Here's something I hate: the use of the Royal We in reviews*. Take, for example, Sharon O'Connell's recent write-up of Antony and the Johnsons in Time Out:"This may be verging on the sacrilegious, but we like the idea of AATJ rather more than we like their music and, if we focus too much on Hegarty's voice... its mannered wobble does our head in."
Who is this we? Ms O'Connell and the whole of the staff of Time Out? Ms O'Connell and her mates? Ms O'Connell and her dog? Ms O'Connell and the Queen? I think "we" should be told. In any case it's a bit weird that they only have the one head between them.
This is on my mind of late because the same Sharon O'Connell delivered a devastating attack on the Ting Tings back in January, which employed the same "we" tactic. At the time I had never heard the Ting Tings, but the viciousness of the review, coupled with the use of "we" implying the weight of multiple concurring opinions, caused me not to bother to listen to their album until I heard it at a friend's house and realised that it was, in fact, great. I had been so subconsciously convinced by the use of "we" in the review that everyone was on the same page about the shitness of the Ting Tings that I didn't even have the confidence to seek out my own opinion. Sad. Last Friday I went to their gig and absolutely loved it - they're brilliantly energetic live and push their album tracks up to the proverbial eleven. Had I not heard the album by chance, I wouldn't have had that great night out. And it was a great night out. Even if the mythical "they" disagree.
Ultimately using the "we" is a bit of a cheat, hiding your opinions in a group in order to make the reader feel like the left-out fool should he or she disagree. It totally defeats the notion of a review being just my opinion, no more valid than anyone else's. WE think so. Therefore YOU are wrong.
Special prize to the first person to comment saying that the Ting Tings really are shit**.
*Of course I have probably done it myself at some point. But we do love that David Tennant, now, don't we?
**Not really.
Posts
6 comments:
I claim the prize! Ha. I can't see them being popular in 2 years time but will defend to the death your right to enjoy them...
That's one of millions of examples of pretentious smug music journalism which thinks it's an art form independent or even superior to the music it claims to be writing about. I stopped reading reviews for years (I now subscribe to and love Q) for fear of my nausea if I read one more description of a band's music as "the sound of Cliff Richard in a Range Rover crashing into Metallica's dustbin after being chased by Mika on a moped".
I did strike back though. I accidentally found myself at a leaving do for a Time Out staff member once. The guy introducing him was getting instant negative reviews from his audience, and claimed to have many stories he could tell about the outgoing member. I implored him to only tell one, which got a laugh. He did then say, "Hey, you don't even work for Time Out!".
I replied that I stood by my comment.
I heard them on the radio I think and thought wow, I like that, but can't for the life of me remember the song. That is a scary subliminal use of "we" though. I always think when I read reviews like that it must be so nice to be that CERTAIN of things. Me, I am Weeble who wibble wobbles over most things, music included.
I'm not sure I can see them being popular in two years either except maybe on my iPod, but isn't that the fun of pop - that it's of the moment and can be completely disposable?
We agree with you, Marie.
Pedro.
Bah, I actually quite like the "we" thing. It makes the magazine sound like a sinister shadowy collective... an impression that is undermined somewhat when there's one person's name on the review.
I agree on the disposability thing, but I think it's more my intense dislike for those oversized sunglasses with white plastic rims that they wear now being cool. You look like a kid wearing grown up sunglasses, posing for a "cute" photo!
But err yeah, good tune.
Post a Comment