Thanks for clarifying your comment via email. It’s clear now that you weren’t trying to disparage writers and photographers, especially given who your roommate is. I saw Overcasters at the Westword Showcase, and they are definitely worth checking out.

I think he did a great job speaking for himself, but I think he was reacting to the subjectivity of reviews in general, and lumped in “pictures, good or bad” in that sentence to make a point. I see how you could easily read it in a negative way, though, especially without knowing our past correspondence. A respected photographer jumping to my defense, though? That rocks.

In reference to the ongoing comments/responses, all I can say is that I there’s a reason I take the pictures and prefer not to touch the pen and paper. As hard as Billy and others arguably do or don’t try, they could never be completely objective in their reviews unless they just threw up a headcount and a time-stamped set list with correct spelling. There is an inherent subjectivity to what they do, to at least make the review somewhat interesting by telling the reader all about the show, and a little of what the band is all about. And of course, the musicians and artists may have intended something totally different, and then comments flare. See above.

I think our photography, on the other hand, is pretty objective to begin with. You and I primarily face technical challenges in capturing the night for the reader. Like you said, though, we have to come up with some interesting shots, and that’s where our subjectivity comes in. But our subjectivity rarely make the bands think that we pissed all over what they did. We have that going for us, and I sure don’t envy what Billy and the other writers have to do. And I don’t envy musicians and their constant struggle to convey their vision, either.

Personal note to Doug: That lighting is ridiculous. I have no idea where all the green came from, and decided to just run with it. I breathed a sigh of relief when Overcasters started their light show.