Music critics are far too nice. Mediocre musicians need to be discouraged from making more tepid music--demoralized, even. Every negative review should be a potential career ender. Artists should be afraid to release anything that isn't brilliant. Listeners and critics owe mediocre musicians nothing.
I am a mediocre musician, will probably always be mediocre but I do it to amuse myself. Ayo, a motherf*cker has to start somewhere.
But what about when brilliant musicians turn in mediocre terds? Should their careers be buried like toxic waste? I am told by those more brilliant than me that it is difficult to be brilliant ALL the time. Is that why drugs were invented?
In Siskel and Ebert's defense, I am pretty sure they hated the Thumbs Up/Down shtick and only stayed with it because that's what audiences and, more importantly, TV executives liked -- something simple, quick and dumb.
Correct. Also, Roger Ebert is the muhfuggin' man.
b/w
I used to be a music critic. Now I just talk shit on the internet. Tomayto, tomahto.
Listeners and critics owe mediocre musicians nothing.
Its OK to know what you like, but there's no reason to discourage people from making music you don't like. i know youre probably joking, but i'd eat my damn shoe if you could write a song i'd like. that's why you spend your time critiquing instead of making.
Music critics are far too nice. Mediocre musicians need to be discouraged from making more tepid music--demoralized, even. Every negative review should be a potential career ender. Artists should be afraid to release anything that isn't brilliant. Listeners and critics owe mediocre musicians nothing.
Funny that you and Pickwick would post back-to-back since Derogatis is known for his negative reviews.
But Pickwick: that's not a remotely equitable comparison with "At the Movies" which was syndicated on network television, vs. Sound Opinions which is only carried in certain public radio markets. Apples and oranges. No music critics have ever had the same platform as movie critics. Ever.
That's not a complaint, mind you. We're simply talking about two completely different economies of scale.
Listeners and critics owe mediocre musicians nothing.
Its OK to know what you like, but there's no reason to discourage people from making music you don't like. i know youre probably joking, but i'd eat my damn shoe if you could write a song i'd like. that's why you spend your time critiquing instead of making.
I'm not interested in writing music--that's not where my talents/passions lie. Most actual musicians/song-writers can't write a song you'd like either, and never will. The fact that they keep trying despite an overwhelming lack of talent is my only issue. The world would be better off if they just kept it in their bedrooms/heads. And there's a perfectly good reason to discourage people from making music I don't like (and that is generally unlike-able): so I don't have to hear it and it can go away and die on the ash heap of history.
Yes, personal bias is all there is really...and it should be celebrated instead of treating middle-of-the-road consensus stabbing as anything at all worthwhile.
I'd rather have specialists in specific areas who stand strong with their opinions, because they are indeed informed, than dudes talking out their asses trying to shabbily cover every nook in the field.
But ultimately, that's what led me to turn my back on the music journalism bag...as after years of trying to put things in context for the benefit of others, I preferred going back to just being a basic fan with no agenda whatsoever other than my own personal enjoyment.
I really don't read about music nowadays either. I just like listen to the music and leave it at that.
Cosign on all this.
I still enjoy writing on music but my "agenda" has become far more personal. I used to see criticism as a form of service - either to the artists or the audience - but these days, it's mostly about me challenging myself to properly articulate what I feel about an artist or an album or a song. Most of the time, I come up short (for myself) but I enjoy the challenge.
Then again, I also don't have to write for a living and that makes a huge difference. My friends who work as full-time music critics in LA and NY are forced into lifestyles I would NEVER want to have to deal with.
Music critics are far too nice. Mediocre musicians need to be discouraged from making more tepid music--demoralized, even. Every negative review should be a potential career ender. Artists should be afraid to release anything that isn't brilliant. Listeners and critics owe mediocre musicians nothing.
I don't give a rat's ass who likes what, but tell me how it makes you feel, how it fits into your life...maybe even gives your life meaning. Inifnitely more interesting.
I agree with you 100%
2) Writers assuming a lack of knowledge from the audience (I'm not even sure what this means. Do you mean, "they assume the audience knows nothing about the artist/album being written about?")
Yes. Is this a method they teach in journalism school?
I thought the "also-ran" part was a bit harsh but I guarantee Doug Wolk knows more about soul music than you do. His grasp of Johnson's career isn't deficient but where people seem to disagree (read that Waxidermy thread) is over whether Wolk was fair to the boxset itself (its purpose).
