berry | Indy Week

Member since Mar 11, 2009



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Gilbert Neal's Our Deepest Apathy...

People - can we please stop all of this and just focus on Gilbert's music? I doubt he used aliases. He's a straightforward guy, so I'm sure he has no problem saying what he thinks. I'm sorry I added to this thread in the way that i did - i should have just said - listen to Gilbert's cd and it will speak to you in the way that you find meaningful... so much aggression out unnecessary... Berry

Posted by berry on 03/16/2009 at 9:35 AM

Re: “Gilbert Neal's Our Deepest Apathy...

Catharsis you make good points. Have you ever listened to an album or genre and thought it was awful only to listen to it more and more and start to appreciate it? There have been many rock bands i thought sucked at first that I now love. In addition, I used to think jazz was a bunch of noise - it is pretty much my favorite genre now. What changed? My ears! So, if i wrote a review on U2 when I first heard "Boy", I would have said "What a piece of garbage!". Now, it is one of my favorite works. When I first heard Miles Davis I thought - this guys sucks! Everything is atonal and all I hear is bleeps and bloops...this, of course, is as far from the truth as possible. Now that I play jazz, i understand and have the utmost admiration for Miles. Am I right now or was I right then? The point is, taste is all opinion and is quite malleable and contextual. If that is the case, what purpose do reviews actually serve? Not I said, it is one person's opinion based on their ears and experiences. The problem is that it unfortunately does influence others. Even if Grayson Currin wrote a stellar review of Gilbert Neal's cd, does that really matter? Not really, because it is still just Mr. Currin's opinion, based on his ears and experiences. I just wish that a reviewer would say something like this if they don't like an artist - "well, it isn't my cup of tea for the following reasons ( i prefer this, i'm more of a fan of this...etc...)" rather than to speak as though they are stating fact. And yes, some people are impressionable enough to take what a reviewer says to heart. There is a reason Woody Allen never goes to the Acadamy Awards - he basically knows he is great and doesn't need other people giving him an opinion on his work. Hopefully Mr. Neal read this review and doesn't care one way or the doesn't determine the quality of art that he creates...

Posted by berry on 03/14/2009 at 12:06 AM

Re: “Gilbert Neal's Our Deepest Apathy...

In any case, Mr.Dave, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. When my new band (Face On The Floor) starts playing live and cuts a disc, I will, however, refrain from submitting it for review at the Indy. I prefer no publicity to bad publicity. I see little reason to "hate" on someone or be "hated" on if it can be avoided... Berry

Posted by berry on 03/12/2009 at 2:43 PM

Re: “Gilbert Neal's Our Deepest Apathy...

Mr. Dave - the thing is, the reviewer really serves the public in an entertainment mode only, because the reviewer is just voicing his or her opinion. There is no factual evidence involved, i.e, it isn't as though the reviewer is ranking cars on safety or gas mileage. That serves the public directly because it is hard, cold fact. Reviewers merely voice an opinion. They are basically entertainers. The problem is is that there are many less than bright people out there that will take what a reviewer says as the truth instead of listening and making his or her own decision. That's where the problem comes in. I remember reading a Rolling Stone Guide that said that Geddy Lee (Rush singer/bassist) sounded like a cross between Robert Plant (Zep) and Donald Duck! They basically called the entire Rush catalogue garbage. Who has the last laugh? Most people love Geddy's voice and arguably Rush is the most successful band every to come out of Canada. Their musicianship is stellar, they have penned many hits and they are still performing today. Now, according to the reviews from Rolling Stone, they sucked terribly. How do reviews like that serve the public. Clearly, the public disagrees! Trust me - reviews, good or bad, can be entertaining to read. But why, again, would local reviewers take the time to rip a hard working local musican when they DON'T HAVE TO? Berry Berry

Posted by berry on 03/12/2009 at 2:38 PM

Re: “Gilbert Neal's Our Deepest Apathy...

Mr. Dave - do you have figures to back up your assertions on monetary gains vs. losses re. advertising? I would be curious to see them... Since Mr. Van Vleck, who is very well respected, refused to do negative reviews for the DHS, do you consider him to be ridiculous? Berry

Posted by berry on 03/12/2009 at 12:07 PM

Re: “Gilbert Neal's Our Deepest Apathy...

well, the indy is a business. if it loses money because clubs pull advertising out, i'm not sure it's a good thing for either party. the clubs want to advertise, but if a reviewer discourages people from going by doing a negative review, why would the club spend money on advertising in the indy? it seems to be a zero sum game... Berry

Posted by berry on 03/11/2009 at 9:57 PM

Re: “Gilbert Neal's Our Deepest Apathy...

Hi there. I just found our there was a review of Gilbert Neal's CD and I was pretty disappointed in it (the review). I really like the CD, and have seen Gilbert play many times, but that is beside the point.

I once played in a band in the triangle called "Precious Envelope" and talked to a gentleman named Phillip Van Vleck at the Durham Herald Sun about reviewing our cd. He told me frankly that if he didn't like the band, he wouldn't review it because he didn't see the point - he felt it wasn't constructive.

Whether or not he reviewed our cd made no difference to me at that point - i felt that here was a man that understood that if you aren't going to help, you shouldn't hurt. He realized that he was just a reviewer and that his opinions were just his, but if he were going to unleash one, it was going to be constructive.

It made me have a lot of respect for Mr. Van Vleck. I think the reviewers here at Indy ought to think about this way of doing things.

How many people would not go see Gilbert play if they had read this review and had never heard him before? This based on one man's opinion! And that's sad because Gilbert is highly talented. I saw him at the 506 and he was amazing!

I agree with an above post - the indy may lose advertising dollars from clubs - who would want to book a performer only to see them portrayed in a negative light in the indy, especially if that said club is paying the indy for publicity???

As my mother used to say, "If you haven't anything nice to say, don't say anything at all..." Perhaps I have spent too much time here in mellow Pittsboro, but I really think we should spend our time helping each other in our artistic endeavors instead of tearing each other down...


Posted by berry on 03/11/2009 at 9:31 AM

Extra Extra!

Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.

  • Weekly Newsletter (Wednesday) - The stories in this week's issue
  • Weekly Events Newsletter - Our picks for your weekend and beyond

Login to choose
your subscriptions!

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

© 2017 Indy Week • 320 E. Chapel Hill St., Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation