I’ll leave aside any debate as to the ethics and point (or pointlessness) of band competitions, as that’s a dissertation in itself. Instead, I’m wondering why tonight’s Jack FM/107.9FM/SEA/Oxfordshire Music Scene Magazine/Wychwood Festival Next Big Thing final feels less like a gig and more like a Butlin’s Talent Show, with all the attendant forced jollity that suggests, including a Jack FM DJ, Trevor Marshall, as compere and with obvious designs on the Radio 1 breakfast show hot seat.
Mind you, irritating as he is, he’s not a patch on Quadrophobe‘s singer, who spends their entire fifteen minute set gurning and mugging like a children’s party entertainer and squawking like a flustered parrot, while his band kick out a passable but dated funk-rock-cum-ska-pop groove that marks them out as perennial college ball fodder. The brass section and keyboard player give it all a bit of life and muscle but while they possibly see themselves as the meeting point between Dexy’s and Madness, they’re really Jamiroquai fronted by one of the Chuckle Brothers.
By contrast singer/songwriter Beck Lanehart is genuinely funny, with a downbeat patter that involves a joke about funerals. Which she then spends half the rest of her set apologising for and thus ruining the whole effect. She’s got a great voice too, but perhaps too much of the kind you’d expect to hear coming out of the Brit School and with a tendency to over-emote in that Celine Dion way. She leaves her best song until last, but it’s ironic it finds her warbling about being reckless-because-it’s-all-she-knows, when really music doesn’t get much tamer.
Echoboomer and InLight are virtually interchangeable – creatively moribund rock of no discernible character, shape or virtue, just overly-serious arena-indie with occasional nods to Snow Patrol. No, scrap that, Echoboomer sound like Dire Straits and make up in bombast what they lack in actual tunes, while the slightly more epic InLight sound like Keane and rock out with all the off-putting passion of rutting rhinoceroses.
After which, Witches are a class apart. They genuinely rock out. With maracas and trumpet and a chaotic sense of joy that’s been missing all night. In fifteen short minutes they’ve covered bases as diverse as hardcore, Mexicana, alt-country and indie rock with a sometimes ludicrous sense of theatre, like a puppyish mash-up of Sonic Youth, Sparklehorse and Calexico. And then, after an interminable wait, and against the odds and expectations (and wishes) of the majority of the crowd, they’re declared the winners. Which demonstrates a heroic victory of taste and common sense for the judges. And also means the night, which threatened early on to be a triumph of commercially ambitious efficiency over real potential, ends on a high.
By Zoë Herriot
A bit harsh on EchoBoomer I thought – but other than that – a great review.
Were you even there? The entire crowd went mental for inlight and were, frankly, dumbfounded when witches won.
Witches had their chance 2 years ago and have squandered it. They won on a sympathy vote and played an encore to an empty room. Shame the judges didn’t have the balls to recognise inlight as the real winners.
sorry but this is such patent nonsense. oxford seems to be full of publications which run away at the mere prospect of a band being popular or a crowd having a good time, and which throw in words like ‘keane’ or ‘snow patrol’ as insults without backing up why exactly comparison to popular bands that people enjoy is a bad thing. puritanism, i8t was said, is the fear that someone, somewhere is having a good time. god knows you have a bad case of this! you dont look at a beautiful woman and complain that most people enjoy looking at her, instead preferring to visit your affections on someone more esoteric as to avoid seeing what everybody else does. why do it with bands? inlight stole the show last night and most of the crowd – who were not there for them – knew it. it isnt that hard to deal with and you wouldnt be any less credible for acknowledging it.
“Witches had their chance 2 years ago and have squandered it. ”
What do you mean by that, Rick?
Colin B – Oxford regards itself as a city where the local music has depth, soul, character and inventiveness. This is not an unfounded self-opinion – if you look at the nature of the majority of local bands there is a strong undercurrent of creativity that goes beyond chart pop into more experimental areas. I appreciate your point that bands such as Keane and Snowpatrol are successful and good at what they do, and that it shouldn’t be considered an insult to be compared to them in that respect. However the city’s identity of being somewhat leftfield, even in our poppiest groups, means that it’s something of a dirty word to be unashamed pop inspired by the likes of Keane et al.
