Old Time Herald reviews. Hmph.
Antiope
reviews look so long and dense that I can't work up a lot of enthusiasm to read
them. Some are pretty darn stale, too. Not much use when you've had some of
those recordings about a year or more. And some of them were important
releases, too.
If they were shorter, maybe the OTH could fit more of reviews in each issue. If
they could fit more in, maybe they'd have some currency. If that happened,
maybe there'd be less space devoted to letters griping about bloated reviews.
The letters themselves could have stood a few cuts, too.
It takes time to pare the inessential from a bit of writing, and many times
it's just too much to ask that of a dedicated and uncompensated writer who
routinely slaves over essays and articles for the love of the thing and
provides much of the OTH content. I just respectfully suggest that the magazine
might consider the benefits of an additional edit. Otherwise, I just lose
interest and feel that the review section has little to offer me.
Perhaps I have misunderstood the purpose of the OTH reviews, or I am asking too
much of the OTH...have I? Am I?
Mary Ann
Dmarts
talking about actuual article space and forget the rest. half the magazine
seems devoted to selling recordings and the other half is devoted t o letters
complaining about the first half! what space is left is usually wasted.
Critters in cyberspace??!? Anyone seen Tony Russell's magazine? (hint, hint).
Actual articles about actual old time music. But then again, I guess nobody is
dooing any real research these days, except, oh maybe Jeff Titon, Steve Green,
Kerry Blech, Mark Wilson, Jimmy Triplett, Gerry Milnes, Jim Nelson, ad infitum.
It sounds like OTH is havin trouuble makin ends meet (thus the donation
requests every 6 months), drop the production value some. Color covers and
glossy paper only serve to remind how the OTH is like the People magazine of
old time music.
My subscription can't expire soon enough.
dave murray
David Lynch
--
- David Lynch
dlynch at mindspring dot com
Check out the Old Time Music Home Page
http://www.oldtimemusic.com
"Tonight we're gonna party like it's 1899!"
-- Riley Baugus, at a New Year's Eve Old-Time Jam
Frank Dalton, Library Guy
Some serious controversy about a serious subject!
You're in trouble now, Antiope.
Btw, I agree with you.
=============================
Frank Dalton, Library Guy
=============================
Cleoma
Antiope (even though I am among the guilty wretches who writes those long
reviews!) I thought Jody Stecher said it quite well in his letter in the most
recent issue. OTOH, I actually LIKE reading many of the reviews (not my own,
the other ones), and would hate to lose them altogether. I confess that I
like reading the gossip too. As a lover of OT music who rarely gets to the
southeast anymore, it helps me find out at least a smidgen of what's happening
back there.
Re: the requests for donations -- some of you may not know that the OTH is a
nonprofit. Nobody is making a killing on the mag, believe me. It's basically
a labor of love, and there are ALMOST enough subscribers to make it
self-sufficient.
Even tho the OTH is far from ideal, its still the only mag we have that focuses
on OT music. To me, that's important. Once someone is deep into the music,
they may want to just DO the music (vs. read about it). But the OTH can still
be helpful to people who are just dipping their toes into that winding stream.
Dave -- I think your suggestion about production values is worth considering.
Alice, are you out there??? Brad??? Bill Hicks???
Suzy T.
To reply to this posting, remove "nojunk" from my email address.
Steve Goldfield
Antiope <ant...@aol.com.net.org> wrote:
#>I know it's tough. I know resources are cut to the bone. Honest. But the
#>reviews look so long and dense that I can't work up a lot of enthusiasm to read
#>them. Some are pretty darn stale, too. Not much use when you've had some of
#>those recordings about a year or more. And some of them were important
#>releases, too.
#>
#>If they were shorter, maybe the OTH could fit more of reviews in each issue. If
#>they could fit more in, maybe they'd have some currency. If that happened,
#>maybe there'd be less space devoted to letters griping about bloated reviews.
#>The letters themselves could have stood a few cuts, too.
#>
#>It takes time to pare the inessential from a bit of writing, and many times
#>it's just too much to ask that of a dedicated and uncompensated writer who
#>routinely slaves over essays and articles for the love of the thing and
#>provides much of the OTH content. I just respectfully suggest that the magazine
#>might consider the benefits of an additional edit. Otherwise, I just lose
#>interest and feel that the review section has little to offer me.
