RipFork

Ripping Music Critics Since 2009

Archive for category BBC Music

Mike Diver’s Review of “The Beat Is…” by Alphabeat

Mar 30

Posted by Matt Wendus in BBC Music | 3 Comments

Artist: Alphabeat

Album: The Beat Is…

Reviewer: Mike Diver

BBC Music, 2010

Writing Disorders: Idea Fever, Infectious Punctuation, Jargon Palsy








Longest Sentence: 66 words

Runner-up: 53 words

Bronze Medal: 49 words

If Only: “raising its pulse and stepping out of a flat-sounding comfort zone”




Mike, I’m not finished with you yet. Lately I’ve been using Metacritic and Cloudspeakers to find truly awful reviews to kick, and through the luck of the draw I got another of yours. Isn’t it funny how two services used to promote critics end up landing them here? Tee-hee.

This review wasn’t as horrible as that last POS I found not three days ago, but pretty close. There’s a lot to cover here, so pack your Cliff bars. Let’s start with just one of your sentences vying for the title of most parts per million:

“DJ finds the pair exchanging lines atop a bouncy-enough backbeat without falling into the trap of trying to out-perform each other, and recent single Hole in My Heart rides an enjoyably retro – its similarity to Black Box has been noted elsewhere, astutely so – piano-house refrain, even if Stine’s claim that she “got inside” her lover is more threatening than it is tender.”

Mike, I should probably clear something up before continuing. I’m featuring you twice in a week mostly because you’re the editor of BBC Music. Far be it from me to tell you how to do your job, but I was under the impression you’re responsible for making articles readable and attention-grabbing. Well, you really whiffed the kick in that sentence above. First off, would it kill you to put song titles in quotes or album titles in italics? Look at the first part of the sentence:

“DJ finds the pair exchanging lines atop a bouncy-enough backbeat…”

Since there’s nothing denoting DJ as a song title, I can only assume you’re talking about an episode of “Full House” where the older sister walks in on Joey and Becky talking dirty on some reverse cowgirl. I might have a deviant mind, Mike, but I doubt everyone else on the roll was reading free and clear. That title (DJ) was a mere three words away from the name “Anders SG,” a band member. Can you picture the confusion that may arise without quotation marks? Also bear in mind you’re reviewing an album that has an ellipsis in the title. Imagine how that might cause problems without italics.  While you’re mulling it over, let’s move on to the next bit:

“Holy in My Heart rides an enjoyably retro – its similarity to Black Box has been noted elsewhere, astutely so – piano-house refrain, even if…”

No matter how much you want them to, people don’t read in bullet-time, Mike. What the hell was the point of including that Black Box reference in the middle of the sentence? A while back I read somewhere that most people are incredibly slow and inefficient readers. Now I’m more inclined to believe it’s not because of bad habits, but because their averages are blown with roadblocks like that. Next time, Editor Diver, you might spare your readers the indignity of having to trudge back up a sentence to understand it. All it takes is an edit.

I don’t just have a problem with your poor execution, Mike. You’re one of the dullest, most soulless writers I’ve ever had the misfortune of reading. Read this:

“Always Up With You is a hit in waiting, should a dance-minded producer step in to exaggerate its floor-filling elements – like Hole in My Heart it exhibits piano-house overtones enough to trigger flickers of nostalgia amongst certain listeners.”

Jesus dude…

Clubber 1: Hmmm…it appears a dance-minded producer has exaggerated the floor-filling elements of this song.

Clubber 2: I agree. The piano-house overtones are triggering flickers of nostalgia in me.

Clubber 1: Would you like to gyrate in rhythm to my movements on an open section of recreational space?

Clubber 2: I accept your invitation.

Mike, if I was to conk you in the head, would it pop off and start spraying white fluid over your fried circuits? If there’s any warmth coursing through your veins, it doesn’t show up in your writing. I’ve read more exciting stuff about subtle shifts in the commodities market. This is MUSIC, for Christ’s sake. If you can’t tell us about an album of music without droning on like postmodern Paul Harvey, you might be in the wrong field.

Don’t believe me? Let your words speak for themselves:

“this platter of past-perishable pop mimicry, these clichéd regurgitations of ubiquitous motifs”

“the missteps outweigh any flashes of innate pop ability to a substantial extent”

“a nadir for a group once heralded as purveyors of the very brightest pop”

Say what you will about a Danish dance band that uses auto-tune, but at least they didn’t write this junk. Please get your glands checked out, Mike, for the good of humanity.

