Please
Please can all reviewers and everybody else consider the way they are using the word “hype” in their reviews and reactions to music? If you do I will too.
When anyone writes a blog post praising a record, that’s hype. When anyone writes a comment on a message board praising a record, that’s hype. When you tell your friends you love a record that’s hype, and when everyone is talking about a record after they’ve seen a DJ play, that’s hype.
Hype is not created by some shadowed Illuminati behind the castle walls. Hype in the post-Internet age is you, me, and everybody else. We are the hype. People attacking hype are just more hype. Hype seems to have become a cheap way of referring to information overload.
When a reviewer attempts to reply to all of the great cacophony of Internet opinion that emerges about a record before its release these days, it’s too often worthless. Reviews that do this seem two-tone. They’re a simple yes/no story of “I distrust hype, PS I also own many leather bound books” or “OMG this record is hot!”
People are acting like “hype” is a concrete universal concept and not a highly individual one, a vague melange of every opinion or view a given person digests. My hype isn’t your hype, and it never will be.
This reactive reviewing seems to lend itself to world weariness too easily. People are pretending they’re so in the scene that they hear others talking about a big hit record everywhere they go, when actually all this tells you is they probably spend all day on the Internet! I should know! If people could say “I’m sick of HEARING this record” that’d be interesting, but it seems they’re more sick of hearing about it. Dance music writing on the net badly needs more club culture in it.
Of course it’s also a problem is that DJs/label-owners are now holding off the release of big records for a couple of months after they give out copies. This leads to a real deficiency in print or even online magazines using formal review structures. It’s yet another area in which blogs can trump them via YouTube links or just even mentioning that they heard whatever DJ play a huge release and describing it.
Many of the biggest hits are quite visceral and need to be released as soon as they are being played in my opinion. Democracy is better for the scene and the failure to do this is contributing to the weird feeling of a record coming out months after you’ve first heard it, and kind of ruining peoples collective enjoyment of these records and stunting their growth.
Reviewers meanwhile are too readily using this gigantic crutch of “hype” to lean on. They’re working based on other peoples’ gut reactions over a few months and carefully aligning themselves. But they should be going with their own gut. It’s too easy to frame reviews in the context of long Internet debates. Some of you are readers, some are reviewers, aren’t you sick of this? Why are reviews starting with disclaimers that tell you what the reviewer thinks of what everyone else thinks of a record? Why would you want to read on after this death rattle?
If somebody’s jaded about a record before they even begin reviewing it, and has read a zillion posts about it, then maybe they shouldn’t review it! I know I can seem like I pick stuff that’s on new labels or from new artists too much, but I guess it’s cos it avoids the feeling of a review being just a worthless comment on a track everyone is sick of, and gives it some “news” quality.
I mean, sure, a little context is okay, but discussions of hype upon hype coupled with predictions of how long it’ll be before backlash are a bit ridiculous.
I’ll probably sound quite backward thinking but I’d almost venture to say that some dance records shouldn’t be written about in the constraints of a formal review at all, let alone 2/3 months after their release. That said, if a writer can be more informal and break those constraints then he/she should go ahead. (Please.) He should be trying to do this every time, as hard as it is, as hard as I find it myself.
There’s just no doubt that lots of house/techno, in whatever the in vogue genre is, is disposable. Hell, lots of dance music in every genre is disposable. Lots of great music has a short shelf life. But what is constantly doubtful is whether disposability is a negative trait. Time passes and some records will only ever be a snapshot of a particular moment, perhaps only understandable to those who were there.
This is even more true for really marginalised obscure music. There is music from 30 or 40 years ago made to make plants grow. You think that “stood the test of time”? I bet some people would like to listen to it though just based on that description.
But people are too quick to ignore (dance) music’s potential to give you a quick fix, like great pop music does. There is a pop element to dance music and there always will be. The idea that somebody can put out a record that makes a club go completely crazy but is thrown away in a few months is valuable. It’s not morally wrong, it’s not hurting people, it’s a thrill.
It’s one in the eye for a broadsheet dominated cultural discourse that says only that which it decides will last the ages is worthy. I can’t think of any more concentrated illustration of the value of a pop thrill in house/techno than the fact that these big hit records (and yes I’m obviously talking about stuff like “Trompeta” here) make a room full of people expend huge amounts of physical energy, that they trigger emotions.
