Statement

Why is Sound Collector publishing a quarterly dedicated to nothing but album reviews?

Let us explain.

The release schedules of record labels, book publishers, and film companies have an enormous influence on contemporary cultural coverage. When you read a review in a magazine - whether it's a consumer-friendly capsule critique or a lengthy, erudite essay - you're reading about a recently relased product.

At any given moment, the musical landscape, as portrayed and promoted by the media, is comprised of the brand new (fresh product) and the old-as-new (the re-release, the box set). Everything else is pretty much off the map.

The Audio Review wants to disentangle itself from the rhythms of release schedules. We will certainly review noteworthy new releases, but we will also excavate/reinterpret the forgotten, the misunderstood, the in-between. THe slightly old, as well as the so-old-it's-new. All those albums of good music with bad covers and bad names.

Big music magazines publish short reviews. Very short. A waste paper. We want our contributors to cut loose, to go off, to dive in. To say things you can't possibly say in 150 or 300 words. To let writers say what they can't say elsewhere.

We want to present multiple perspectives. We like wise-asses, academics, earnest fans, professional journalists, passionate scribblers. We hope you enjoy the voices bumping up against each other as they rant and rave about the music that matters most to them.

Regarding structure, thought process etc. As editors we allowed writers to pitch their own review subjects. Some writers suggested as many as six possible reviews from which we whittled it down to one. Some reviewers offered us intricate theses that were almost as long as the final reviews. We hope we end up being a community that exchanges ideas rather than a focused dictatorship. Time will tell.

Laris Kreslines & Fred Cisterna

P.S. We love music again.