This is actually the first not-so-positive review I've written for Resident Advisor. I was seeking out a release of an artist that I'd had no prior knowledge of, and this one immediately grabbed me. Over the course of the holidays, I let it digest and play alongside the other tracks that littered my iPod. Over time, I grew bored with it, and wasn't sure if I was disappointed more in the tracks' staminas to impress me or my faulty initial judgment. Is it a waste of time to review a record that isn't good? There's so much on the Internet that you may notice a large amount of blogs and online magazines (RA excluded) focusing solely on what they do like. I can't say that Basstown has ever written about anything it didn't favor.
I have to admit it was a challenge. If a record review is answering the question "Why?" (Why do is this record good/bad? Why do you like it? Why should anyone else like it?), then to do so for tracks that hardly reach out and grab you leaves you feeling stumped (Why are you stumped?). I think I'd embrace another record if it turned out to leave this bland taste in my mouth over time, but I can safely say that doesn't seem to happen all too often - phew!
You can read the review, posted here: Simon Firth - Unknown Zone
Friday, January 15, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)