Gig review of sammyUSA + Silvertin

Gig Date: Thursday, 13th May 2004 | 581 page views.

sammyUSA @ Joseph's Well

By Dave Procter

Shed Seven - The Charlatans - Flowered Up - The Verve - aah, halcyon days indeed. These bands are almost certainly amongst the record collection of openers Silvertin and their facsimiles of the aforementioned bands in their songs are pretty spot on, if a little watered down. As Henri les Flames! has screamed on several occasions "There's a time and a place for everyone, baby our time has gone" - sadly for Silvertin, this time was the early 90s and the place Manchester.

Your author has seen SammyUSA a few times, but cannot remember anything about the previous gigs. There may be several reasons for this - drink, ignorance, that sort of thing, but during this evening's set it all becomes clear - there's nothing that really sticks out and sticks in the memory. The projections of old arcade games are ace - the songs are pleasant enough and well delivered, but there's nothing for me that says "I am amazing, burn everything else you own NOW!". The style of songs is very up-to-date - mixing Franz Ferdinand, Interpol and The Strokes together to give some angular, keyboard enhanced shapes, but the band seem, well bored. Has signing to a major label dulled their desire? How do I know? All I can report on is an apparent half-arsed performance, which in front of a starved of Sammy live performances crowd is not a good idea I would suggest. Was this an over-rehearsed band, who knows...

Find related articles: , , , , .

Comments

performingchimp wrote...

This is exactly the kind of NME-style review I was whinging about on the Hoarse discussion. Judging music by how fashionable it is. Tne reviewer is clearly hip to what's hot, but sadly he hasn't really given me any clue about what either band actually SOUNDS like. The appraisal of SammyUSA's perfromance is worthwhile, although I disagree with it entirely. REVIEWER - you criticise them for sounding bored, yet your review sounds like you wrote it in five minutes with no real thought at all. Maybe YOU could make a bit more of an effort next time. IT'S TIME TO REVIEW THE REVIEWERS!

Profile | Posted 16th May 2004 at 11:00   back to article

Dave LMS wrote...

Sorry to butt in, I really didn't want to get involved in the previous discussion, but did you really not get an idea of what the bands sound like? Dave gave numerous comparisons in this review, of both bands, and gave some idea of the sound too. I thought he described the bands very well indeed. I certainly knew exactly what to expect should I see them (I've never sen Silvertin before). Although, I have to say I rather like sammyUSA but each to their own. I thought this review was good when I received it, and reading it again just now I still think so. I disagree Jon with your opinion of the review. Although "reviewing the reviewers" sounds interesting, and I have no objection to that...

Profile | Posted 16th May 2004 at 11:12   back to article

Sam Saunders wrote...

The reviewers get reviewed every time someone posts a message here.

Profile | Posted 16th May 2004 at 11:28   back to article

Dave LMS wrote...

Well, that was the purpose of this and it is widely used, so I guess yeah, reviewing of the review has been taking place since day one. Even without it being written down, readers must be forming opinions all the time too. So I guess none of this is new...

Profile | Posted 16th May 2004 at 11:31   back to article

Sam Saunders wrote...

PS I forgot to review the reviewer of the review ... Hey pc, the bands listed by the reviewer are not hot anymore - they were hot last year or the year before. But that's helpful because it means old timers like me can understand what he's talking about. To be hot this week you need to be plugged into Chinese Stars and Lightning Bolt and Noxagt

Profile | Posted 16th May 2004 at 11:34   back to article

Siglacken wrote...

Lightning bolt do rock. I do believe Noxagt are playing in leeds om wednesday aswell

Profile | Posted 16th May 2004 at 12:26   back to article

performingchimp wrote...

I think the reviewer's performance was somewhat weak, remeniscent of the halcyon days of 90's Melody Maker, but that's just not relevant to modern bands like the Strokes and Nikplastyfart. He id a non-existent job of relying the sound or feel of the first band's performance, to the point that he may has well not have watched them. His review of SammyUSA is better, but seems overly concerned with "why do this band sound tired". He needs to tell us what he actually didn't like about them Why was it lacklustre? If he only offers speculation about (shock horror) post-record deal jadedness without any explanation, then the reader can be justified in aportioning bitterness to the reviewer. 2 stars.

Profile | Posted 16th May 2004 at 15:33   back to article

Dave LMS wrote...

I simply disagree Jon. I thought this was a well-written, good, informative - and at the same time concise - review. This is exactly what I enjoy reading. It told me what went on, what the reaction was, what his reaction was and what the sound was like of both bands. And took up less space to achieve all of this, in my opinion, this was a particularly good and informative review. I don't even think he was "overly concerned" with _anything_ as the review was done and dusted sharpish, which meant th points he had to make were given and time was not wasted further. Without writing this too many times, I think this was a good piece of writing (even from myself as a fan of sammyUSA).

Profile | Posted 16th May 2004 at 16:43   back to article

performingchimp wrote...