Maybe it is elitist, but I think it’s because Keane etc are considered to be the nadir of pop fluff and to aspire to be like them is to aspire to underachieve musically (although maybe not commercially).
I, along with many other people, felt that what Jack FM would get in terms of bands applying was always going to be quite a long way away from the sort of chart nonsense you might consider to be the “next big thing” a la Pop Factory or whatever they call it. The fact that Witches have won is a good thing, as it recognises that good music can be popular without being disposable wallpaper.
………just reading reviews, listening to some Celine Dion, on lunch break at the Brit School, happy days!
inlight where quite good as was beck for her genre.Witches where on another plain altogether,song wise,playing ability wise,exuberance wise and sheer bloody brilliance wise.the sum of their parts is way off the scale.i like the fact some people dont get it, maybe the same sort of people who think stevie vie a better guitarist than hendrix,that ub40 is top reggae or robert cray plays better blues than chester burnett.its all just flying duck theory,yep ime a elitist with music.
Re: Jon
Witches were on the front cover of nightshift 2 years ago, but tbh they don’t seem to have got any bigger since. Don’t get me wrong, I liked their set and I would see them again, but I can’t help thinking inlight actually could go on to be big outside of oxford and this would’ve been a much bigger leg up for them to use than witches. I also think they deserved it as, imo, they were the better band on the night and won a lot of people over to be crowd favorites. Still horses for courses and all that…
hmmm
your first comment seemed a trifle mean-spirited! there are plenty of bands who’ve been on the front cover of NS and no-one outside Oxford has heard about. That doesn’t mean they’ve “squandered” anything!
to my ears inlight have a kind of bovine embrace thing going on which i’m not so into. In terms of their arrangements and lyrics, Witches are just a bit more sophisticated and special. still, i think all those bands could be big outside oxford.
Rick, I agree that both InLight and Witches were excellent last night. However, Witches have gotten bigger over the last two years and are playing Cornbury this year – just like InLight. The idea that a band should “make it” shortly after starting out seems overly idealistic and doesn’t take into account the growth that bands need to go through in order to make both the sound and the delivery of the music ‘their own’. Witches have mastered this. On the other hand, as Zoe points out (rather a bit harshly), InLight has not…yet.
Zoe Herriot, honestly darling. Turn around, bend over and remove the stick from your anus. Leave the reviews to somebody who ACTUALLY knows what they’re talking about. I’m not suggesting in any way that that’s me, but I was there last night and this makes no sense at all. What are you trying to achieve?! The standard of music last night was extremely high. In my opinion Beck Laneheart and InLight stole the show – the two you seem to give the roughest time….
Yes Zoe – how DARE you have an opinion?
Wasn’t there, & I’ve never seen Inlight so they may be ace, but commenting on the reaction of the crowd on the night is irrelevant, the judges decided who won, & Zoe decided who got a good review. It’s a not a poll.
By this logic “The Rite Of Spring” is terrible, as is electric Dylan, which we knowto be untrue.
Inlight have been around for a few years now too.
Good review, Zoe.
Quadraphobe were by far the best band of the night, unique, fun & talented – shame u have to be like everyone else to be liked!
Pleased that Witches got it – the standout winners regardless of them not quite being Oxford’s ‘next’ big thing, but more like ‘Oxford’s thing from a few years back finally getting some recognition’. Wouldn’t have minded losing to them as they’ve got some cracking tunes.
“Quadraphobe were by far the best band of the night, unique, fun & talented – shame u have to be like everyone else to be liked!”
It was only 1 person’s opinion.
Hi, I am in Quadrophobe (trumpet) and just wanted to give a couple of comments on your review of us:
“who spends their entire fifteen minute set gurning and mugging like a children’s party entertainer and squawking like a flustered parrot”
Okay, there is reviewing a band and then there is being plain rude – any band that has got to this stage obviously has talent, and for you to suggest that he is simply there as “childrens entertainment” is insulting. I feel he adds a lot of life and personality to the band and is certainly a competent singer in his own right. Shame on you for not having the writing skills to put your opinion down in a way that is less insulting (not that I’m claiming to be able to write – my writing skills are awful, but I dont get paid to write) even if you do think he isn’t that good.
