Welcome back to Sputnikmusic’s maybe possibly most helpful segment where we discuss the ins and outs of reviewing music and all its glory! Maybe you’re a budding reviewer, on the cusp of greatness, searching for that piece of the puzzle lost on the floor or maybe your mum just logged you on to the household’s singular trusty laptop and you don’t know what to do with your fifteen-minute screen allowance before the older sibling demands the computer for…research? Either way, you’ve come to the right place!
First off. How did you get in here? What are you? This place doesn’t seem to have doors.
I’m just a mysterious lad with a Trailer Park Boys-derived moniker whose late-blooming interest in music quickly turned to obsession, which led me inevitably down into the dingy corridors of Sputnik. I don’t remember the first thing I read on Sput, but it was probably some review for Bob Dylan or Led Zeppelin or Tom Petty or the like. Now, some twelve years or so later, here I am. For the vast majority of my tenure on Sput, I never had any thought of being a contrib, let alone staff, but the ways of life are mysterious, I guess.
Milo would like to know who your musician union representative is. I would like to know why.
I’m gonna go with Mark Knopfler, probably my favorite guitarist, and I think his “chill but emotional” style of playing resonates with how I try to review: laid-back but letting the reader know how an album makes me feel.
I would then like you to assign one to each of the following:
Sowing: Sufjan Stevens (as the patron saint of indie folk)
Willie: John Paul Jones (awesome but overlooked member of Led Zeppelin, comparable to Willie’s awesomeness while not being the most recognized member of the mod squad).
Jom: Graham Sutton (guy from Bark Psychosis, a fantastic band with albums released once a decade at best, a Jom review is an EVENT)
AtomicWaste: David Bowie (bit of a cheat, don’t know AtomicWaste all that well, but his Blackstar review is memorable and fantastic)
Mx: Elvis Presley (a pioneer and essential influence on rock and roll, but not talked about or present in the musical conversation much now, similar to how Sput wouldn’t be here without our occasionally-present father figure)
Deviant.: I’ve got nothing on this one, just perused the user page and Deviant has one review since 2014, I was on the site before 2014, but have only hazy remembrances of any staff from that era
So the dead reps have their work cut out for them then?
So far, this series has seen the staff highlight the importance of proofing and editing, while isolating things like when and when not to abuse a thesaurus when writing. I want to change the topic: What should we be reviewing? Too broad?
Very broad question, but I like it. Anyone could probably provide a different angle on this, but for me, I’m a simple man. For the most part, I just write about whatever releases inspire me to write. Usually, that’s because I particularly like something, and it has enough distinctiveness to it to make for a fun write up. I think it’s particularly good/rewarding to cover unknown or new artists too, although I’d be hesitant to bash one of their releases too hard. “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all”-and all that. Of course, harsh reviews of more famous and established artists are totally fair game in my book. Ultimately, though, the beauty of being a staff writer on Sput is that we all write what we want to, nothing more, nothing less. We’re not professionals (but don’t tell Metacritic that).
I guess that explains why most of our black metal reviews aren’t added to their database then… poseurs.
Yeah, that’s too broad. Okay, context time! I shouldn’t be divulging too much of what appears in the staffers’ conversations, but I think this will carry. Anyhow…every time there’s a release from a band “like Deathspell Omega” (loose example for reader reference here), some of the [current and former] roster gets vocal about what and how we should review something that would monetarily benefit from more “exposure”. I think I can safely say that no one on Staff would endorse the ideals and beliefs from some of the bands/musicians who represent a shitty, discriminative sect of the population…but we’re a music review, news and interview site right?
Say the perception of these ideals’ skew perception of album enjoyment. What then? Do we take a step back, try to get objective and remove all sense of subjective nuance?
Really walking right into a minefield now, aren’t we?
I’m just part of the unofficial OH&S committee or the less than official Facebook liaison, but yes…
As with a lot of things, my feelings here are complicated. Bottom line, yes, Sput is a “music website”, as the famous comments section retort likes to remind us. As such, I’ll always avow to that every band, no matter how heinous their criminal pasts or ideological proclivities, should be able to have a page where their music can be rated and (potentially) reviewed. Where things get more tenuous, at least for me, is having featured reviews for staff or big feature pieces (interviews, etc.) for questionable artists. There are plenty of factors to weigh in these considerations-among them to the overall reputation of Sput and the wishes of staffers associated with the site, as well as how you perceive the nature of art. In general, I’m fine with Sput refraining from giving that sort of publicity for the types of artists which we’re discussing, and in fact lean that way. You could also simply argue to dissect each artist’s offenses on a case-by-case basis, some are mildly bad, and some are absolutely beyond the pale, but I won’t claim to be the final judge.
Is it the right course of action to simply endorse a non-endorsement at the bottom of the review text? i.e. Do not buy/support this with any financial incentive/here is the reason why…
I’m not opposed to that course of action, it arguably feels like a reasonable compromise, particularly for bands (like Deathspell Omega) who already have a pretty big footprint and who Sput wouldn’t exactly be lifting from obscurity with a review feature. However, my gut reaction is that the absolute shitshow which would result in the comments section arguing from all sides about this disclaimer would probably bring these types of bands wider attention than any other random non-obnoxious artist, so that’s my food for thought. 