Again, you seem to disagree with Wolk's opinion but you're not explaining what he actually gets wrong.
Small note: I don't know of a single music critic who went to journalism school since, among other reasons, j-schools generally haven't focused on arts criticism as a key tenet to their programs.
Rey: It's not up to music critics to end careers. They don't remotely have that kind of power.
Mad at mediocre music? In the past, you could have blamed A&Rs; and record execs for signing and recording wack shit. These days, people can just as easily put out their own wack shit and then flood your email boxes and Twitter accounts with links to it.
As this thread should have made clear, critics play even less a role than they ever did in terms of acting as a "filter."
I respect Pauline Kael's writing because she has a very intelligent approach into analyzing film which taught me a lot about what to look for in a film, and a super sharp sense of humor.
Brought up Ebert purely because of his longevity.
Kael = Greil Marcus and Lester Bangs (though in different ways)
Ebert = Robert Christgau
Both Marcus and especially Christgau continue to write. Bangs, alas, has been dead for nearly 30 years.
So how are you possibly able to evaluate whether their opinions have been "tainted" or "swayed"?
This entire thread makes your views seem both naive and small-minded.
I'll take naive (that's why I asked for your help), but I won't accept small-minded.
How am I as a reader supposed to take Rob Sheffield's piece on Kanye Wests album? Am I supposed to see anything more than a puff piece of journalism? Honestly, would you consider that review exceptionally well written, inspiring, thought provoking? Are you trying to lead me to believe that a 5 star review in Rolling Stone magazine does not influence sales for one of the worlds biggest celebrity rappers?
I dunno really, I haven't heard the album so I personally can't say that it is as good or will have the same impact as Michael Jackson's Thriller. I have no musical opinion of the album yet, and that's why I chose it as the basis of my example.
Again, you seem to disagree with Wolk's opinion but you're not explaining what he actually gets wrong.
I actually agree with this writer's opinion of the box set. I used it as an example of writer assuming the audience knows nothing about the artist. Which is condescending.
mannybolone said:
Small note: I don't know of a single music critic who went to journalism school since, among other reasons, j-schools generally haven't focused on arts criticism as a key tenet to their programs.
This explains a lot actually.
mannybolone said:
I guarantee Doug Wolk knows more about soul music than you do.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to personally attack me here. I'd love to see evidence supporting this remark.
So how are you possibly able to evaluate whether their opinions have been "tainted" or "swayed"?
This entire thread makes your views seem both naive and small-minded.
I'll take naive (that's why I asked for your help), but I won't accept small-minded.
How am I as a reader supposed to take Rob Sheffield's piece on Kanye Wests album?
From what I read, Rob seems to think the album has grand ambitions and succeeds with most of them. I'm being reductive but "puff piece" would suggest that he's being superficial with his analysis and while I may not agree with Rob's assessment and I might quibble with his writing style, there's nothing there that reads as "fluff". And given that you haven't heard the album, I don't understand how you're in a place to evaluate otherwise.
Look, I don't understand why this album is getting the high marks it has. But I don't presume that people who think it's a masterpiece have been tainted or swayed by Kanye's sense of self-grandeur, not least of which when you actually read what they have to say to build their case.
You just sound mad that people like the album. An album that you're inclined to reject before even listening to it. That's part of what I meant about sounding small-minded.
Again, you seem to disagree with Wolk's opinion but you're not explaining what he actually gets wrong.
I actually agree with this writer's opinion of the box set. I used it as an example of writer assuming the audience knows nothing about the artist. Which is condescending.
Wolk should assume that Pitchfork's audience is up on Syl Johnson? Really? Wow, you're giving Pitchfork's readers a lot more credit than most.
mannybolone said:
I guarantee Doug Wolk knows more about soul music than you do.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to personally attack me here. I'd love to see evidence supporting this remark.
- Diego
I didn't mean for it come off that harshly; my basic point was that Wolk knows his soul music and I thought his write-up of the Johnson boxset - however I may disagree with his conclusions - reflected a knowledge of R&B that at least suggests he's coming from an informed p.o.v.
I always thought that was comparing Oliver to Tang.
No, double K is an avid reader of classic mid 19th century americana and proposed that the scope of Olivers diss to "Youth Explosion" was in fact uncannily Twain-esque. His ferver for Samuel Langhorne Clemens in fact caused him to insert the "ass" out of sheer off-the-cuff enthusiasm. Kind of like when people say "that's a tight ass car" when they really intended to say "that's a tight car"
On a sidenote, I recently made Oliver some Kiwi Tamarind Jam.