“while his band kick out a passable but dated funk-rock-cum-ska-pop groove that marks them out as perennial college ball fodder” In a competition like this I would rather be judged on our musical ability (NOT insulted on our musical ability) rather than which decade we appear to have come from thanks.
“I’m wondering why tonight’s Jack FM/107.9FM/SEA/Oxfordshire Music Scene Magazine/Wychwood Festival Next Big Thing final feels less like a gig and more like a Butlin’s Talent Show”
Just sounds like you pulled the short straw and got forced to go along to a gig you didn’t want to review and can’t be bothered to write anything nice about the ideals of the event. LOL. Sounds like you landed your dream job writing music reviews.
“The brass section and keyboard player give it all a bit of life and muscle” thanks for the brass compliment. much appreciated.
Adam, youve got it in one, though. there is a clear precedent in music reviewing which dictates that the role of the reviewer is to choose to either LOVE or HATE the band and then make up in either enbarassing praise or hyperbolic vitriol what they lack in musical ability themselves. anyone who can actually sing like Beck Lanehart doesn’t feel any need to spend their time chuckling to themselves over how wittily they can knock other people’s achievements and congratulating themselves on being oh so much wiser than the contingent for which music is actually made, i.e. people.
And Jon: you accuse Rick of being ‘a trifle mean spirited’. Have you read the review to which he was responding. I wouldn’t be greatly surprised if the reason this Zoe person is so enamoured with Witches is because, cackling like a mad thing over her typewriter, she is one.
You’ve actually hit on an interesting point, here: yes, in many ways critics from across the board disagree with the public. Music, art, drama & all the rest can get a panning from eveyone from The Banbury Cake to The New York Times via The New Socialist Review, and still sell by the bucketload, and be lapped up by fans. But, if the alternative is some horrific “red button” public bvote in place of considered journalism, I’m against it. It’s an interesting issue, that’s for sure.
One aside to Adam: if you want to be “judged on your musical ability” you have to risk being “insulted on your musical ability”.
Anyway, to my mind you’re *all* winners. There we go, a platitude – do we all feel better now ; )
trust me not one person’s opinion – lots of people’s opinion, quite clear by the reaction on the night!
I think my favourite new phrase will be relevant here:
MAN THE F**K UP, EVERYBODY!
Whining whiners.
as i said to one band member that night it is only one persons opinion as is this,why not wright another revue saying how you see it?
i don’t need a revue to know the witches for whatever reason where the best by far.
i wouldn’t narrow it down to Oxford they should be recognised nationally they are that good…IMHO!
besides the band i enjoyed the night it was a great friendly atmosphere with lots of the oxford scene makers.
I agree with Johnny M! – it’s just one person’s opinion! The crowd were behind Inlight and Quadrophobe and I doubt whether any self-respecting follower of upcoming Oxfordshire talent will be influenced by this venomous excuse for serious music journalism one jot. Check out the bands for yourselves because, against the wishes of some, I reckon we’ll be seeing much more of them! Note to Colin Mackinnon – Lose Zoe from your writing panel – she’s losing YOU any shred of credibility that MusicInOxford.com has left!
I can assure you that C-Mac has no credibility to lose, so he shan’t be worried.
I was going to suggest everyone lightened up and untwisted their knickers, but Simon’s already put that in the best way possible! Nobody has died, have they?
Real shame Zoë Herriot, real shame…
I’m shocked
ive gotta disagree its her opinion we live in a free society and shes free to make one.
if you dont like it then write a review yourself.some bands had a lot of fans so not a neutral audience.nor was i neutral but even so i genuinely rate the witches, if i had heard something better i would of said.
So many people from Jack/SAE/107.9/bands put a lot of hard work into this, and i had an amazing night. I loved it!
It was not like a talent show at Butlins, how rude!
And I thought Trevor did an AWESOME job!!
How incredibly cold of you zoe
I’ve got to say I think this review is totally out of order, whilst we all know it’s massively good fun to talk about how shit Dire Straits are down the pub, Mark Knopfler is rich enough not to care, and to put the boot (and a personal boot at that) into up and coming bands trying to make an impression in a hostile environment is like shooting blindfolded fish in a barrel with a spotlight on it.