#>
#>Perhaps I have misunderstood the purpose of the OTH reviews, or I am asking too
#>much of the OTH...have I? Am I?
#>Mary Ann
I have mixed feelings on this idea. Some of the longer
reviews are very interesting and educational. I don't
think the problem with the controversial reviews is the
length but rather the critical stance (see Jody Stecher's
letter in the current issue, for example). I review for
Bluegrass Unlimited, which has issued length restrictions
(250 words for a regular review and 350 for a highlight).
That does force me to go back and cut from most reviews.
Some of that results in a tighter and better-written
review, but I've had to eliminate things that I thought
belonged in the review, too. For example, I might have
three or four things I think are important to say about
a recording, but I only have room to write about two of
them.
Fiddler likes even shorter reviews, and that is an even
greater challenge. You can probably only make one point.
A lot of people turn first to the reviews so I'd favor
increasing the space rather than imposing too short a
length limit. Sing Out! goes to the other extreme with
a very large space devoted to reviews. (Of course, they
cover a much larger range of genres, too.)
That's my 9 cents (per word rate).
Steve
(8<})>(8<})>(8<})>(8<})>(8<})>(8<})>(8<})>(8<})>(8<})>(8<})>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Goldfield <stev...@best.com> * Oakland, California
* Home Page--<http://www.best.com/~stevesag/stevesag.html> *
Andy Alexis
Antiope wrote in message <19990511012204...@ng62.aol.com>...
>I know it's tough. I know resources are cut to the bone. Honest. But the
read
>
I actually like the review just as they are; many of you-all seem to get
around
to the festivals and know the universe of bands/CDs pretty well, but some of
us
don't get out much and I enjoy reading the reviews and learning about
performers
I have never been exposed to. The reviews themselves are usually well
written, too.
I particularly thought Kerry Blech's review of Tony Ellis's Quaker Girl was
right on
target, esp. his comment that the traditional tunes (all others were
composed by Ellis)
were the weakest part of the CD. (the rest of the CD is great though).
Of course, OTH could do what other magazines have done; have a few in depth
reviews of "important" releases, followed by a whole bunch of
paragraph-length
reviews of the lesser works. Dirty Linen does this now; Folk Roots has done
this for a while now also. Of course, the universe of Old Time recordings
is
much smaller than that of these publications, though.
John Lupton
>A lot of people turn first to the reviews so I'd favor
>increasing the space rather than imposing too short a
>length limit. Sing Out! goes to the other extreme with
>a very large space devoted to reviews. (Of course, they
>cover a much larger range of genres, too.)
Gee, we've got a regular "Reviewer's Convention" going here...
As one of Sing Out's stable of reviewers, I guess that's my cue to jump in and
say that while they don't really hold us to a specific word count, the typical
review is expected to be about 400-500 words. I've written some that were
700-800, and some where I said all I felt I needed to say in 200-300. It's not
an exact science. Not rocket science, either. Yeah, SO! prints a lot more
reviews, but they do cover a lot more "turf", and any given issue is about a
quarter inch or more thick.
>That's my 9 cents (per word rate).
Gee, mine's only worth 7 <g>...
**********************************************
John Lupton, "Rural Free Delivery"
WVUD-FM 91.3, Newark DE (www.sas.upenn.edu/~jlupton/rfd.html)
Brandywine Friends of Old Time Music/
Delaware Valley Bluegrass Festival
**********************************************
ROSEEXPERT
reviews that give me a great deal of information. After all, I have three
months to read them before the next issue arrives. I especially dislike
"thumbnail" sketches that don't tell me anything other than the CD's title and
whether the reviewer liked or disliked it.
Jim in Memphis
Antiope
I was looking for reasons to keep up my subscription to the magazine. There is
a flood of releases coming out--historical stuff, new stuff, etc. I have to
rely on other sources to decide whether or not to buy any of them. Someone
rightly pointed out to me that not everybody who reads the OTH has that
appetite to snap up recordings as they come off the truck. So, timeliness is
not as important to some as it is to me. Ok.