You can see the effect of a record like “Trompeta” on a dance floor. In my one experience of hearing it, it made people expend energy. That can’t be written down or recorded, but is it less of a physical action than people cheering at your wedding, or sobbing at a funeral? It is an event.
It happens and it exists. Humans don’t have to understand or record it or even know how to repeat how it made them feel for it to have value. The world remembers. The earth below our feet is struck again and again. That happens because of a record. If we were standing on sand you could see the reaction imprinted over and over again, if only for a short time.
If we don’t accept this, are we saying only the emotions and actions that we remember forever are authentic? Because if that’s the case, if we really are supposed to treat life as a series of grand all conquering parades of feeling, then who would want to live? The power of a record you love can be fleeting, like a flavour, like a smell, like so many million feelings that you will have before you die and that you’ll have forgotten by then.
But did each one of those feelings happen, if we forget them? The world remembers.
nollaig wrote:
good article but everyone knows the illuminati are behind alot of hype
Posted 24 Sep 2008 at 9:09 pm ¶
Tom wrote:
I have to say that while I agree with the broad logic of what you say (if you enjoy a track for one moment who cares if it’s thrown on the rubbish heap thereafter), I don’t find that I experience that all that often. Most of the tunes that I’ve ever loved, I continue to love. I find that most of the tracks that don’t stand the test of time are those that are too entrenched in some passing trend without any real quality and that’s why they don’t sound good a few years later. Generally I don’t like these tracks to begin with anyway. I must say I find the dance music I love as eternally rewarding as the best music from all the other genres of music I listen to.
On the whole reviews thing, I personally think the importance of reviews in dance music has waned since the beatport/juno age came onstream. Apart from being useful in alerting me to the existence of a track, I’ll always sample a track myself and trust my own ears rather than rely on anything a journalist says, who after all, is just some other dude who likes house/techno. I guess the opinion of a journalist you respected was more important in days gone by. Which isn’t to diss dance music journalism, I just prefer reading well conducted interviews or articles that talk about the scene in a general way, rather than reviews of individual tracks.
Interesting post though. Food for thought.
Posted 24 Sep 2008 at 10:01 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
I sort of agree with your first point except I think it is also possible for music to stand the test of time on a personal level, eg you listen to it yourself down the line.
I do agree with your second point really, I like writing single reviews and do my best but I have doubts about it too in the current climate.
Posted 24 Sep 2008 at 10:05 pm ¶
Sotek wrote:
@Tom: “I guess the opinion of a journalist you respected was more important in days gone by. Which isn’t to diss dance music journalism, I just prefer reading well conducted interviews or articles that talk about the scene in a general way, rather than reviews of individual tracks.”
Dead on.
Posted 24 Sep 2008 at 11:42 pm ¶
Charlie wrote:
Really interesting article, especially as i’m about to launch into the murky world of music journalism. Thanks!
I definitely think if trumpeta was released when folk first heard it the reviews would have been more positive. I also think though that its not very good track -you’re right its great in a club but not so hot in the cold light of day. Perhaps this has something to do with reviews being written sat in front of the internet rather than in the club?
Posted 24 Sep 2008 at 11:50 pm ¶
Joe H wrote:
I just prefer reading well conducted interviews or articles that talk about the scene in a general way, rather than reviews of individual tracks.
I think reviews of individual tracks are essential & I dont understand why there would be doubts. most of the people that I’ve spoke to can’t go off beatport samples & some even refuse to use it as a sampling device. Boomkat is the most annoying with the massive bleep 30 seconds in and Phonica sounds like its been recoreded on the first recording device known to man.
I suppose for our community (on the blogs websites) were all pretty up to speed on electronic music goings on and reviewing music otherwise we wouldn’t be doing it. However a lot of readers really appreciate the single reviews I’ve had some good feed back from people who go out and buy something that I have reviewed and I know other sites thats in the same boat. I’m sure every reviewer gets positive feedback at some point.
I like “articles that talk about the scene in a general way” and I find a lot here and some at SSGS, however I find theres only a certain amount I could generalise about within this sector of house & techno & most of its been done ie the state of electronic music, minimal, detroit, the decline… it goes on etc. I like a good ol read about these subjects but surely these subjects wouldn’t be wrote about if the music wasn’t out there and getting played in the clubs at the festivals & reviewed in the first place.