It’s not like I go on about the personal attributes of the reviewer, the horribly homogenous and dull nature of the reviewing style; a) mention band name, b) throw in some sub-genres they sound mildly similar to, then c) the sin of sins in record reviewing terms, compare the band to a load of others they sound like. Well how lazy is that.
Oh, whoops…
Well said 18: Adam
Bugger off back to Finland.
Which one of the Witches wrote this review and just how far does their experiences with rutting rhinoceroses go? Just asking!
Seriously though, if this is one of the Witches fans doing this review, they’ve done them no favours whatsoever. Who wants to follow a band with such nasty fans? No one I know.
Jeez, hark at the vitriol coming from those critising Zoe for being vitriolic.
Always makes me laugh when people get so upset by a mere gig review. Learn to get some perpective! I’ve only seen two of the bands reviewed here – Witches and In-light but the review seems spot on about both. Witches are a great fun band with plenty of potential while Inlight are terrible careerist slop and a second rate A Silent Film.
“It was not like a talent show at Butlins, how rude!”
It might not have seemed like it to you but it did to someone else, that’s the point. You didn’t write the review, someone else did.
This is one of the things that I get most annoyed about – people who don’t appear to be able to accept that other people can see things differently. Some people seem to be saying that because other people perceive something differently than they do this makes that other point of view less valid than their point of view or even completely wrong. The problem with that in this context is that it is subjective.
Can I just point out that “Sultans Of Swing” by Dire Straits is a brilliant record?
The rest of their stuff I can do without, pretty much, but that’s a cracking track.
As you were…
Yeah, and I like the odd song by Coldplay and Keane!
Anyway. good to see all the debate. Can’t see this doing Beck, inLight etc much harm. They certainly seem to have plenty of admirers out there.
The writers of this website have written warmly about Witches several times, but they haven’t been given wall-to-wall raves (see my review of Charlbury last year). And I’m sorry to disappoint you, Stu, but Zoe is a brilliant (if sometimes provocative)writer, so she’s staying on the team.
Thanks
Colin
“Which one of the Witches wrote this review” – Lyn
You’re just being silly now. Zoe Herriot isn’t a member of Witches. I have met Zoe and her friend Jamie and I’ve met Witches, they are not the same.
Good review Zoe, if we’re talking credibility then getting all your friends to come and bitch on message boards isn’t the way forward. Writers on this site don’t get paid they do it so there is some local coverage of local bands and they are there to write what they see and hear, not to placate or be polite.
I do some writing also and can assure you that nobody is so bitter that they actively seek out oppotunities to criticise bands. Comments insulting reviewers personally for sharing their opinion (that’s the idea) are petulant and patheic and if you are going to enter a competition then you should be prepared to ‘lose’ with grace.
If only people got this worked up about serious stuff like war and poverty, things like that.
hey!! I wasn’t there but Witches are very worthy winners
so well done!!
I think reviews which are critical / insulting promote debate? maybe!! butlins and childrens entertainer.. so often used in a derogitory way!! they are good thing surely!?
what I don’t get here, is that so many people are saying “I wasn’t there but i’m sure that witches deserved it”. That just doesn’t make sense. I wasn’t there, and i don’t know who was best. How can anyone else know better?
The people who say “I wasn’t there, but…” have no doubt seen Withches before and have been impressed. Really the issue there is have they seem any of the other bands before?! Personally I have seen Witches quite a number of times but have only caught half of an Echo Boomer set, therefore consider myself ill-equipped to comment. Still, it’s fun watching everyone else get worked up…
Have seen Quadrophobe before and I have to say they weren’t really my cup of tea – similarly to a comment on the other Jack FM thread they just seem to be a bit of a novelty which made me question the whole competition. Not just because of their genre but because they have been around since.. forever which would seem to negate the ‘NEXT’ idea in the competition as opposed to something thats been around for years.
the whole concert can be heard here.
as JIMI said for any one with any kind of heart or ears.
here is the link
http://www.jackfm.co.uk/nextbigthing/
Coming to this conversation late, as I do, I’m struck by the familiarity of the content.
The reviewer and their responsibility to the reader and to the subject reviewed is a recurring theme throughout the years .
The reviewer is seldom aware of the power they wield. Shows can be closed at the whim of the reviewer, musicians/bands overlooked. What makes the rewiewer’s position so powerful is that their personal opinion is in the public domain and comes with an air of authority, even if the rewiewer has no expertise in the field on which they comment. The reviewed however have no “right to reply”.
