Iridescence by definition is a play of lustrous, changing colours. This is certainly reflected in this EP’s artwork, but not necessarily in the music. The band rely heavily on synths and various electronic effects to garnish what are essentially acoustic guitar songs. It can be difficult to blend so many disparate elements into a cohesive whole, and the overall sound often comes across as unfocused and cluttered. At best, however, these are effective, energising the songs with some pleasing sci-fi touches. Unfortunately, no amount of window dressing can compensate for the aching lack of humour that mars this collection of songs. This over-earnestness, combined with long, conservative compositions makes the six originals on offer here feel six hours too long. MH
At one moment you say the songs blend too many different elements and then you call the compositions conservative.
'The band rely heavily on synths and various electronic effects to garnish what are essentially acoustic guitar songs'.
Surprising this considering we are an acoustic electonica band.
Pleasing sci-fi touches!!!!!
'This over-earnestness, combined with long, conservative compositions makes the six originals on offer here feel six hours too long. '
Thank you this is a very helpful comment.
We are not interested in making music which is three minute piffle – the type of music that has been done over and over again. They are mood pieces. We are sorry our songs are so long and didn't hold your attention. We know the music probably required more than a quick listen and perhaps we should have made it more accessible and used a few more simple four chord patterns and lots more cliches.
'Unfortunately, no amount of window dressing can compensate for the aching lack of humour that mars this collection of songs.'
Again we apologise for using lyrical poetry by the French poet Paul Verlaine (one of greatest poets of the nineteenth century) – perhaps it was a tad humourless and inconsiderate on our part.
By the way we obtained a first for this work at university. The lecturers marking the piece were highly experienced skilled musicians. Is this on your CV MH?
Thank you MH, you judge, you musical maestro you!!! kisses
Hi gents, sorry if the review left a bad taste in your mouth – but you won't be the first and certainly not the last! It's always the risk you run when you take off that piece of armour and let writers / critics prod around. What I will say is that most of our writers, MH included, are highly experienced, skilled musicians and are definitely well-versed with the process of putting out music subject to the opinions and prejudices of others. Not every review is going to be a blinder – these are the ones that either help you progress and mould what you do, or will end up strengthening your resolve and fortifying artistic intentions. Either way, hope it's all going well, and so that you know, we'd still welcome your next release at The MMP.
Holy difference of opinion!
I've always thought music criticism is a pointless exercise – I don't know why I sent this CD in. That's why I've always stayed away from reading the dross that litters the majority of music magazines. The really concerning thing, from my point of view, is that artists who are trying to put a bit of thought behind their music are often ridiculed and put off by writers like MH. This is usually because the critic doesn't have the type of code required to access the type of music, so they lash out. I've seen it many times before. This opinion doesn't matter to me – we've had bad reviews and very good reviews. Not everyone
is going to get the music and that's fine – we do it because we enjoy it and if people like it then great. What concerns
me is the tone of the review. It is tactless and facile. I can only feel compassion for somebody who writes
with so much scorn and for the bands who fall under this person's wrath. It reminds me of the sort of material that is written in the Daily Mail on a Saturday. I just hope MH possesses a touch more restraint in future?
Hi folks,
I echo strefor's views by saying that reviewing inevitably won't always please everyone. It is, nevertheless, a skill in its own right to use 120 words to describe up to an hour of music. It's also built on a foundation in which opinion is central, infecting both tone and content. I will not speak for MH but know him to be a fantastic writer. I also know that to stop him, or any other writer, from being honest to their thoughts would detract from the meaning of a review.
I've personally been reviewed a number of times, like you, sometimes good and sometimes bad. But one of the worst reviews I ever received was one in which all criticism had been airbrushed out of view. Scanning the page, I noticed uniformly bland and pleasant descriptions of everything. Not just me, but literally every single act. If everything is great to everyone all of the time, the world is no longer spinning.
At MMP we don't tend to offer 'wrath', nor do we aim to discourage or ridicule the local scene. On the contrary, we love it. Which is why I think we should give it enough respect to have honesty when one of us hears a release that we don't enjoy. We certainly aren't slow to dish out praise either, so it's not like a one-way cul-de-sac. MH didn't enjoy your release, but to compare this to a Daily Mail rant is taking hyperbole to the hyperbowl.
Again, echoing strefor, I am sorry if the review left an unpleasant feeling. And I wish you all the best and look forward to hearing future releases.