I agree on “Hype” & hypin up a certain track or album. I think youtube has a massive part to play as now everything (especially house & techno) is recorded and plastered on youtube for the world to see. Villalobos,RPR Soundystem, Luciano & Hawtin being the main culprits. They play a track at a festival, club night it gets put up on youtube gets a load of Hype surrounding it then those over at mnml.net disect it and request for something thats not even been released or if it has been released you’ll find “ID this please Raresh played it whilst Luciano was sucking Richie of at a underground event in the depths of hell”.
BUMP!
Nice post.
Posted 25 Sep 2008 at 12:28 pm ¶
Stef wrote:
‘I suppose for our community (on the blogs websites) were all pretty up to speed on electronic music goings on and reviewing music otherwise we wouldn’t be doing it. However a lot of readers really appreciate the single reviews I’ve had some good feed back from people who go out and buy something that I have reviewed and I know other sites thats in the same boat.’
I presume the people read your review then listened to the track for themselves before buying it? I think the main thing keep in mind is not to overestimate the importance of blogging on the scene; the majority of people I go out clubbing with spend nowhere near as much time on the internet as me and find out about new music from their peers rather than from online. I also agree with whoever it was that said a review of a track is pretty much a pointer, the main thing I’ll take from it is the name of the tune which I’ll then listen to to see if I like it. I have never bought music purely on the strength of something I’ve read, I always preview it first.
Posted 25 Sep 2008 at 2:55 pm ¶
Joe H wrote:
Ah… I forgot to mention I include streams to every post, I guess if I didn’t it would be a different story completely
I have never bought music purely on the strength of something I’ve read, I always preview it first.
I have a few times, when I had no internet access I used to count on Mixmag as my only source. I bought Ellen Allien - Thrills, Maetrik - Casi Profundo, Luciano - Scifi & a few more.
I preview everything now though as its so easy with the internet.
Posted 25 Sep 2008 at 4:11 pm ¶
Joe H wrote:
…& those mentioned I used to get imported from Germany by my local HMV going of Mixmags review only.
Posted 25 Sep 2008 at 4:15 pm ¶
dbzz wrote:
The moral of the story is the internet sux and should be banned and dismantled.
Posted 26 Sep 2008 at 1:08 am ¶
todd wrote:
yeah this post is too hyped
Posted 26 Sep 2008 at 4:12 am ¶
Will Lynch wrote:
I agree with pretty much everything Ronan said, especially about the dubiousness of Trompeta’s hype– even if discussion of the track became redundant within the echo chamber of techno blogs (which I personally don’t think it did), I doubt it was ever a belabored conversation point in the house/techno scene of the physical realm.
That being said, I think that talk of Trompeta’s hype is becoming so persistent that we have acheived meta-hype; the hype about the hype about Trompeta. When is this shit gonna end?
Posted 28 Sep 2008 at 2:24 am ¶
Karl wrote:
This is a great post. If a reviewer acts like he’s some sort of crusader against misplaced hype, he is both being incredibly naive AND acting like he is more enlightened and educated than anyone who exists on the internet or in word-of-mouth conversations about bands.
Weirdly coincidental that I come on to this blog for the first time and find a great post about something I have been thinking about for a couple of days.
Let the anti-hype reviewer stop Googling, if he’s so anxious to discard what blogs say.
Posted 29 Sep 2008 at 4:18 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
yeah or stop “being a part of the internet”, basically.
you can kind of understand your standard broadsheet writer complaining about internet hype, tho really he should be just laughing that anyone is willing to pay him for an opinion!
Posted 30 Sep 2008 at 10:20 am ¶
Char wrote:
“Reviewers meanwhile are too readily using this gigantic crutch of “hype” to lean on. They’re working based on other peoples’ gut reactions over a few months and carefully aligning themselves. But they should be going with their own gut.”
I agree everything you’re saying about reviews. I work in music PR and find that some reviewers at major mags and websites (naming no names) don’t seem to even open emails if there isn’t an of the moment, ‘hyped’ name slapped in the subject line. Whatever happened to it being about the music? Finding new stuff? Just writing about what you might like if you bother to open the mail? Rather than just namedropping what you know to be ‘in’ right now. It is beyond me.
Posted 08 Oct 2008 at 3:45 pm ¶
Donncha wrote:
Couldn’t agree more Ronan, an excellent article - approaching a manifesto for optimal appreciation of dance music in my opinion.
Posted 26 Jan 2009 at 12:22 pm ¶