Here we are on page five and it's finally come out -- this is another five-pager about Kanye's My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy (no commas).
Bringing it full circle, I enjoyed this bit from Sasha Frere-Jones review of the record. Dude is such an amatuer, he doesn't he know what kind of music it is!
???Lost in the World,??? the album???s twelfth song, is the inverse, roughly, of hiring a top-ten rapper. Here the singer Justin Vernon, better known as Bon Iver, delivers and embellishes parts of his own composition ???Woods,??? a murmuring, almost a-capella track about building a whiskey still. West lays Vernon???s silvery vocal over a splintered, insistent beat and transforms it into a devotional investigation of being lost. A very long sample of Gil Scott-Heron forms ???Who Will Survive in America?,??? the song that comes after ???Lost in the Woods??? and acts as its coda. Scott-Heron talks about ???a rapist known as freedom,??? and then describes the state of his race, and of his country. In less than six minutes, West moves from a loner in the woods to his own isolation and on to the entire African-American experience. Good luck figuring out what kind of music this is, though it does contain rapping. West???s music is born of hip-hop, but it now includes so many varieties that it feels most accurate to call it simply Kanye.
And, incidentally, if you type into Google "Sasha F," the first hit is the very Chris Gainesian "Sasha Fierce." I am not sure what to think about that.
I always thought that was comparing Oliver to Tang.
No, double K is an avid reader of classic mid 19th century americana and proposed that the scope of Olivers diss to "Youth Explosion" was in fact uncannily Twain-esque. His ferver for Samuel Langhorne Clemens in fact caused him to insert the "ass" out of sheer off-the-cuff enthusiasm. Kind of like when people say "that's a tight ass car" when they really intended to say "that's a tight car"
On a sidenote, I recently made Oliver some Kiwi Tamarind Jam.
On a sidenote, I recently made Oliver some Kiwi Tamarind Jam.
Tangy! Also, I thinks it's brave that M*** has thrust himself fully into the steampunk milieu recently. I don't suppose it's easy to pull off spats and a top hat in his neighborhood.
I always thought that was comparing Oliver to Tang.
No, double K is an avid reader of classic mid 19th century americana and proposed that the scope of Olivers diss to "Youth Explosion" was in fact uncannily Twain-esque. His ferver for Samuel Langhorne Clemens in fact caused him to insert the "ass" out of sheer off-the-cuff enthusiasm. Kind of like when people say "that's a tight ass car" when they really intended to say "that's a tight car"
On a sidenote, I recently made Oliver some Kiwi Tamarind Jam.
Carry on
:killin_it:
Not to get all E.B. White on it, but I thought tight modified ass in that sense. As in, "I like tight ass and I would compare that fine automobile to just that type of booty."
While a review/essay/etc. of a book or movie or art piece might increase my enjoyment or engagement - after the fact and/or to make me go back for a second read/viewing - I either like a song or don't. I can't deny what happens in my gut. .
IMO good music criticism is like good psychotherapy - it puts words to what you already feel, helping you to see why you like/dislike something beyond blind gut feeling. It can intensify the enjoyment of a track even though it cannot create that enjoyment. I can think of dozens of lines or comments that "fit" and made sense of why I loved a piece of music.
For example I always loved the way that the first solo on Joe Henderson's Inner Urge was by Bob Cranshaw on bass. Normally the bass is last in line and normally I don't even like bass solos. But this one I loved and I could't tell why. I just did. That was the gut talking again. Then I read Cuscana's liner notes to the RVG reissue. For him putting the bass first was a master stroke because the tense brooding sound of the instrument set the mood - the "inner urge" - that the musicians wanted to convey.
That for me was very sharp criticism that helped me to understand better why I love the track.
You just sound mad that people like the album. An album that you're inclined to reject before even listening to it. That's part of what I meant about sounding small-minded.
My personal opinion of this album will not be swayed by this obviously badly written advertising campaign.
While a review/essay/etc. of a book or movie or art piece might increase my enjoyment or engagement - after the fact and/or to make me go back for a second read/viewing - I either like a song or don't. I can't deny what happens in my gut. .
IMO good music criticism is like good psychotherapy - it puts words to what you already feel, helping you to see why you like/dislike something beyond blind gut feeling. It can intensify the enjoyment of a track even though it cannot create that enjoyment. I can think of dozens of lines or comments that "fit" and made sense of why I loved a piece of music.
