Boy Did Good: Enemies & Friends (demo)

Irate musicians will often attack a bad review for the lack of “constructive criticism”, which seems to be a serious misreading of the function of sites like this.  Surely critics aren’t writing for the benefit of the artists (who really ought to just jack it in if they don’t already think their work is excellent), but for our peers, other potential listeners.  So, although it may come up in the course of proceedings, how to make music better is of less importance to us than explaining what’s wrong in the first place.  Besides, the easiest way to make most God-forsaken demos better is simply to press Eject and then try to forget the whole sorry affair.

All of which preamble sounds worryingly like the buffer zone before a complete critical disembowelling for the execrably-named Boy Did Good, but the squeamish amongst you can rest assured that this won’t happen.  What we’re getting at is wondering whether, in this case, we have any real connection with our peers at all.  We suppose the pertinent question is, “Do you want to hear some average, but not unpleasant, indie rocking?” If the answer’s “Yes please”, then Boy Did Good are the ones for you; if not…well, let’s leave them to it, it’s a pretty harmless occupation, all things considered.

If you want to know what flavours of not-unpleasant indie rocking BDG trade in, we can tell you that “Characters & Pieces” has a skipping beat that reminds us a little of the baggy era, without the stoned charm, and that The Arctic Monkeys and The Kaiser Chiefs are momentarily brought to mind.  With the exception of some incredibly sludgy, almost dubstep-style bass interjections, the song has very little to claim your attention, though there may be some foot tapping in evidence.

“That Girl Is Dangerous” starts more promisingly, with a tinny one chord strum, some more suet bass and thumping toms; just when it threatens to become hypnotically heavy, it steps up into a forgettable new-wave trot, and our mind starts to wander once again.  The rhythmic playing throughout the demo is very tight, the vocals are perfectly acceptable, if lacking in character, and there are some interesting breaks, fills and tacets, but the song in its entirety is as unimposing as the clichéd femme fatale lyrics.

A comparable tom pattern underpins “You, Me & The Other Three”, which uses a similar alternating rhythm guitar trick to the last tune.  In fact, a couple of shimmering chords aside, this is just the last song remade from another perspective, as we learn that “that boy is trouble”. Something average remade less interestingly with the sex roles inverted, what does that remind us of?  Oh, yes, Grease II.

If BDG want some of that mythical constructive criticism, it all depends on what they want to achieve.  If they want to be a world class band of professional musicians, we’d encourage them to think about every single note they play and lyric they write, and immediately excise anything that sounds threadbare and secondhand.  Eventually, after much graft, they may come up with something exciting.  If they just want to have a laugh, play some gigs here and there, and sink some beers, then we’ve nothing to add: it’s all fine.  Keep at it.  Hell, it’s probably alright live.  Not sure we’ll be making the pilgrimage to Reading to find out, however.

Boy Did Good Myspace

By David Murphy

  • http://www.borderville.com joederville

    Sorry to gripe…but…

    What ever happened to an if-you-can’t-say-anything-nice-then-don’t-say-anything-at-all ethos for reviewing unheard-of acts? Were there really no other bands to write about other than a dodgy indie band from Reading, whom you’ve pretentiously shot down in a remarkably dull fashion?

    I honestly think if a review is going to be that scathing, it had better be funny as hell. This seems bitter, weary and chin-stroking. No-one gains anything from this review, not the band, not the reviewer, not the reader, and certainly not the reputation of this website.

  • colinmackinnon

    Oh, I don’t know, the gag about Grease II was pretty great!

    Like Nightshift, we review nearly everything we get at Oxfordbands.com-our levels of enthusiasm are therefore partly determined by the quality of stuff coming our way. Unfortunately we don’t get a Stornoway, Captive State, Winchell Riots, Cogwheel Dogs or Sinini Ngwenya record every week. Boydidgood wanted a review, they got a review…what else can I say?

