something else to the table in their writing, reading a purported “review” tends to be a little redundant.
The language of people who review jazz or classical music tends to be more precise and informative. If I were a music journalist, I think I’d be inclined to take a few lessons from genuine experts rather than resort to meaning-free esoterica about dappled meadows of sound or whatever.
Am reading Guitar Man by Will Hodgkinson co-incidently - but in order to get an idea of what he’s on about when talking about T. Model Ford or whatever, I keep YouTube on standby.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Music of nordic origin must always be described as “glacial”
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:45 am
Stellanova - angular and spiky are favourites of mine, because I hear so much music that is perfectly served by those words.
Joe - you’re among like-minded souls.
Chancer - arrgh. Yes, seminal has almost become redundant now.
Little Red - I think you can definitely use soundscape in a live theatre score context. I was at Life is a Dream in the Project last night, and the soundscape perfectly sums up the rumbling, ongoing score that lingered as a backdrop.
Garreth - I can safely say I’ve never used either of those words.
Niall - dear me. And it’s not just one offender (although that guy Mark uses it a lot).
Tanya - we’re all (as Fustar says above) crying as we use those words. Feel no shame.
Copernicus - hello stranger! Hope all is well. I completely agree with the faux expertise. I heard a review of Adrian Crowley’s album on the radio a couple of months ago, which irked me. One of the reviewers dismissed the album (which has been widely critically acclaimed) on the basis that she “didn’t like singer-songwriters”. As if that was a justification for not applying objective critical thought to a piece of art. It’s the same school of people whose critique of modern art is “my two year old could do better than that”. Neither apply a critical methodology to the object being observed/heard/read.
I spend far too much time hanging around the studio himself works in with bands so have picked up a lot of geeky production knowledge. I have stop myself taking about mastering levels and mixing in reviews.
Fergal - Ah yes, a classic. I actually wrote a review of a Sigur Ros album and mentioned the fact that everyone reviewing it will use the word “glacial” about it. Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:09 pm
the words “epic” and “double-album” put me off at a very very fast speed.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
“What offends me about popular music reviewing is that the people claiming expertise very rarely know how music is made” (Copernicus) — Do you really need to know how something is made in order to appreciate it? I can’t paint; does that mean I can’t understand art?
But I agree if you mean that people should have expertise/experience in their field if we are to trust their opinion.
That said, all reviews are so subjective. I never read reviews of movies I’m planning to see for that reason. Conversely, I will read music reviews by people whose taste seems similar to mine (e.g. Sinead G), but that’s not exactly a perfect system either.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Life is a Dream indeed, but how about the musician? Were you there for fun or The View? Look forward to hearing what you think.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
“Do you really need to know how something is made in order to appreciate it? I can’t paint; does that mean I can’t understand art?”
I didn’t say “appreciate”, I said “claim expertise”. Art reviewers talk about technique and style and how the impression on the beholder is created. Bad music reviewers (present company excepted Sinead et al) tend to be concerned mainly with whether or not it is cool to like a band.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:54 pm
life affirming (this was big in the late 90s, for bad music)
overrated/underrated (by whom…way too subjective to carry any weight)
“won’t stand the test of time” (what, like sex, emotions, chocolate cake, time itself? half of life doesn’t stand the test of time
btw the last thing I care about is if a reviewer can play an instrument or not or understand those things. alex ferguson can’t play football. alan carr smoked etc.
as for “whether or not it is cool to like a band”, well, being concerned with whether or not it isn’t cool to like a band is the other side of the same coin, neither is the be all and end all.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
I cringe at anything approaching a cliche. But that’s in the eye of the beholder I suppose.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
possibly the worst professional review ever:
http://www.nme.com/reviews/the-horrors/8216
April 4th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Copernicus, are you saying that the act of criticism is a tacit assertion of expertise in production {of music, text, whatever}, so one versed in methods of production would be better critics? Sorry of that question sounds laborious, but I’m trying to understand your position.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
“a better critic”, rather.
April 5th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
“Soundscape” & “seminal” (in most cases) are bang on. Kinda like “sophomore” myself though. Has a touch of elegance to it compared to alternative phrasing and if you are going to start down the route of avoiding American jargon, well good luck with that high wire act!