I wonder about the amount of times an artist/band/production has lost out on a considerable audience as a result of a biased/unbalanced review. The effect is equally as powerful in reverse. How many times have we read extatic reviews of new bands/artist in the press to only find (on listening) that this “next big thing” is just a tame re-hash of the last “next big thing”.
So, in summary, all you reviewers out there please write responsibly, make critisism constructive and most of all be balanced. Or you might find the band writing a rewiew of your review pointing out the poor use of grammar, unsubstantiatiated arguments, rhetoric, cliches etc etc.
Dr Bob,
Author of comment Number 47: No right of reply?!
I’ve always felt that our website is just one of many places where you can read about Oxfordshire music, and that a broad democracy operates: if Nightshift, Oxbands, Daily Info, Oxfordshire Music Scene rave about a band/gig, then maybe they have something.
Also, I’m not sure what the word ‘balanced’ means in this context: is that just another word for ‘bland’, or ‘equivocal’? You have to allow a certain room for a reviewer’s passion. If you want balanced, then read recent reviews of ‘Modern Cliches’ ‘Drunkenstein’ or ‘Peerless Pirates’, or the reviews of ‘Witches’ Charlbury gig. Whereas reviews of Jessie Grace, Bad Habits or A Silent Film have been less ‘balanced’ because the reviewer had stronger feelings about the material/performance.
I’m not sure what a rewiew is, although I hear they have them in China… *evil smiley face*
Dr Bob – what on earth do you imagine you’re doing writing here, if you imagine there’s no “right of reply” – that’s what you just did, wasn’t it?
A reviewer gives their opinion. here there is plenty of opportunity to respond, and for other people to have their say regarding what they think of the bands, and the reviewer. Where’s the problem?
Generally, i’d say that most reviewers here Do have a balanced outlook, and there’s rarely any personal axe to grind. I know that i’d not be a good reviewer, because i feel very strongly indeed about music, and some bands would get praised to the heavens, and others would be shredded. If you believe in what you’re doing, keep doing it, but it’s worth listening to other peoples point of view as well….
‘bland’, or ‘equivocal’? My god no…..
By all means rave about, rage against, wax lyrical, educate, discuss, debate.
All I’m trying to get across is that without context reviews can mislead.
Example….
“the band last night we rubbish”
could be stated
“heavy metal isn’t my bag, I didn’t enjoy the show last night but the bands many fans obviously did”
That’s all….
Dr Bob, why not put yourself forward to do some reviews for the site? I’m not being funny but you’d be able to set an example, and there is a good chance your best intentions will rile someone and we can all see how difficult it is to please people!
DrBob,
You are treating people as if they are idiots and can’t make their own mind up about a review. They can and they do.
Ultimately many people will make their own mind up about a band or gig anyway, regardless of what 1 person writes about it.
It’s only if you don’t get that music is subjective that things can go a bit wrong.
I don’t see what’s unbalanced about Zoe’s review. She’s said good and bad points about all the acts. If she didn’t like the bands, why lie? Just look at the good points she found:
Quadraphobe: “The brass section and keyboard player give it all a bit of life and muscle”
Beck Lanehart: “…is genuinely funny, with a downbeat patter that involves a joke about funerals…..She’s got a great voice too”
Echoboomer: “make up in bombast what they lack in actual tunes”
InLight: er…..”epic”
And then for Witches, which she clearly thought was the best act of the night, she says that “against the odds and expectations (and wishes) of the majority of the crowd, they’re declared the winners” – which shows that they didn’t go down too well with the crowd.
All in all, a fairly balanced review. People should stop complaining if they think this is a bad review for their band. This is a review we once got in nightshift:
“Never, under any circumstances watch this band; the guitarists even wear fake sport arm casts and shameful ‘arena rock ’ stage moves and gurning. Never mind they ’re the ‘talent ’,the ‘cream of the crop ’ Oxford supergroup. Supergroup’s just another word for “stick to your own band ”.Terrible stuff. Terrible.”
Now that’s a bad review for a band to get so lighten up!
Phill – out of interest, who wrote that?