    Colin

  • http://www.borderville.com joederville

    You receive a load of good records, they get good reveiws. Two bad demos in a month or so get you (both?) so riled that lengthy deconstructions of why an average indie band is an average indie band are warranted? Hmm.

    As for the Nightshift comparison, it doesn’t quite hold – this is a different medium, with a different layout; this really makes a big difference. The Demo page in Nightshift is notorious for succinct, often hilariously dismissive soundbites. It’s where you turn to for the worst reviews; it’s seperate from the rest of the magazine.

    I have little time for average indie bands myself, and as such wouldn’t waste nearly 3,000 words describing why I don’t like them. And here’s the thing: the review doesn’t even say they’re that bad, only that they’re not particularly great. Stop the presses!

    The review then impicitly suggests that they haven’t asked for constructive criticism, but probably secretly want it, which is more than a little contrived. But yes, they probably do. Is it so much to ask for? Is it so hard to write a review that provides this? If so, then why bother? To stop them playing music altogether? To stop people from travelling to Reading to see them?

    Because the purpose of this review is clearly not to critically assess this band. It’s been twisted into a treatise on why bands shouldn’t bother asking for constructive criticism. Bizarre. What is the purpose of this website? Work experience?

  • Beaver Fuel

    I think someone may have just volunteered themselves as the new oxbands demo reviewer, then?

  • colinmackinnon

    Just want to defend my esteemed colleague a little bit…. David M. writes wonderfully and we’re lucky to have him on the site. I’d agree with you, Joe, that maybe that review could have been a tad shorter, but then again he does explain in detail the strengths and weaknesses of the individual tracks. I got some flak regarding the Vixens review for not being detailed enough about why I disliked the record, so I know it’s a difficult balance.

    Anyway if I were BDG I’d still fillet the review for cheery quotes- how’s this? ” hypnotically heavy…rhythmic playing throughout is very tight…interesting fills, breaks and tacets”

    As for the charge of kicking an obscure unloved little Reading indie band I should point out that they have played the Birmingham NEC!

  • http://www.borderville.com joederville

    Ah, well they’re fair game then. Fuck ’em!

    I like David’s reviews normally, and yours Colin.

  • Dan

    I’m really not quite sure what you’re getting at here Joe. In your first post you seem angry that the review is very scathing, which it isn’t at all, in your second you seem annoyed at the banality of its moderation. The hardest reviews to write are those when the band is just fine – making them engaging is tricky because that’s exactly what the music hasn’t been, either in a good or bad way. In such a case it seems natural and perfectly acceptable for the review to suggest looking at that ‘averageness’ in the context of different levels of expectation, both on the part of the band and on the part of potential listeners. It is in any case surely even more needlessly dismissive for a site such as this to do as you suggest and not review demos they get sent if they don’t like them since it implies some simple pass/fail system with only the better stuff being worthy of mention. The absence of a review would be more scathing than anything that could be said in it.

    Anyway, maybe I’m particularly sympathetic to David’s problem here because I’m trying to write a similarish sort of review at the moment for this site. It really is tough to do.

  • http://www.borderville.com joederville

    The review is most certainly scathing, in a classically Oxford way: i.e., you’re boring, I hate you, you sound like popular indie bands. Banal music gets a kicking in Oxford. Rightly so, probably. You can easily say a band is average and give them a terrible review. Equally, you could say a band was terrible and give them a great review. It’s not mutually exclusive.

    I review for several things myself, and I honestly think that it’s better not to write a review than write a bad one when it comes to local acts. By bad I mean both out-and-out scathing or, worse, dull. Who does it benefit? Only the writer, probably, as they desperately flex their analytical muscles in the face of something that defies reviewing. If you struggle to find something interesting to say, it’s probably not worth the effort, right?

  • Adrian

    “I honestly think that it’s better not to write a review than write a bad one when it comes to local acts. By bad I mean both out-and-out scathing or, worse, dull. Who does it benefit? Only the writer, probably, as they desperately flex their analytical muscles in the face of something that defies reviewing.”