Others have pointed out the value of having longer reviews, which I don't
dispute in principle. There are long reviews that don't say much, and some that
go into ground that might make great feature articles of their own--too bad
they don't get the space for it with pics and all. And there seem to be a few
reviews of recordings that I'm kinda surprised to find in the section at all.
It kinda cuts down on the number of recordings that they can handle in any
issue, which seemed important to me in light of the large number of apparently
important new reissues of historical recordings and "field" collections. Yeah,
you risk giving up depth in a short review. It's a hard compromise.
Yeah, it would be nice to have more meaty feature articles too. It's not that
big a deal. I find out what I need to know eventually elsewhere with some
effort, I read the newsgroup, I have some generous and knowledgeable
correspondents, so I guess the OTH is not really targeted to someone like me.
No problem. Thanks, all.
Mary Ann
Mr Steamy
Nobody's begging you to buy it or are they?
I have to own up to never having seen the publication here in the U.K.
however, I would have thought that it would be courteous to address any
complaints direct to the publication concerned and find out what they've got
to say for themselves on the subject!
Power To The People! Vote With Your Feet & Pocketbooks!
Alec.
Antiope
well, sorta. I think it's really the only magazine devoted to old time music,
and the only one that comes close to international distribution. the OTH is
having a hard time making a go of it, and have requested on occasion additional
contributions of their subscribers. I'd hate to see it fold, yes. In the US,
there is hardly any market either for the music compared with other musics.
It's a real struggle for survival.
>I have to own up to never having seen the publication here in the U.K.
>however, I would have thought that it would be courteous to address any
>complaints direct to the publication concerned and find out what they've got
>to say for themselves on the subject!
Maybe. I've strived to keep my complaints sensible and respectful of the
enormous effort it takes to keep the OTH afloat. It was my feeling that the
newsgroup is a legitimate forum for discussion of the premier print periodical
on the subject. I'm finding the discussion pretty good here.
>Power To The People! Vote With Your Feet & Pocketbooks!
usually, sure. I hope you get a chance to read a year's worth o f the Herald
where you are, and give us a perspective from outside the States.
Mary Ann
Rich Hartness
Great discussion.
< Snip snip snip... (Tippy get your hair cut, or shave and a haircut...)
> Others have pointed out the value of having longer reviews, which I don't
> dispute in principle. There are long reviews that don't say much, and some that
> go into ground that might make great feature articles of their own--too bad
> they don't get the space for it with pics and all. And there seem to be a few
> reviews of recordings that I'm kinda surprised to find in the section at all.
The reviews, like other content in the OTH, are basicly a labor of love
by those willing to devote the time, energy and discipline to it within
the given deadline. Although there are fees offered for such service,
it's very nominal and could not possibly be the motivation for
contributing reviewers.
> It kinda cuts down on the number of recordings that they can handle in any
> issue, which seemed important to me in light of the large number of apparently
> important new reissues of historical recordings and "field" collections.
I suspect the biggest constraint on the number of reviews that appear has
more to do with the numbers of them actually submitted for publication.
I think Alice has a challenging time coming up with what she does to fill
it for each issue. It's hard to be picky when there's not much to choose
from. Gift horse, ugly teeth, bad breath and all that...
> Yeah,
> you risk giving up depth in a short review. It's a hard compromise.
Hmmm... Mary Ann, sounds like you've got just what it takes to fashion a
good review. I bet there's something really great that's knocked you out
lately that I don't know about. I bet Alice would publish it. I'd love
to read it. I bet others would too.
> Yeah, it would be nice to have more meaty feature articles too.
I bet you, Dave Murray and many other folks that gather here could all
polish up some fine gyms that Alice would gladly publish and the rest of
us would absolutely love to read. I've always found her to be very
receptive. I don't envy her job for an instant.
Oh, one brief comment about reviews. I think people take them too blasted
seriously. They are but one person's opinion. When it takes the form of
a review, not only do you have to sort through their musical bias, you
also have to sort through the reviewer's writing style too. Some are
certainly better than others. I do not think they in any way reflect
attitudes or consensus of the OTH. If someone writes a very critical
review of something that's dear to your heart, don't just sit there and
stew about it, get off your duff and write your own counter review and do
a better job of it than the one that offended you. Chances are there are
many folks out there who feel the same way you do. Just speak up.