In avoiding these acts, these reviews, are we self-censoring? Is it for the greater good? Or have we somehow become apprehensive to tell people how we ‘feel’ lest we offend someone or a collective group. Musical opinion isn’t generally offensive and yet here we are.
Maybe all of the above? Ultimately, the way I tend to think about these sorts of issues is that, at its core, Sputnik is a kind of “society”. Every society on a grander scale has rules, whether formal (kill someone and get thrown in jail) or informal (more modes of “acceptable” behavior). Trying to figure out how to handle this issue on Sputnik is just one example of how we have to constantly balance the natural human desire to do whatever the hell we want at all times with what’s good for the collective and even the world at large. As far as I’m aware, there hasn’t been much direction from above on Sput about how to handle “problematic” artists, so it’s basically been up to the staff membership to find some kind of uncomfortable equilibrium on this issue. As such, not featuring reviews for artists connected to particularly offensive views has been the agreed-upon compromise, something in place to keep the peace amid Sput’s strange but lovely little society of weirdos and music nerds. Is that “self-censorship”? Yeah, probably a little. But in the great scope of human history, this is pretty small stakes. In medieval Europe, you had people who objected to one minor point or another in church doctrine burned at the stake, or more recently, The Dixie Chicks dropped from radio programming for expressing a (temporarily) unpopular political position. Obviously huge differences between the two things I just cited, but compared to the idea that a band just gets a smaller review towards the bottom of the site’s main page vs. getting a prime place at the top is a pretty minor controversy. In short, I think there’s plenty of philosophical arguments you could employ from multiple angles on this topic which I find to have various degrees of merit, but this also isn’t something that I lose sleep over.
I wouldn’t mind opening discussions up here…
Circling back to “what to review”. Are you aware that your black metal meets folk reviews have somehow pushed me off my usual black metal forest wanderings? I mean I don’t mind [all the time] but I do feel like I’ve been relegated to the deathiest of death metal albums. Which of your black metal reviews [this year] do you think could’ve been mine? May I walk through the woods with you? I’ll hold hands if you like.
Awww, now I feel awkward! Certainly didn’t mean to push you from your trve path. Would’ve certainly read your thoughts on this year’s Enisum, as well as Mork and perhaps the recent Witte Wieven record. Always down for a walk in the woods, and going forward, don’t be shy if I nab a black metal album you’ve got a hankering for. I’m sure a reasonable compromise can be reached!
That’s fine, you’re doing a cracker-jack-good-job anyways. It’s good to see others-enjoying-the-music-I-also-like. Just know I have a tenure for all things Falls Of Rauros okay?
Thank you, thank you! Falls of Rauros are tremendous, but yes, I can agree to that.
I may have just done some homework really quick but your objectivity is at a whopping sixty-two percent, and it looks like your last eight ratings are either tickling or are the “excellent” classification. How do you like music so much?
Haha, I’ve been exposed right here. My ratings chart is absurdly centered between 3.3 and 4.2 or so, with only a tiny percentage of releases achieving higher than that range or falling lower. I don’t really have a satisfactory explanation; beyond that I have a system and I’m broadly consistent with it. I tend to check only things I expect to like, and I’m generally easy to please. After all, I’d rather jam something fairly mediocre rather than no music, so most things merit at least a 3 by that argument. In the words of The Pogues, I’ll “stay right here on the sunny side of the street”.
For many of our active Staffers, the ratings above 4.0 seem to be reserved for the most nostalgic of personal classics or for the albums that made the biggest impression on when they were first getting into music. Nothing wrong with that but it is funny to see reviews pouring out like earwax from people who seem to be getting less out of music the older they get.
Would you put yourself in with that crowd? What’s the right balance between rating everything a little bit lower just because it doesn’t sound as good as The Mantle did when you were 16 and declaring everything a modern classic as soon as it makes you feel something? Should Sputnik be more positive? Does objectivity (the real kind) actually help here?
Let’s throw out a hot take, I don’t really believe “objectivity” exists while discussing music. The whole appeal of music as an art form is it’s a deeply personal thing, and everyone’s preferences are different, not to mention everyone’s life experiences informing what they hear are perhaps even more divergent.
Now, I strive to not write solely from a personal place. If a particular release is perfectly designed for my peculiar tastes but is not particularly original, etc., I’ll ding for it for the latter weakness. Or if I’m writing about an artist (like The Tallest Man On Earth, recently) who I love irrationally, I’ll gush about their music, but make my own feelings evident, so that a reader less inclined to love everything the artist puts out understands that’s where I’m coming from. Slapping a 5 on every new thing which graces my ears and inspires me isn’t really my style, and I’ve certainly felt the sting as I grow older (and more jaded from hearing so much music) that fewer releases are absolutely mind-blowing. That said, I still hear 10-20 albums a year which are reliably incorporated into the Sunnyvale canon of regularly-returned-to certified jams, and steadily enjoy vast quantities of releases beyond that lucky elite, so I’m still plenty happy with “music exploration journey”.
