Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels
Yeah negative reviews can be funny, but often aren't. Agree with yr first point though.
|
When they try really hard to be funny — when funny is the goal — oh my god. It's almost certainly going to be awful. I can just see the 22-year-old sitting at his computer, nodding and rubbing his beard at how wittily he is destroying this or that piece of music, and it's a sad thought.
When the humor is incidental, I think it's more likely to work. When it's a masturbatory attempt to make fun of an artist or their music, it's usually shit, and it's usually not helpful.
Savage Clone said it can be constructive, or informative or whatever, when someone familiar with a certain artist — a fan — explains why a recording didn't work for them, and I think that's accurate and very well put. In those instances, a negative review can be a positive thing, like a well-meaning critique, or notes on a friend's one-man play.
Generally, I think reviews of the first songs by new artists should mostly just be informative. This is what it sounds like, these are the stylistic components, etc. because that early on, one doesn't have enough context about an artist to start praising or calling it shit.