    Why? What’s wrong with a bad review? If a band submits a demo for review, then surely they’re saying “tell me what you think” not “tell me what you think – unless you don’t like it, in which case don’t review it”?

    By which mark, every band which doesn’t get reviewed might end up thinking that their demo’s not liked at all, when in reality it never turned up, got eaten by the office Great Dane, or just arrived on a week where there was simply too much other material to wade through.

    A critic is exactly that – critical. you don’t judge them by the quality of their own musical work, but by their writing. If you find their writing dull – fine, that’s your opinion. But you can’t judge them for not liking something, if they can back up their opinions with valid points. Otherwise – you’ve not got a critic – because they’re not saying what they think.

  • http://www.borderville.com joederville

    You’ve got to serve the best interests of the local scene in your reviews. You have to. I’m absolutely not saying that a critic shouldn’t be critical, just that it has to be constructive. It has to be; otherwise it’s just snide, underhand and nasty. To deny a band constructive criticism defies the whole point of local music journalism, which primarily must be to nurture local acts.

  • Tom

    David, there is one thing that really irritates me about your review…

    “…who really ought to just jack it in if they don’t already think their work is excellent.”

    Not everyone out there making music suffers from artistic arrogance, some are even quite humble believe it or not! Think how much great music we would be deprived if the talented artists (often very modest!) took this advice. It’s attitudes like this that prevent the release of a second La’s album!

  • Dan

    Maybe you’re right about the review being scathing: perhaps I’m reading it in a particularly naive way, perhaps you’re reading it too cynically. Who knows? Well, probably David M. I understand what you’re saying about reviews that are snide and nasty, but I really don’t think this one was. It simply said that they are doing one thing absolutely fine, but if they want to do this other, harder thing then they have to think about what they’re doing a bit more closely and find their own voice a little. To me, that’s constructive criticism.

    Anyway, moving away from this particular review, while you’re absolutely right that local music journalism must serve the best interests of the local scene, I don’t think that its primary function in order to do this is to nurture local acts. It’s certainly part of it, but I think it’s brief is wider. Most people who read a review aren’t in the band being reviewed and have no interest in the constructive criticism element, but they are all in the potential audience for that band’s next gig and so just want to know what the band sounds like now. Taking that into account, local journalism has a role of helping people match up their musical tastes to the otherwise meaningless names they see on gig posters or listings; if we’d ever got round to it, at the OHM website we were going to have a sort of “if you liked this band you might like this other band” feature. A local scene is surely successful if people who like going to listen to music are finding music they like listening to – local journalism’s primary function, I would argue, is to match musician and listener. (PS I think David’s review does help do that, but that’s a separate issue).

  • http://www.borderville.com joederville

    You’re right Dan, it should do that first and foremost. But it shouldn’t be forgotten that reviews mean most to the bands involved. I’m not saying pills should be sweetened, but I think some sort of balance is needed.

    What made me angry about this review was its forthright presumtion that the element of constructive criticism is completely unnecessary. David Murphy seems to want to apply this to ALL bands, not just this one.

    Here are some things which genuinely ARE unnecessary:

    Weak, non-descriptive metaphors.
    Soap-box posturing seeking to portray all bands as deluded children.
    Detailed but ultimately meaningless descriptions of “interplay” between instruments.
    The word “weaving.”
    Pretending to be Hunter Thompson.

  • colinmackinnon

    This from David Murphy, who has temporarily lost the ability to post comments here. has this happened to anyone else?

    Cheers to Joe for quite possibly the most interesting responses to a review ever posted on this site. So, here are a few comments:

    1) I’m assuming that BDG asked for the review – I was just passed the demo by Colin, but I imagine they’d rather have some sort of response than silence.