He describes the sound of Silvertin as "early ninety's manchester". This is a crap-description. What do they SOUND like. Putting sound into words is tricky, but how about "they had a guitarist" or "their songs were good" or "x song had a nice bass intro remeniscent of Marcus Miller" or "loud" or "quiet" or "sad" or "happy" or "jangly" or "whistful" or "punk" or "jazz" or SOMETHING. References to other bands are fine, but easy. I think the review was poor journalistically and creatively.

The worst bit is: there's nothing for me that says "I am amazing" What does this mean? What does the reviewer want them to do? As stated earlier, I got the impression what the reviewer wanted was SammyUSA to prove their worth for getting signed.

Profile | Posted 16th May 2004 at 20:16   back to article

Dave LMS wrote...

"I really didn't want to get involved in the previous discussion" - I said this earlier, and I'm dropping out of this discussion now. I just disagree, nothing more for me to say really.

Profile | Posted 16th May 2004 at 20:20   back to article

Mike_Q wrote...

"He describes the sound of Silvertin as "early ninety's manchester". This is a crap-description. What do they SOUND like."

Errrm.....early 90's Manchester per chance?

Profile | Posted 17th May 2004 at 00:15   back to article

performingchimp wrote...

So what's that then? Primal Scream? The EMF? Who does he mention, I've forgotten... The Verve? It's a pretty meaningless description, and all he does is say this band are unoriginal, which surely doesn't mean they should be written off with a quote from one of the reviewer's mates.

Profile | Posted 17th May 2004 at 11:24   back to article

Mike_Q wrote...

If you read the review there are about 5 bands mentioned in the first sentence. Surely that gives you some indication of what they sound like? It just seems you like to have something to whinge about Jon with your petty little digs. If you don't like the reviews don't read them, or maybe try writing your own. I thought the review painted a good picture of the gig and informed the reader what happened.

Profile | Posted 17th May 2004 at 12:46   back to article

performingchimp wrote...

I ENJOY complaining. Why deny me? Anyhow, I can only remember YOU digging at ME. Seriously, my criticism of the review is genuine. Comparing them to five bands is useless, as they can't sound like all of them, and in my opinion isn't even meant as a comparison - it's just a quick way of writing off the band as "same old, same old". Is it a reviewer's job purely to offer opinion, without presenting facts by which others can draw their own? Cos in that case, it's no longer even opinion, it's judgement.

Profile | Posted 18th May 2004 at 00:27   back to article

Mike_Q wrote...

Why is it useless? It's a quick way of giving the audience an idea of their sound. Like these? Try these. It's an effective journalistic device used widely.

Profile | Posted 18th May 2004 at 01:31   back to article

performingchimp wrote...

Somtimes it's effective, but I think in this case it isn't, nor is it meant to be. He's not saying "if you like these bands you'll like Silvertin". He's saying "this band are old-hat like these bands". He's listened to the band, said to himself "they are categorised as such and such a genre" and written them off. Same as the Hoarse review where the guy said "These guys play blues-rock, which I don't like, so I don't like them". Silvertin are written off by the reviewer from the word go. If he didn't like them that's fine, but what can I gain as a reader from his review?

Profile | Posted 18th May 2004 at 10:20   back to article

Mike_Q wrote...

I guess it depends on how you read the review. Words can mean different things to different people. It depends on how that person wants to interperet them. To Dave it seems Silvertin are not the band for him, their sound no longer appeals. To someone still in love with early 90's Manchester music I reckon they would decide to go check out Silvertin. I have a few friends that I would now recommend Silvertin to from that comment as I can make the assumption they would probably like them given how Dave describes their sound.

Profile | Posted 18th May 2004 at 10:29   back to article

performingchimp wrote...

Hmm, OK. I'm a "I ain't nothing but a Cynical Fuck" as the great Extreme once crooned. Ahhh, Nuno....

Profile | Posted 18th May 2004 at 12:00   back to article

Liveral wrote...

Silvertin review from Sandman December 03 edition - can be found under reviews on Sandmanmagazine website..

[editor edit - copyrighted material removed. sorry, please read review via Sandman mag or website, thanks]

Profile | Posted 19th May 2004 at 14:42   back to article

performingchimp wrote...

I'd like to say that the above review proves my point, but I'm sure many will disagree. It's perhaps a little verbose, but it's much more informative. I suppose the difference is that positive reviews will always be better, cos it must be very hard to go into detail about something you don't like.

Profile | Posted 19th May 2004 at 15:19   back to article

Sam Saunders wrote...

The second one reads to me like someone who likes the people in the band trying not to be too unkind about the show. It confirms the blunt and direct observations of Monsieur P. Personally I Would nver "believe" one review. If I can't check a band directly for myself I would read several reviews and see what common points there were.

Profile | Posted 19th May 2004 at 15:39   back to article

Post A Comment

Sorry, you must be signed in to post a comment.

Band Information

Read more about the bands that have been featured in this article.

© 1998-2008 Dave Sugden | Credits | Privacy | Mobile Site.