For example I always loved the way that the first solo on Joe Henderson's Inner Urge was by Bob Cranshaw on bass. Normally the bass is last in line and normally I don't even like bass solos. But this one I loved and I could't tell why. I just did. That was the gut talking again. Then I read Cuscana's liner notes to the RVG reissue. For him putting the bass first was a master stroke because the tense brooding sound of the instrument set the mood - the "inner urge" - that the musicians wanted to convey.
That for me was very sharp criticism that helped me to understand better why I love the track.
now.. hate on this
Nothing to hate, but you have put in a lot of yourself into what I wrote about me.
I have no problem explaining why I love a song. I don't need help with it. The gut reaction is not blind - your words, not mine.
What I get out of reading an interesting history, well-written review, etc. is not a greater enjoyment of the music, but of humans.
Comments
I am a mediocre musician, will probably always be mediocre but I do it to amuse myself. Ayo, a motherf*cker has to start somewhere.
But what about when brilliant musicians turn in mediocre terds? Should their careers be buried like toxic waste? I am told by those more brilliant than me that it is difficult to be brilliant ALL the time. Is that why drugs were invented?
Oliver Wang compared to Mark Twain!!!!
I tend to concur.
Apart from Herbie and Miles.
Correct. Also, Roger Ebert is the muhfuggin' man.
b/w
I used to be a music critic. Now I just talk shit on the internet. Tomayto, tomahto.
Its OK to know what you like, but there's no reason to discourage people from making music you don't like. i know youre probably joking, but i'd eat my damn shoe if you could write a song i'd like. that's why you spend your time critiquing instead of making.
Funny that you and Pickwick would post back-to-back since Derogatis is known for his negative reviews.
But Pickwick: that's not a remotely equitable comparison with "At the Movies" which was syndicated on network television, vs. Sound Opinions which is only carried in certain public radio markets. Apples and oranges. No music critics have ever had the same platform as movie critics. Ever.
That's not a complaint, mind you. We're simply talking about two completely different economies of scale.
I think the problem is that no one wants to be the guy who said the Beatles wouldn't make it.
(I know of one former music critic who predicted that Jesus Jones would be the next U2.)
This reminds me that I really need to find that copy of "OST" where Thes and Double K drew in guns in their hands. CLASSIQUE!
(Alas, their sense of humor is sorely missing from other indie rappers bearing grudges).
Cosign on all this.
I still enjoy writing on music but my "agenda" has become far more personal. I used to see criticism as a form of service - either to the artists or the audience - but these days, it's mostly about me challenging myself to properly articulate what I feel about an artist or an album or a song. Most of the time, I come up short (for myself) but I enjoy the challenge.
Then again, I also don't have to write for a living and that makes a huge difference. My friends who work as full-time music critics in LA and NY are forced into lifestyles I would NEVER want to have to deal with.
So how are you possibly able to evaluate whether their opinions have been "tainted" or "swayed"?
This entire thread makes your views seem both naive and small-minded.
so Reynaldo, what do you think of Spidey's music?
don't be shy
I thought the "also-ran" part was a bit harsh but I guarantee Doug Wolk knows more about soul music than you do. His grasp of Johnson's career isn't deficient but where people seem to disagree (read that Waxidermy thread) is over whether Wolk was fair to the boxset itself (its purpose).
Again, you seem to disagree with Wolk's opinion but you're not explaining what he actually gets wrong.
Small note: I don't know of a single music critic who went to journalism school since, among other reasons, j-schools generally haven't focused on arts criticism as a key tenet to their programs.
Mad at mediocre music? In the past, you could have blamed A&Rs; and record execs for signing and recording wack shit. These days, people can just as easily put out their own wack shit and then flood your email boxes and Twitter accounts with links to it.
As this thread should have made clear, critics play even less a role than they ever did in terms of acting as a "filter."
This would make a great thread, great lps/songs that brought an artist back from a major slump.
Hard to think of any non jazz artists.
Ohhh Ohhh, I just thought of one. Johnny Cash, his end of life American recordings may have eclipsed his late 50s or late 60s work.
Kael = Greil Marcus and Lester Bangs (though in different ways)
Ebert = Robert Christgau
Both Marcus and especially Christgau continue to write. Bangs, alas, has been dead for nearly 30 years.
