History & Music Reviews

I work in the music department of a bookstore. We are given these fine computers. With internet access. And we are expect not to use the internet access unless looking something up for a customer.

Yeah right.

So instead of outright disrespect for the rule, I limit myself to music related sites. Hunting up online music magazines to read reviews of cds is a favorite past time. One of the places I enjoy reading reviews at is PopMatters.com. I like them because they write good, informative reviews and they update the site once every two or three days.

Today, bored out of my brain, I went there and read a this review of a cd I had never heard of before called "Beauty Party" by Majesticons. Now, the cd it's self holds no interest to me. However, the review it's self is very good. The author of the review manages to make it funny and interesting. However, one of his statements made me think.

"Temptation #2: To dutifully recount the reason this record exists, just like every other reviewer in the world. Sadly, I think I'll have to succumb right off the bat, but let me just say, first, that records should fly on their own without having to rely on history lessons, and, secondly, that I don't think this one does. Without its context, Beauty Party doesn't make any sense."

Out of context of the review it may be hard to grasp, so I'll summarize the basic gist in my own words. He is saying that having a "history lesson" (about the band, style, record label, or whatever) in a cd review is bad and a sign of weakness for a given cd.

Now, I feel that while in some cases this is true, that there are many good reasons to add history other than explaining the cd.

Article Author: The Theory

Visit The Theory's author page — The Theory's Blog