I don't want this to go on much longer and i appreciate your sentiments. All I want to say is from MH's review is that i can tell that he had no understanding of the type of work he was reviewing. It is similar but perhaps not as extreme as what a Coldplay fan might experience at a twelve tone Schoenberg concert. The term 'sci-fi touches' sums this up perfectly. If I were to compare my musical collection with MH's I know it would be at the opposite end of the spectrum. From his review i can tell he hasn't once, for example, slotted a Tim Buckley CD into his player or read the words of Rimbaud or Rilke. He maybe able to write grammatically but does that qualify someone to write a scathing review of a piece of music. What he should have done is put the CD back in the drawer and moved onto the next candidate rather than take the easy option and lash out. Of course anyone is entitled to their opinion but there is no call for rudeness. We are living in a world of increasing corporate blandness – let's not encourage it – I am relying on you small independent magazines, record labels and radio stations. One final thought I wish you well with your magazine but hope that you will take more care in the future.
"At this point, yes I am interested in, uh, the market journey of the product; but I'm very, very interested also in the mind of the reviewers, how they change over the decades, and how a man approaches new work. Whether he approaches it in a spirit of curiosity, charity, interest, or as a vehicle for his own self-aggrandizement, his own career. Whether he uses it as an opportunity to display humanism, or cruelty… I mean to me, the critic is on trial at this point." Leonard Cohen
Glad this is coming to a close. And it's a shame it's not wholly amicable. Such is the nature of reviewing; it is, in itself, a form of expression that some agree with and others do not. I admire the passion you obviously have toward your music, it is an excellent quality. I do, however, question your self-affirmed ability to 'tell' the kind of life and experiences that a reviewer has had based on no more than 120 words. If ITV show You Bet! were still around, it would be a talent worthy of that fine format.
Nevertheless, I reiterate, good luck with future endeavours and we'd be pleased to hear any new work.
Extremely bad form moaning that anyone who doesn't love your work must not understand it. Just saying.
Just a final ridiculously long-winded response from me… Actually, I'm not glad this is coming to a close, I've thoroughly enjoyed the issues it's thrown up. I really appreciate where you're coming from on this one guys – I do. I can see why aspects of the review came across as harsh, and wouldn't begrudge you bearing a grudge as I know many have and still do when it comes to our reviews!
Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut… This is all getting into rather dangerous territory…
MH is entitled to his opinion, and in this case is employed for it. We don't allow any old badger to write for the magazine, with the possible exception of yours truly… It's certainly a prerequisite to be able to correctly apply grammar and spelling (again with the possible exception of your's trulie) but more imperative that they possess a formidable well of musical knowledge. Sure, it's not going to be a never-ending well and I'm sure that's the point you're trying to make – that perhaps MH wasn't the best reviewer for your kind of music, totally fair point. But all this talk of Rimbaud and Tim Buckley and Leonard Cohen rubs me up the wrong way I must say, particularly the assertion that there's no way MH will have never come across this stuff. Thin ice lads!
One more issue relating to that – as a general rule I'm not interested anyone's intentions behind their music-making. For me, at most, It's a retrospective curiosity and nothing else. The luxury of university is that you're afforded the opportunity to express those intentions, bloody hell you're even marked for it, whereas outside that context I believe you've got the art / music – which should be those intentions manifest – and very little more (discuss… for the rest of time, I've already got a thousand counter-arguments). 90% of the time I don’t care whether there are traces of Rimbaud or Baudelaire or lines from Pushkin or Gogol in anyone’s music, I’m only interested in how those musical and lyrical ideas are conveyed, how they impact and influence me and anyone who's up for chatting about it after a listen.
Anyway… Rambled on enough now… That's what wine'll do to you…
Most important thing is Chris Martin VS Schoenberg. Martin would have one up on Schoenberg initially, he'd be like 'I'm gonna fix you!' but then Berg gets involved and poor Chris would have an awful time of it. Webern's just watching from the shadows, typically, despite being the best of that bunch…
It's admirable to defend your work, but you actually haven't. The review itself (practically irrelevant by now) was luke warm at worst and has now been totally overshadowed by your petulant name dropping. Regardless of your wide and varied and extremely impressive influences (well done you); you may still, in point of fact, be rubbish. It's no defence of your own work to trot out your record and book collection – or to cast aspersions on those of your reviewer.
You've put the music into the world and invited attention. If you're not prepared to hear anything but praise for it; I suggest you take down your website and just ask your parents for feedback (this never worked with my parents by the way).