    2) Is the review too long/unfocused? Maybe. I think you hit the nail on the head, however, when pointing out that this site isn’t the same as Nightshift: here on the net we have room to write slightly longer reviews (too long, some may say!) as the cash to space ratio isn’t an issue. Not only CAN we write differently, but I think we SHOULD – why recreate Nightshift when it’s already ace? Also, I think it’s important that this site is some sort of community, rather than a distanced tome of truth like the Nightshift missives: we’re proving that fact right now by having this discussion. Therefore I like to write stuff for this site that might elicit a response, whereas in Nightshift you have 100 words to give people some plain judgements.

    3) I didn’t mean to imply that BDG will be demanding “constructive crit” – I’m sure they’re v level headed people, but the comment was instigated by other performers/fans who’ve commented here & elsewhere on reviews. As you say, however, this review is 50% a musing on the act of responding itself. Pretentious, perhaps, but again, it’s something we get to do here that nobody does at Nightshift, BBC Oxford, Oxon Music Scene, Oxford Times, Oxford Mail, Ceefax, etc etc.

    4) However, I have to say that “If you can’t say anything nice…” is far worse than asking for “const crit”. I’d say this site is best served by having a steady stream of content and comment: remember how dull it was before Colin took over the reviews, & there was nowt to read? I think, underneath it all, I did mean to say something nice, ie if I wandered into the Bully & found this I’d tap my foot & enjoy it. But to be honest I’d forget it almost instantly, & I wouldn’t leave the county to experience it, either. That’s not supposed to sound harsh, I’m just being frank. Oh, & there’s nothing wrong with sounding like mainstream indie bands (tho I’d rather the reference point was R.E.M. than The Fratellis, if I had to chose), but sounding like nobody in particular is not so good.

    5) Scathing? Well, I wasn’t meant to be, but I guess it can be read as that. If BDG are upset, I sincerely apologise. But I’m sure they’re sensible enough to ignore my ramblings (and that of any other reviewer, come to that).

    6) Never read any HST, actually. I’ll be sure to write my next review whilst wandering round the Costwolds necking cough syrup.

    7) If the review’s too long, blame the bloody editor, I’m just a hack ; )

  • Beaver Fuel

    My band is made up of deluded children, so I see no reason to think of others as any different 😉

  • http://www.borderville.com joederville

    I agree, I think the differences between MusicInOxford and Nightshift are very important. Perhaps not enough is made of this? There’s no reason why this blog needs to stop at reveiws/basic gig advertisements is there? There’s no reason why you couldn’t write an article that was just opinion, that wasn’t a review of a band. The open nature of this site should mean that any type of article is possible. But possibility is not quite the same thing as duty.

    Just because there are no word limits in operation on MusicInOxford shouldn’t account for a lack of focus in the writing. I’d say the reviews are way too long on here. I think to spend 3,000 words reviewing a substandard demo means that your review is unfocussed; is, in fact, not really a review at all. If I was the band being reviewed, I’d be pretty miffed.

    And don’t worry David, you don’t sound anything like HST. I was just talking saying what annoyed me about reviews generally. I think you’re more of a Brian Sewell.

  • david

    Testing, testing.

    Now I’m back from work, let’s see if I’m able to post here.

    So, just a couple more things before we let this drift away.

    Firstly, although I understand what Colin means, I certainly wasn’t feeling terrible ennui & petulant exhaustion at having to review another demo I didn’t like too much, I think to talk like that would be pretty unbearable behaviour. What I was getting at is that some – probably most – of the art we come across (& I mean everyone, not just reviewers) is just average, and is that fact worth addressing? Your reposnse, Joe, would seem to be to cough behind your hand and quickly change the subject .

