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.
I probably shouldn't have quoted you directly in the first place because I wasn't, as you suspect, talking about you - your comments merely inspired my own self reflection. For me gut feeling is what I have when I can't articulate something. c'est tout
My affections for Xgau (besides him being one of the grumpiest dudes I've ever crossed paths with) largely stems from his music reviews in the 1970s; he is probably one of the most economic writers I've ever come across and while that kind of brevity can certain come off as mega-dickish at times (look up his reviews of some Isley Bros. albums from that era), I think he provides a useful model for learning how to do more with less.
With Ebert, I really don't like his prose style; it's choppy and when he tries to pull daggers on a film or performance, it never feels like it has real bite. I don't question his influence or importance and it's not even that I disagree with his assessments. But I don't enjoy reading his writing. I find Tony Scott more thoughtful and Anthony Lane more enjoyable (especially when he goes for the jugular) when it comes to movie critics.
Comments
I probably shouldn't have quoted you directly in the first place because I wasn't, as you suspect, talking about you - your comments merely inspired my own self reflection. For me gut feeling is what I have when I can't articulate something. c'est tout
we have a winner.
Poor Ebert. First a disfiguring cancer, now this odious comparison.
Ha. I'd rather read Xgau > Ebert any day of the week.
D+
???Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read???
Frank Zappa
With Ebert, I really don't like his prose style; it's choppy and when he tries to pull daggers on a film or performance, it never feels like it has real bite. I don't question his influence or importance and it's not even that I disagree with his assessments. But I don't enjoy reading his writing. I find Tony Scott more thoughtful and Anthony Lane more enjoyable (especially when he goes for the jugular) when it comes to movie critics.