Of course, “last night’s band was rubbish” could translate as “I do like metal, in fact I like lots of music, that’s why I write about it for free, but last night’s band was, in actual fact, rubbish”. Heh heh.
I must admit I don’t believe that a bad review at this level is going to make any difference to the number of potential listeners an act has, but I suppose I can’t prove that. But I certainly know that bad reviews can’t “close shows”, because reviews tend to come out after the event has finished.
I had a Nutshaft review many moons ago that called me a “smug oaf” & ended, “isn’t there some sort of benevolent dictatorship that could wipe out this kind of thing, preferably by force”. Wonderful. I had it on my fridge for years, & the fact I can still quote it shows what esteem I hold it in.
Facts
a) bad reviews well written are great, even if they’re about you
b) some of you milksops wouldn’t know a bad review if it bit you in the arse & then acknowledged whether bystanders enjoyed the spectacle
c) none of this matters, not even a tiny tiny bit
c) none of this matters, not even a tiny tiny bit
..is the most relevant comment so far….
ha ha…my work here is done.
farewell sweet things and tender faces….
i’m certainly not a sweet thing, and there’s nothing tender about gappy’s face……
How strange, a lightbulb has suddenly appeared over Leigh’s head
Welcome to Joe World.
“ha ha…my work here is done.”
You said that last time, then came back.
alphabet backwards a popular crowed pleasing band who did not get slated by local reviewers and they also don’t post on her or nightshift.
Leigh: It was Pascal from Fee Fi Fo Fum who wrote that nightshift review – whihc was ok cos I don’t like his band either so I can see why he wouldn’t like mine.
Fred: Alphabet Backwards don’t post on her? What do they do on her and can I get a video?!
I only saw them once and only caught the last song of their set – not enough to form much of an opinion, which is a shame as I wanted them to be crap so I could make the Fee Fi Fo Fumble joke…
In the light of my previous post I’d like to point out one fact before the baying dogs tear into my legs and soft tissue: I DON’T DO REVIEWS
“The single most disappointing night in living memory.”
That’s the worst review I’ve had…
I think a good reviewer should be able to say anything they write in a review to the person’s face! Of course, this would never happen…
“I think a good reviewer should be able to say anything they write in a review to the person’s face! Of course, this would never happen…”
What’s this thing about having to say thing to people’s faces? It’s rubbish. It’s commonly accepted that a review is written on paper, not given by word of mouth face-to-face with the band being review, what possible reason could there be for a band to want a reviewer to come up to them and start reviewing you to your face? Is it because you want to have a go about something? If you have a problem with a review or reviewer, and it looks like a case of sour grapes, then that’s your problem, as long as the review isn’t libelous then I see no reason to get worked up, if someone simply doesn’t like your music or your band then tough, getting into a confrontation about it would be a bit childish. “yeah come on, see that to my face”. Seriously – wind your neck in.
I’m assuming “Sir Ian” isn’t your real name either, are you prepared to practice what you preach and put your real name to your comment? No? Well if you can’t do that then how can you expect other people to “tell it to your face”?
Tell it to my heart
Tell me I’m the only one,
Is it really love or just a game?
Woah – chill! No Sir Ian is not my real name ‘Joe’ and btw I’m not in a band so I have never been reviewed. I was simply making a light hearted point that reviewers often hide behind their ‘pen’ and therefore develop venomous personae… much like your reply to my comment!
“No Sir Ian is not my real name” – Sir Blair
You made a sarcastic comment clearly directed at a particular reviewer, the comment was about saying things to someone’s face yet you made the comment under a pseudonym which indicates that you would not say your comment to the reviewers face, can you not see the issue there?
Yes I have developed a venomous personae, it’s very useful. Fortunately I don’t feel the need to use it much.
I see your point but I don’t think I’m alone in using a pseudonym in a forum!
No, you aren’t alone.
Bloody hell i cant possibly read all the above comments but i presume thers some anger with Zoe’s review?
I dont get what the problem could be asides from comparing Inlight and Boomer to Snow Patrol and thats only a bad thing if like me you think Snow Patrol are some kind of horrible diet U2.
Its only the opinion of one person sureley the fact you made it the top 5 should soften the blow of the review?
i wasnt there so i cant say who was good or who was bad but i think Witches are a good band so well done them.