Maybe we can see a Sunny playlist sometime soon?
Should Sput be more positive? Well, it takes all types. I think part of the appeal of this site is its community feel. Most of the readers presumably have an inkling of the different approach of various staffers. To take more extreme examples, Johnny’s ratings tend to be lower than the average for most releases he covers, and people tend to understand that he’s a “harsh grader”, while on the other end of the spectrum, most probably will gather that whenever Yellowcard comes out of retirement and Sowing promptly throws down a stunning masterpiece of a writeup with a big ole 5.0 on the top, the album is more than likely not what most listeners would consider a true, stone-cold, classic. And all that’s ok. In general, I think it’s good that Sput often pushes back on the hype trains of (especially) mainstream artists who seem to get unmerited positive reviews everywhere else, but I’ve also got no problem with reviewers unabashedly throwing around sky-high scores when the mood strikes.
You’ve singled out Johnny as a harsh scorer and Sowing as a “giver of 5’s”. Please define a few other staffers’ scores as harsh, giving, fair etc? You may start with me and maybe finish with the likes of Dewi and Milo.
Nocte: I’d say moderate, tend to score reasonably somewhere in the middle
Tyman: Tends to score somewhat higher, suits the enthusiasm in his reviews well.
Blush: Generally, a little tougher, writes lovingly about a release and then you see it’s given a mild 3.5
Dewi: Tends towards positivity, especially for prime Dewicore releases (you know the type of album I’m talking about)
Dewi-core is my favourite “core”.
Milo: I’d say “fair and balanced”
When’s the last time you scored lower than “good”?
An extensive review of my ratings finds that the “Breadgaze” EP from January of this year merited a 2.5, it was very middling but not bad. There we go!
Here I thought you might be a cheeky one and find a random 2.9 for me.
I’m weirdly picky and don’t rate anything within one decimal of one of the standard ratings (so no 2.9s or 4.1s, for example), so no danger of that!
Bah! Another fabled “not allowed to 4.1” staffer. Johnny and sometimes Milo strike again!
Sorry, it is what it is!
At least you have a code!
Are there any albums where you think music reviews have very little to offer most listeners, for whatever personal or context reasons? Mount Eerie’s A Crow Looked At Me is one that people talk about, but I’ve said it so it’s off the table now. Has this been a worry for something you’ve reviewed yourself and how did you get past it if so?
Hmmm, interesting question. I’d say that A Crow Looked At Me is almost a category of its own, a very extreme example of the kind of deeply personal album which is hard to assess from the outside. I guess in general, my aim for reviewing is to meet the album where it is – my writing style tends to be fairly straightforward, so if a record is particularly hard to pick apart, I’ll kinda just tell the reader that. I can’t say that, looking back, any of the albums I’ve covered have been particularly difficult from this angle. Perhaps the closest answer I can offer is my Emma Worley review from last year, but the difficulty with it lies in the fact that the review is much more about my personal life as the reviewer than it is about the music. I don’t generally recommend that approach, but at the time it was just something I felt I needed to write. And that approach can be brilliant too at times – check Dewi’s review for Emma Ruth Rundle’s Engine Of Hell for proof.
Your favourite review found in the dusty catacombs of Sputnikmusic’s dusty servers?
I’m not capable of just picking one, but here are a few favorites: Chan’s review of A Blaze In The Northern Sky, Sowing’s review of Long Lost, and klap’s review for I Am Easy To Find. So much good writing can be found in these catacombs.
And separately, the review that first inspired you to write for Sputnik, become a contributor and eventually become Staff?
Frankly, there isn’t really one. I can blame my series of promotions exclusively on two factors. First, a pandemic that stranded me with lots of free time in 2020 which led me to spend time writing on here much more than before, and second, on staffers/contribs like Sowing, Atari, Dewi, and hel9000 who encouraged me to apply for contrib, a step I’m doubtful I ever would’ve taken on my own. I’ve been associated with Sputnik for a long time, but never really had any aspiration of moving up the ranks. Now that I have, I love it, but the whole thing’s been a strange twist in my Sput journey.
Words for everyone who might one day choose to review music.
Writing about music can be fun and a great release of creative energy, but don’t force it. Write the reviews you wanna write about the albums you wanna write about. Be open to constructive criticism, and don’t be afraid to fiddle around with your style until you find what works best.
Do you have a safe word? What is it?
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious! It’s important to have a word that’s easy to think of and to say as needed.
Thanks for being the goodest of pigeons and tolerating these weird questions with the best of insight maybe possibly ever!
Cheers to my favorite music-reviewing chef from Down Under! It’s been fun.
That’s “the” land down under to you, you know, where the beer does…
Dewinged MarsKid AsleepInTheBack Tyman Jesper Johnny RobertSona Kompy
Follow us on…
