From: John L. Micek, jlmicek@mindspring.com
Subject: Must. Crush. All. Dissent.
Date: 2/25/2002 5:58:52 AM
To: seance, seance@lists.no-fi.com


Guys:
You can flambe me if you want to over this, but I've got to get something off my chest.
I have, of late, been noticing an alarming trend when it comes to fan evaluation of reviews of "After Everything."
That's this:
Good reviews are embraced and warmly received. Bad reviews, such as the type that ran on VH-1 over the weekend, or the early
one written by that other, poor unfortunate whose name eludes me, are subjected to flame campaigns and orchestrated
efforts to flood the message boards with vituperative denuniciations of the offending  critic. This seems counter-productive to me,
and not a little insidious.
Now, granted, I am among those who think that "After Everything," is a fine record, and, in fact, may be one of the best Church offerings
to come down the pike in quite some time. But, let's face it, ain't everyone going to embrace it, or, hell, even get it. That's part of the wonder
of criticism, you're allowed to have opinions that differ from the pack.
That being said, I can't help but worry about this quasi-Orwellian business of shutting down offending speech. This may be particularly resonant
for me right now since America is currently in the grip of an overinflated sense of patriotism where even mildly questioning the nation's policies is enough
to have you tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail. So, I suppose that (as a journalist and writer by trade) I'm particularly sensitive to this sort of thing at the moment.
At the risk of sounding like Moses coming down from the mountaintop, let me offer a few observations on the challenges of being a part-time music critic. On a typical week, I'm flooded by CDs by vastly divergent artists, and often know next to nothing about the group I'm being asked to review. This is a dicey proposition in the best of times, and often requires me to very quickly become an expert on various types of music in fairly short-order.
Generally, I try to listen with an open mind, and try to look for specifics within the music to focus upon, and then try to write a review that is both constructive and informed.
Sometimes, because of deadline pressures, I don't always have that luxury, and am sometimes forced to give things only the most cursory of listens before
cranking out copy in time for my editors. This is hardly an ideal situation, but it is often the reality of the working reporter. I don't much like it, but I still try to 
do the best job I can. I suspect many critics find themselves in the same position as well. Most of the music writers I know are passionate and committed music fans who really believe that they're performing a public service by exposing under-exposed artists or are somehow furthering the greater good by shining a light on a little appreciated gem.
Then, there are the space constraints. If you've only 100-110 words (and that's about how long most newspaper reviews are), it's tough to offer the kind
of insightful analysis that seems to be sought after by so many on this list. In 100 words, about all you can get out is a summary review of the record that
focuses on one or two high points. Or, if the record is crap, then you have to say that very quickly.
So, I'd ask you to keep that in mind as you read some of the reviews of "After Everything," as they make their way into the mediasphere. If you don't like
what a critic has to say, you are, of course, perfectly within your rights to disagree. Hell, that keeps everything healthy. But shutting down dissent serves no one.
 
Thanks,
John.
 
 
_____________________________________________________
John L. Micek
Harrisburg Correspondent
The Morning Call
Allentown, Pa.