    Secondly, I must reaffirm that I have no issue with BDG, I’m sure they’re lovely, & the lack of rants from them on this page implies they’re taking the review in the spirit it was meant(unlike admirers of a recent reviewee). But I am getting at the sort of conversation you see played out all the time –

    Critic : This record is shit.
    Musician: Can’t you even be constructive?
    Critic: OK, the bass is a tiny bit out of tune, and the snare is a semi-breve off in the 27th bar. You could change that.
    Musician: Now you’re just being picky
    Critic: Thing is, if you change these things, it’d still be shit, did I mention that?
    Musician: If you can’t say anything nice…

    Not all musicians are deluded children. But some of them are. Lots of them are fucking disorganised too, shall I bring that up? And don’t get me started on promoters & engineers. As for reviewers…

    I just feel that the music teacher & the critic are different people, & that reviews are written more for potential punters than for artists. If the review & this discussion makes some readers visit BDG’s website, then everybody wins…&, if it’s our job to “strenthen the scene” as you claim, we would have done just that as well. I’ve just checked thier site & they’re playing loads in Oxford, if you’re interested

    I wonder what people see the remit of this site as, just out of interest. Anyone got any suggestions?

    Finally, the band may be a little miffed about the review. You win some, you lose some. I would suspect, however, that if I’d knocked out 120 words on why I think the demo is passable but unexciting, & left it at that, they’d feel much the same; and if I just didn’t bother reviewing it at all , they’d feel worse – and we wouldn’t have been able to have this enlightening little chat.

    Thanks

    PS Brian Sewell, very good. He’s a bit too into craftsmanship for my liking, but I am probably a similarly pompous old man. Just so long as you don’t turn the page of The Standard & call me Victor Lewis-Smith I don’t mind.

    PPS It was only 500-odd words, don’t get carried away, lad!

  • Dan

    Interesting idea about writing opinion pieces here, although that was tried with the blog thing before wasn’t it, and it sort of fizzled out, but perhaps that was because the site in general was in the doldrums for a time, and it should be given another chance. A little editing together of the responses to this review could provide the first effort.

    (Pedantic PS. I totally agree reviews shouldn’t be 3000 words, that would be absurd, but have any of them got anywhere near that? David’s is only just over 500 I reckon, my last was 350ish)

  • Danny

    i think this site acts as a forum mostly for musicians, while I have no idea of your bandwidth usage most comments seem to be from people in bands themselves. While peer opinion is important to many i would say this site seems to have a similar problem to the nightshift forums, i.e. being made up of mainly musicians. If this site is meant to inform ‘potention punters’ then it needs to some sort of external promotion, as it seems fairly cliquey. What do others think?

  • Chris

    i agree. well cliquey

  • Beaver Fuel

    Musicians seem to be the only people who go to gigs that aren’t at the Cardiac, so it’s unsurprising that the local forums should be full of them. At least people are supporting each other as there often doesn’t seem that much interest from the students etc. Perhaps we should pressgang members of the public into posting on this site and Nightshift to balance out the opinions? :roll:

  • http://www.borderville.com joederville

    What’s more valuable? Good art or bad art? In which case, what is worth discussing?

  • http://www.borderville.com joederville

    I think Danny’s hit the nail on the head. Way, way back, the MusicInOxford weblog was frequently amazing…it was a bit tucked away, and there was a lot of other content to compete with. I think it’s time to do more of that stuff. Free reign doesn’t mean not editing. You can edit your own work, it doesn’t have to be left for Colin to do.

  • Danny

    Im not implying we should force people on to these sites, they clearly evoke debate amongst the local community of musicians which is obviously both interesting and important. However as a recent graduate from Brookes who has chosen to make this my permanent abode I only happened across the website from a review on a Myspace page. I think that Oxfordbands offers alot which many are missing out on, and was just wondering on the possibility of increasing the online community?

  • Beaver Fuel

    I wasn’t seriously suggesting we force the public to participate! A couple of years back this site was really popular, I don’t really know why it declined so much (although it did become a spam magnet) and it’s hard to know what to do about it. I’m sure Colin and Stuart would welcome suggestions on how to raise the profile. Whilst working full-time and keeping up a band, reviewing, promoting gigs, etc…

  • http://www.borderville.com joederville

    What about…and this is a radical suggestion, and tell me to stick some or all of it if you like…

    Sticking the Nightshift forum on this site and making it look pretty?