Reviews are in some ways like contests. They are but a small reflection
of the prevailing attitudes and opinions of the whole. At least you can
pen a counter review. Contests results must be taken for what they are
worth, very very little--unless you win of course.
> It's not that
> big a deal.
Oh but I think it is. You raise some very good points, which you usually
do Mary Ann. I've always gotten the impression from Alice that she is
looking for input from a wide variety of perspectives but actually
receives a small number of submissions. I agree with many of your concerns
and I'm sure that many others do too.
I think it is very easy sometimes to view magazines or newsletters as
being a function of "them", when in fact it is really a reflection of us.
Golly, when we have the vision of something better or more suited to our
own liking, that's the time to make it happen. Others will enjoy it, and
some others will be offended. Chips where they may and all that...
> I find out what I need to know eventually elsewhere with some
> effort, I read the newsgroup, I have some generous and knowledgeable
> correspondents, so I guess the OTH is not really targeted to someone like me.
But it would be greatly enhanced with your and others' contributions. We
are a community of vastly different styles, attitudes, skills, motivations
and expectations. Thank God! It takes participation from all elements to
make a richer whole. Please don't withhold your invaluable opinions and
information. Some of us just might agree and enjoy them, or enjoy
disputing them.
> No problem. Thanks, all.
> Mary Ann
Excellent thread Mary Ann. Hopefully, this will serve as a springboard
for greater participation by lots of previously quiet but significantly
talented and experienced folks. I hope so. We have essentially a global
forum going, homogeneity would poison it all. Why would we want to agree
on everything? I'm sure glad most people's music doesn't sound alike.
How dull how dull...
Scarcely 3 weeks till Mount Airy and 12 weeks till Clifftop! See you
there!!!
Rich Hartness
Rich Hartness
On 12 May 1999, Antiope wrote:
> >Nobody's begging you to buy it or are they?
>
> well, sorta. I think it's really the only magazine devoted to old time music,
> and the only one that comes close to international distribution. the OTH is
> having a hard time making a go of it, and have requested on occasion additional
> contributions of their subscribers. I'd hate to see it fold, yes. In the US,
> there is hardly any market either for the music compared with other musics.
> It's a real struggle for survival.
I commend your support Mary Ann, particularly in light of your
frustration.
> >I have to own up to never having seen the publication here in the U.K.
> >however, I would have thought that it would be courteous to address any
> >complaints direct to the publication concerned and find out what they've got
> >to say for themselves on the subject!
>
> Maybe. I've strived to keep my complaints sensible and respectful of the
> enormous effort it takes to keep the OTH afloat. It was my feeling that the
> newsgroup is a legitimate forum for discussion of the premier print periodical
> on the subject. I'm finding the discussion pretty good here.
Lively and likely with productive results.
> >Power To The People! Vote With Your Feet & Pocketbooks!
>
> usually, sure. I hope you get a chance to read a year's worth o f the Herald
> where you are, and give us a perspective from outside the States.
I'd like to hear about that perspective too. Sometimes the hardest things
to see are directly in front of you.
By the way, just in case someone is wondering, here's the sign up info for
the OTH. (hint hint hint)
Old-Time Herald
Editor: Alice Gerrard <o...@mindspring.com>
PO Box 51812, Durham, NC 27717
Ph. & Fax 919-402-8495
Subscriptions $20/year; $38/2 years
Foreign ($25 & $48)
Visit our website at http://www.mindspring.com/~oth/
*****
Mr Steamy
I'll chip in a few Euros just to find out what the fuss is about.
Incidentally (this is for Mary Ann) I was not having a go at YOU so please
don't take my comments personally. I'm a firm believer in complaining
directly rather than in public. If you get no joy at the source they fire
away!
Love & Peace to y'all
Alec.
Rich Hartness wrote in message ...
>Hi, me again so soon...
>
>On 12 May 1999, Antiope wrote:
>
>
>> >I have to own up to never having seen the publication here in the U.K.
>> >however, I would have thought that it would be courteous to address any
>> >complaints direct to the publication concerned and find out what they've
got
>> >to say for themselves on the subject!
>>