Moving on, “calorific” has officially been robbed by me! Great word! “Esoteric” though is a shocker. At any time. Ever.
To throw a very simple one into the mix, I hate how liberally the term “indie” is now used. For me, it has lost all meaning.
To follow the digression in the thread, I would agree with Niall that Copernicus should clarify his position. The hoi polli know how to use web 2.0 my son and we are here to stay!
April 5th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
“Copernicus - hello stranger!”
As a lolcat would put it, I’m generally in ur staz, lurking on ur blog.
“Copernicus, are you saying that the act of criticism is a tacit assertion of expertise in production {of music, text, whatever}, so one versed in methods of production would be better critics?”
Well “production” has a very technical meaning in the context of recorded music and I’m not talking about that. But I think professional reviewing is more than a tacit claim of expertise. And, yes, I think criticism which is informed by intellectual investigation into the constituent elements of the work under review is more interesting and useful. Pop music reviewing tends to be more impressionistic - I liked it, I didn’t like it - it’s x meets y - if you like blah, you’ll love blither. It can have a tendency to establish musical credibility on the basis of cheekbones like razorblades and haircuts which will look shamefully naff when they find their way onto the heads of Busted a week from now.
My “problem” is that generally the expertise of the writer on popular forms of music isn’t musical, it’s lifestyle and “hipness” and I think the community of rock and pop journos should be a bit more self-critical about that.
Fair enough on the level that it’s what the audience of the writing is probably looking for. But it’s dull and exclusive. That’s why a lot of music writing dates at speed or sounds frankly adolescent in a way that a lot of other critical writing doesn’t. The fact that a lot of the ideas and personnel involved translate so fluidly to the world of corporate marketing sort of takes the edge off the supposed “edginess” of the whole enterprise too.
Music writers tend to factionalise to an extent I find deeply suspicious too. Music isn’t good because it’s electro-pop rather than Mariah Carey, a piece of music is “good” for compositional reasons - the fretless bass on Vision of Love is smoove son! But I like Robots in Disguise too. And Scott Walker’s Tilt. And there’s no contradiction.
April 6th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Copernicus - the prob arises when there’s no distinction made between someone who is a reviewer and someone who is a critic - ie, some unqualified to speak about a particular discipline, and someone who is. I do quite a bit of reviewing, and it bugs me when I hear someone describe themselves as a critic. The vast majority of ‘critics’ in this country are reviewers, and that’s not because they don’t have hands-on experience in the discipline they’re reviewing, it’s because they rarely have the depth and breadth of knowledge - in theories of criticism, let alone the discipline under review - required.
April 7th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I got one.
Crystalline.
What does that mean?
April 7th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Angst, zeitgeist and leitmotif are always sufficient reason inthemselves to kill the person who wrote them.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Shane, isn’t Crystalline a Pink Floyd song from their shimmering soundtrack to the dramatic fall-asleep-in-your-seat film ‘More’?
I’ve only ever seen “sophomore” used in Hot Press (and with alarming regularity by just about every writer over the past decade or so, including some of the good ones) so I guess that says something or other.
I’m pleasantly surprised no one has mentioned Frank Zappa’s oft misquoted quote on rock journalism thus far, though I suspect Copernicus is alluding to it:
“Definition of rock journalism: People who can’t write, doing interviews with people who can’t think, in order to prepare articles for people who can’t read.”
April 11th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
‘Sophomore’, regardless of where the writer is from, makes me die a little inside.
April 12th, 2008 at 1:26 am
“The vast majority of ‘critics’ in this country are reviewers, and that’s not because they don’t have hands-on experience in the discipline they’re reviewing, it’s because they rarely have the depth and breadth of knowledge - in theories of criticism, let alone the discipline under review - required.”
that sounds a bit hierarchical to be honest. I barely agree with any critics but far be it from me or anyone else to say they aren’t critics.
a 7 year old child denouncing something is a critic. long may it be thus.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
How about “transgressive”, “tropes”, “rebarbative” and “elide”?
April 18th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Band A is like Band B but on C (where C = some ‘crazy’ sort of drug).
Hate that.