    Putting all the Nightshift content up as it comes in, unedited? Ronan could also pass on the reviews he hasn’t got space for.

    Sticking a few harmless google ads in the corner to generate a bit of money?

    Allow more user-generated content – perhaps a team of people who could post to this or another blog, upload videos/photos or whatever…

  • Beaver Fuel

    Good suggestions, some may depend on how much spare time the admin of the sites have – just lately it’s been clear Adminhead on nutshaft hasn’t got a lot of time to spare! The other spanner in the works is the whole spam thing, although if more people could be nominated for admin duties just so content could be vetted before posting so the site doesn’t become spam central.
    It’s been said on Nightshift before though that if bands and artists put links to the sites on mailouts and the urls on releases, flyers etc it may make a fair amount of difference without much real effort. In fact, I’ll change our mailout signature when I remember…
    Buy our ep, kids, it’s got the url for this site on the sleeve!

  • Danny

    I know sorry i didnt mean to sound serious about opposing forced participation haha! what about the possibility of different reviewers for different bands, i.e. genre based. While no-one wants this site to become some kind of scene groupie heaven the reviews seem (and this is purely from the few reviews i have seen) to be based from a ‘serious’ musical background. The intergrity of the site is important but my opinions often differ from the reviewers (not including my own band obviously) and i do not think that means they are worthless. For example despite being able to appreciate certain parts of folk music, I personally prefer many of the average indie bands which have appeared on her, maybe a few opinions per demo could be seen, maybe as a kind of discussion between two reviewers from differing standpoints. Although i suppose this is what the comments section is for….
    maybe i have just made my point invalid xx

  • boywithatoy

    Tom : “It’s attitudes like this that prevent the release of a second La’s album!”

    Good.

  • http://www.mypsace.com/boydidgood BoydidAlex

    Hello everyone,

    I’m glad that the review has sparked such fervent debate!! I can only hope some of you may have headed over to our myspace to check the tracks for yourselves.

    I’m the lead singer/song writer for BDG so please may I introduce myself as a bland and ostentatiously beige member of the popular music drudgery.

    I found the review to be ok. Clearly we’ve submitted our work to wrong people as, looking back through the archives, we’re not exactly a band fitted to the target audience. Given that we weren’t completely slaughtered though, I consider this to be a result so thank you Dave, and Colin for setting it up.

    One thing I would say though, is that the reviewer did appear to lack the drive to look hard into the lyrics and the music that surrounds them. I must admit that I actually consider them a lot when writing…Furthermore, the entire concept behind the EP was completely missed – Characters & Pieces was a consideration of the manipulation of a mass, consumerist and ultimately indoctrinated society and public that we live in and with and an exploration of the notion that those who control us are an Enemy. That Girl Is Dangerous took this down to a much more realistically relatable level – the girl being the enemy to the gentlemen pursuing her through her fascinatingly malevolent, yet irresistible demeanor. The last was not just the same story with the sex roles reversed but more a picture of how our friends can help us in a time of need, and in the worst cases, where we don’t trust their advice and become an enemy unto ourselves…The title, Enemies & Friends as you can see was chosen for a very specific and important reason and the tracks collated and recorded with a concept in mind. My only wish is that the reviewer could have taken the time to explore the concept as a whole. But…then again, maybe the music was just too ‘average’.

    No matter though! I’ll probably still submit the next EP for review here nonetheless, just to see what concept is missed out on this time!

    Oh, and the 40 mile pilgrimage is possibly worthwhile….We played at the NEC inside 12 months of our existence so one would presume we’re probably rather good live.

    Alex

  • george

    lol, I know this is about a year old but basically they’re just too metal to handle