I could say a few things about that review, but this thread was created to talk about this issue on a general basis, which is why I made my only comment in the Legit thread.
However, "I reserve the right to change my mind. Ralph Waldo Emerson said, 'A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.' ... People want to hear these songs played live, by the band that recorded them."
Soda has commented on that before, and reading it again, the barefaced ... I don't know.... self-justification? Arrogance? Say what you will. Not to mention that this lineup is NOT the band that recorded the songs. It's Don Henley with a couple of HC & TLR tracks which happened to feature Walsh & Schmit. It's obvious that he now thinks of himself as 'the band'. And this is going to continue to be quoted, again & again, as these 'reviewers' also seek to justify this charade. I hope that makes sense as I am trying to keep this on topic.
Maybe critical reviews of concerts just aren't written any more. Perhaps those days are gone as everything is dumbed down.
Last edited by Freypower; 04-21-2018 at 07:55 PM.
I've written my share of concert reviews for the newspaper. I didn't get any pay beyond my usual paycheck. I did get a media pass to the shows, which is standard procedure. However, it's understood with legitimate media outlets that a media pass doesn't guarantee a good review. A reporter writes it like he/she hears and sees it, whether good, not great or indifferent.
Of course, I've been to shows where I bought my own ticket and wrote a review for the paper, too. But when I did get a media pass, I was serious about doing an honest review, whether it was favorable or not.
It's the same process for book and movie reviews. Some promoters pay for a favorable review (some say Peter Travers from Rolling Stone is one who gets paid for it), but it's not uncommon to get the book or movie ticket for free. And I've written some absolutely scathing book reviews, even though I knew I got the book for free.
Most media outlets would consider a favorable review for pay to be a kind of payola. It's advertising masquerading as actual news. If it's disclosed in advance the person received some kind of financial compensation for the review, that's a little more honest, but most reputable media organizations would stay away from that. Even a freelancer who's paid by the outlet for their time to attend the show and write the review is expected to produce an honest review, favorable or otherwise.
Promoters paying for reviews presupposes that the review will praise the band. Why pay for it, otherwise? IMHO, it's a practice that starts slinking into shady territory.
Thanks so much Pippin, really appreciate your post and insight about the profession and practices.
You Rock!
"Let's burn our long johns and head west" - Glenn Frey 1948-2016
The practice of paying for positive reviews is problematic, but if it’s happening, I seriously doubt it is a “new” or “recent” development as is alleged by the OP. Perks and advantages have been bestowed for positive reviews, not just in the entertainment industry but others as well, probably since the early days of print media.
However I agree there is NO evidence that such a thing is happening with the Eagles or even JD and the Straight Shot, although the unusual focus on the latter did not escape me. I have never heard of this National Rock Review organization; how wide is their readership? It appears none of these reviews have been carried by any major news or media outlets. Their ability to influence a significant portion of music fans is questionable. As for the Eagles concert review—this is what Irving Azoff is supposedly paying money for? It’s a fairly tame by-the-numbers review.
You know, it is possible that after decades of performing and honing their craft, the current Eagles are capable of putting on a good show, yes even without Glenn. There have been numerous positive reviews of other older nostalgia-type acts and much of it is due to good old-fashioned experience and musicianship. It doesn’t have to be a great mystery why they keep getting positive reviews. The comments section more often than not show agreement with the positive reviews by those who actually attended the concerts.
Right or wrong, what’s done is done
It’s only moments that you borrow...
The tour has just started and has a very long way to go before their last playdate. It will be interesting to see if the theme changes.
"Let's burn our long johns and head west" - Glenn Frey 1948-2016
Thank you Pippin, for relating your experience in this area.
As I posted before, manipulating and controlling concert reviews is not something new. Not even the Eagles were immune back in the day. It’s a different climate today, of course, now that they have long been established.
A couple of passages from this book show how PR guy Larry Solters and Irving Azoff managed press relations in the 70s.
“Bumping Into Geniuses: My Life Inside the Rock and Roll Business” By Danny Goldberg, 2008
Right or wrong, what’s done is done
It’s only moments that you borrow...
Thanks for the link, Delilah. I found it very interesting. In my concert review research, I came upon some interesting info from my June 18, 1980 Eagles concert. Zach Dunkin, who was the Indianapolis News concert reviewer at the time, gave the Eagles a less than positive review, 3 stars out of 5. The review was titled,,"What's All the Excitement About?" He questioned a few of the song choices, (some that were listed on their set list at the sound board were not played, but substituted with others), general lack of excitement," 3 time-consuming, self indulgent encores". He also made a big deal that they stood t make over $200,000 for the show, gasp!
On July 3, 1980, Dunkin wrote an article entitled, "Eagles Respond to Negative Review." In this article, he details a phone call he received the day before from none other than Larry Solters, the Eagles' publicist. It appears that they didn't take too kindly to the review and Solters was calling to dispute it. He said that the Eagles sometimes changed up their set list that was written out. He also wanted to make sure that fans didn't think that the Eagles were getting all of the money that they brought in from the concert. Solters also pointed out that Dunkin switched names of the Dons, at one point referring to Don Henley, when he was clearly talking about Don Felder. Dunkin said besides writing the wrong name, he stood behind his review.
Zach Dunkin, by the way, gave the Eagles a glowing review in November 1976, for their Indianapolis MSA concert and another at their IU concert a year or 2 later.
I've found this exchange between reviewer and publicist interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it shows how closely they (or their people) followed their press. Second, it seems like such a moot point, as they broke up a few weeks later!