Tags: , ,

Mike Diver’s Review of “Beast Rest Forth Mouth” by Bear in Heaven

Mar 27

Posted by Matt Wendus in BBC Music | 4 Comments

Artist: Bear in Heaven

Album: Beast Rest Forth Mouth

Reviewer: Mike Diver

BBC Music, 2010

Writing Disorders: Infectious Punctuation, Jargon Palsy, Detachment Syndrome








Longest Sentence: 67 words

Most Hyphens in a Paragraph: 9

Stuffiest Phrase: “motifs both noticeably similar and subtly familiar to carry the listener”




Congratulations, Mike, you’ve been appointed the first BBC Music ambassador to RipFork. Up until now, my daily visit to BBC was to learn which environmental catastrophe is conspiring to screw my future on any given day. I had no idea there was such a rich selection of god-awful music reviews:

“Thanks to a few choice tips from South By Southwest-attending sorts, Beast Rest Forth Mouth found its way to the top of this writer’s own possible reviews pile – it might not (yet) have the specialist show radio support required to qualify coverage of most Bands You’ve Never Heard Of, but so trusted are the ‘tastemakers’ (ergh) in question that a proper listen was necessary.”

Mike, for a career typist, you really push the envelope on shit writing. What were the qualifications to become a BBC critic?

The ideal candidate will possess the following qualities:

-Spells out the full name of popular concerts that readers more readily identify by abbreviations

-Unnecessarily capitalizes whole phrases in sentences over 60 words to further hinder understanding

-Uses extended third-person constructions like “this writer’s own” instead of “my”

-Uses air quotes in conjunction with parenthetical asides to induce eye rolling

You could have knocked ‘em dead with that one sentence, but I’m sure you had to work harder in the dark times when you weren’t so proficient. That brings me to my next point. I’ve been fighting to understand something here, Mike, and maybe you can help me out. Here’s part of a sentence you wrote to illustrate:

“The Brooklyn-based four-piece’s on-paper purveyance of psychedelic-pop isn’t a particularly revelatory stylistic route for an as-new band to be taking…”

Mike, as I understand it, you’ve held the title of EDITOR for three different online music venues, including this one. I can’t fathom how you managed that feat besides offing the previous editors or blowing a train of higher ups in bathrooms. And believe me: this has nothing to do with jealousy on my part, just naked disbelief. What editor writes a sentence like that? In any other outlet, you’d be laughed out on your ass.  Yet for some bizarre set of reasons, that sort of jargon cocktail is lauded and embraced in indie music reviews.

But this wasn’t even a review! You only mentioned two songs on the album, despite devoting two whole paragraphs to a stupid stream of consciousness about how it found its way onto your iPod. Speaking of that gem of auto-eroticism, let’s take a peek:

“Let me break it down for you. New album arrives, from a Band You’ve Never Heard Of. You give it a second’s thought, assessing it on its artwork and a few quotes cut-and-pasted onto the one-sheet. You file away…”

Dude, why the hell are you addressing me directly? I don’t receive my music that way, nor do I “assess” the “one-sheet,” whatever that means. If you’re going to masturbate in words, at least do it without projecting your hand onto my johnson. Gimme a sec. There. Now that I’ve got my chastity belt locked on, let’s continue down the primrose path of your own excess:

“You file away as a Maybe, But Nothing More. Perhaps if time allows you’ll dig it out, recommend it to a few friends. You won’t publish a review proper because… Well, it’s a Band You’ve Never Heard Of.”

“Bear In Heaven aren’t 99% of the bands falling into the Maybe, But Nothing More category”

Wow Mike, you really tee’d this one up for me. So you only readily publish a special few reviews, but a lucky one out of every 100 runners up gets to be featured in a puddle of textcrement too? Damn, this band should really be honored to get a cursory mention in your latest journal entry. Lucky them. I’m sure the musicians are giddy with excitement, not wondering aloud “what the hell did this guy even WRITE about us?”

Despite how bad the whole thing was, I think the funniest part of this glob of Calibri was the closing sentence:

“Let me cut to the chase: expect to hear a lot more about Bear In Heaven over the coming months.”

Thanks, Mike. Usually a writer will cut to the chase before the chase has ended and been plastered over Fox News for six hours. Don’t give up, though. Keep boxing the clown and you might improve your average. In the meantime, I’ll be keeping an eye.

Tags: , ,