The Good, The Bad & The Ticky

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

Plenty of you out there in poptimistsland like writing about music, and even perhaps earn some money for doing so.

Do you find it easier to write about

1) songs you love
2) songs you hate
3) songs you find mediocre?

I can usually find plenty of scathing words about dull music that just isn’t any cop, sometimes even suggesting improvements! However I am loathe to say I 'hate' something as if it has sparked such a reaction in me then I will probably end up loving it eventually. Case in point: when the Spice Girls first arrived I loathed them with such intense obsession that I made sure I paid attention to every song, television appearance and promotional tie-in they did in order to make sure my hatred was well-informed. Now they are one of my favourite pop bands ever, possibly because of my negative reaction: they signified my attraction to pop music was inevitable even though I was an utter indie snob at the time. Well done girls!

As for songs I love, when writing reviews I find it far more difficult to get across *just how much* I love them and why. Of course I can say 'omg this bassline is GREAT' or 'her voice is amazing', but the one thing I can never describe properly is the ZING factor that some songs have, and some songs just don't, even if they sound very similar. Usually the ZING factor ensures that the song remains enjoyable despite repeated plays. For example, Justin Timberlake's Sexyback was interesting and enjoyable but I grew tired of it after a while. My Love on the other hand had the ZING that went straight to a certain bit of my brain, meaning I will happily listen to it forever more. I found the former much easier to write a end-of-year blurb for than the latter.

What do you think, poptimists? If you don't really write about songs then do you find it easier to tick a good song or to 'not tick' a bad song? Is a bad song merely mediocre or does mediocre fall under 'any good at all'?

Comments

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

I used to enjoy writing about things I hated but definitely prefer writing about stuff I love now - having to slag off an endless stream of UK indie in the Stylus singles jukebox was really tedious after a while, there are only so many times you can write the same thing. And I usually only have to write about good music now, due to what I write being mostly what I pitch, and why bother pitching something you hate? (Klaxons and Lady Sov I was commissioned, and I enjoyed slagging both of those partly because I get to do it so rarely now - I've given my third negative review in a row though this week and would like to say nice things about music again.)

There's no hard and fast rule to what I think I write WELL about. Part of the problem with writing about music I love is that, initially (ie when the review has to be written), I don't exactly know why I love it. I would be able to write much better about B'Day now, for instance, than if I'd had to review it in the week it came out with only a few listens, when I was still trying to get a hold on it. Stuff like Junior Boys I don't think I'd particularly write well about even now. 'Gold Digger' is amazing but I'd have NO idea how to say why. I could write really good essays on virtually each individual song on the new Ciara album. Etc.