This book just came out too, collecting Ellen Willis' early rock criticism: http://www.upress.umn.edu/Books/W/willis_out.html
I'll take naive (that's why I asked for your help), but I won't accept small-minded.
How am I as a reader supposed to take Rob Sheffield's piece on Kanye Wests album? Am I supposed to see anything more than a puff piece of journalism? Honestly, would you consider that review exceptionally well written, inspiring, thought provoking? Are you trying to lead me to believe that a 5 star review in Rolling Stone magazine does not influence sales for one of the worlds biggest celebrity rappers?
I dunno really, I haven't heard the album so I personally can't say that it is as good or will have the same impact as Michael Jackson's Thriller. I have no musical opinion of the album yet, and that's why I chose it as the basis of my example.
- spidey
I actually agree with this writer's opinion of the box set. I used it as an example of writer assuming the audience knows nothing about the artist. Which is condescending.
This explains a lot actually.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to personally attack me here. I'd love to see evidence supporting this remark.
- Diego
I always thought that was comparing Oliver to Tang.
From what I read, Rob seems to think the album has grand ambitions and succeeds with most of them. I'm being reductive but "puff piece" would suggest that he's being superficial with his analysis and while I may not agree with Rob's assessment and I might quibble with his writing style, there's nothing there that reads as "fluff". And given that you haven't heard the album, I don't understand how you're in a place to evaluate otherwise.
Look, I don't understand why this album is getting the high marks it has. But I don't presume that people who think it's a masterpiece have been tainted or swayed by Kanye's sense of self-grandeur, not least of which when you actually read what they have to say to build their case.
You just sound mad that people like the album. An album that you're inclined to reject before even listening to it. That's part of what I meant about sounding small-minded.
Wolk should assume that Pitchfork's audience is up on Syl Johnson? Really? Wow, you're giving Pitchfork's readers a lot more credit than most.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to personally attack me here. I'd love to see evidence supporting this remark.
- Diego
I didn't mean for it come off that harshly; my basic point was that Wolk knows his soul music and I thought his write-up of the Johnson boxset - however I may disagree with his conclusions - reflected a knowledge of R&B that at least suggests he's coming from an informed p.o.v.
No, double K is an avid reader of classic mid 19th century americana and proposed that the scope of Olivers diss to "Youth Explosion" was in fact uncannily Twain-esque. His ferver for Samuel Langhorne Clemens in fact caused him to insert the "ass" out of sheer off-the-cuff enthusiasm. Kind of like when people say "that's a tight ass car" when they really intended to say "that's a tight car"
On a sidenote, I recently made Oliver some Kiwi Tamarind Jam.
Carry on
Bringing it full circle, I enjoyed this bit from Sasha Frere-Jones review of the record. Dude is such an amatuer, he doesn't he know what kind of music it is!
And, incidentally, if you type into Google "Sasha F," the first hit is the very Chris Gainesian "Sasha Fierce." I am not sure what to think about that.
:killin_it:
Tangy! Also, I thinks it's brave that M*** has thrust himself fully into the steampunk milieu recently. I don't suppose it's easy to pull off spats and a top hat in his neighborhood.
Not to get all E.B. White on it, but I thought tight modified ass in that sense. As in, "I like tight ass and I would compare that fine automobile to just that type of booty."
IMO good music criticism is like good psychotherapy - it puts words to what you already feel, helping you to see why you like/dislike something beyond blind gut feeling. It can intensify the enjoyment of a track even though it cannot create that enjoyment. I can think of dozens of lines or comments that "fit" and made sense of why I loved a piece of music.
For example I always loved the way that the first solo on Joe Henderson's Inner Urge was by Bob Cranshaw on bass. Normally the bass is last in line and normally I don't even like bass solos. But this one I loved and I could't tell why. I just did. That was the gut talking again. Then I read Cuscana's liner notes to the RVG reissue. For him putting the bass first was a master stroke because the tense brooding sound of the instrument set the mood - the "inner urge" - that the musicians wanted to convey.
That for me was very sharp criticism that helped me to understand better why I love the track.
now.. hate on this
My personal opinion of this album will not be swayed by this obviously badly written advertising campaign.
- spidey
Nothing to hate, but you have put in a lot of yourself into what I wrote about me.
I have no problem explaining why I love a song. I don't need help with it. The gut reaction is not blind - your words, not mine.
What I get out of reading an interesting history, well-written review, etc. is not a greater enjoyment of the music, but of humans.