Interesting Review From Garth Concert

[gbkubfan]

http://www.citypages.com/music/garth...dium/509483001

This reviewer had an interesting take on Garth's concert.

[randa16]

I think it is very clear that guy hates Garth and country music. He was probably mad he even had to cover it and be there. He should be fired

[Skywise]

I think it is very clear that guy hates Garth and country music. He was probably mad he even had to cover it and be there. He should be fired

Gotta say, I couldn't' disagree more with your assessment there randa..

'hates country music'? hardly.. maybe not as in love with it as some, but hates it? nah

'mad he had to cover it and be there'.. equally short sighted IMO.. he's a music columnist in minnesota... heck from the website, he's the music editor.. it's his job to be objective (if possible) about a music performance...

"He should be fired".. now that's sounding just plain angry..

I gotta ask.. what specifically from the article/column did you read that gave you the emotional reaction that came out in your post? what was it specficially that showed you he "hated Garth" or "was probably mad he had to ken cover it and be there".... also, why speficially should he "be fired"?

I'm more along the lines of agreeing with gbkubfan here... it's an interesting take on Garth's concert.

I'd go one step further- I'd call it almost an "objective review".

I found this quote very interesting...

"He has an A&R man’s ear for the well-crafted country song. (Or had—every knockout he played dated back at least to the first Clinton Administration.)" it SCREAMS what an experienced or objective or 'in depth' type of fan would be clamoring for.... different songs.. different 'knockouts'... heck, play the new stuff!

just my take for now

[wimpy77]

I read the article and I don't think it was negative at all to be honest.

Skywise. Just because their music critics doesn't meant they're objective. I know one music critic for Rolling Stone that admitted he gave every Van Halen album with Sammy Hagar a bad review because he didn't think Hagar should have been in the band. You can tell when a critic doesn't like a particular artist or genre of music. But I wouldn't even call this article negative.

[Lowland_Kid]

HAhaha, the end of the article was really cracking me up! Don't let Garth read it!

[AcrossTheWater]

I don’t read anything particularly negative into the review.

Garth is largely a nostalgia act these days & the set list reflects that.

[Skywise]

I think you may have misread my reply, Wimpy.. or at least my terming of 'objective'... objective isn't nec.unbiased in this sense. it's 'not afraid to criticize if needed'.. it's 'not blind to the reality that there are negatives to someone..'

objective, not blinded by or influenced by feelings for or against Garth (in this case).

It's possible he's not.. but this article def. lends itself more to the idea that he's not afraid to criticize Garth if needed..


I agree, it's not a negative review at all