I don't care about music critics. I'm interested why other people do.
- d
That wasn't your original post. You've now flipped the script entirely.
I'm out.
Exactly.
If you're going to bring a topic up don't bail on it.
Maybe I'm not being "unbiased" enough when I say that, though.
Had to reread the op, and while it's hard to follow, I wouldn't say he changed his point. If anything, it illuminates the discussion he was attempting to bring about.
Had to reread the op, and while it's hard to follow, I wouldn't say he changed his point. If anything, it illuminates the discussion he was attempting to bring about.
No. The first posts were "hey, who are the GOOD music critics because all the ones I read, suck."
Now it's "I don't care about music critics and I don't know why anyone bothers to."
Had to reread the op, and while it's hard to follow, I wouldn't say he changed his point. If anything, it illuminates the discussion he was attempting to bring about.
No. The first posts were "hey, who are the GOOD music critics because all the ones I read, suck."
Now it's "I don't care about music critics and I don't know why anyone bothers to."
I fail to see the illumination.
The first post didn't make any sense until I reread it with his last statement in mind. So what he appears to be actually saying from the start is: 'I deplore music criticism. Someone give me a reason to read it, and show me some respected music critics'.
Good Music critics are a dying breed and perhaps they just need to die...they have no unique platform anymore and the blogs drown them out with their white noise of uninformed banality.
Good point! It really doesn't take much to be an online critic.. all you need is an opinion, a platform and a computer.
My apologies if I wasted anyones time here especially with my own uneducated rambling. I was looking for answers, and was probably asking vague thoughts in the form of questions. I think I was able to sort of indirectly gather my own answers from the responses in this thread. I didn't flip the script, maybe I just wasn't clear enough with my original post.
In a nutshell:
I can't stand critics, much less music ones. I feel that a lot of so-called "intelligent" writers talk more about themselves then the artists they are writing about which is a quality I would consider BAD writing.
As a musician (which I am definitely not even qualified to call myself that really..) I am interested in CRITICISM, especially psychological, and consumerist. It's not really a factor or a thought in how I create my art, but it's interesting to understand how others perceive it.
Do critics take into account the audience's opinion?
Probably not, from what I gather most generally assume a lack of knowledge from the audience.
Or how much Personal Bias disconnects readers?
Fair journalistic objectivity (does this even really exist?) has nothing to do with Criticism which is born from opinion. There is a difference between Journalists and Critics.
However, personally I still feel that the opinion of Music critics (especially those from non-musician critics) are hardly ever constructive, and the writers opinions are too easily tainted and swayed by money and influence.
So, I conclude that most musical opinions are worthless, and that true Objective journalism in art can't exist.
Or comprehend how to judge art based on it's own merit without comparison?
I now understand why this is used by writers to establish "context", and understand in lesser hands it can be an overused annoyance.
Internet made opinions even less valid. Why should anyone listen to a critic? ( Music Knowledge? Grammar skills? Reputable publication?)
I sort of gather now that Music criticism is truly a form of marketing. So, ultimately It's up to the audience to decide to read it, buy into it, or not.
I don't understand how critics make money?
It's just a writing job. Publication + Advertisers + Record companies. I get it now!
Who are the Roger Eberts or Pauline Kaels of music journalism?
Had to reread the op, and while it's hard to follow, I wouldn't say he changed his point. If anything, it illuminates the discussion he was attempting to bring about.
No. The first posts were "hey, who are the GOOD music critics because all the ones I read, suck."
Now it's "I don't care about music critics and I don't know why anyone bothers to."
I fail to see the illumination.
The first post didn't make any sense until I reread it with his last statement in mind. So what he appears to be actually saying from the start is: 'I deplore music criticism. Someone give me a reason to read it, and show me some respected music critics'.
If you don't mind, I'd like to see some specific examples that illuminate the phenomena you're talking about.
So, for example, if you're looking through the review sections in the New Yorker, Rolling Stone, Fader or Pitchfork, what are the examples of:
1) Writers talking more about themselves then the artists they are writing about (I don't now about Pitchfork, but this definitely is not the norm at RS, NYer or Fader from what I recall).
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?")
3) Writers whose opinions are too easily tainted and swayed by money and influence.
I really want to see the overwhelming evidence of this in effect, especially in OLD media. There's ample evidence to suggest that the more influential music blogs are heavily co-opted by the industry, much more so than more traditional music journalism outlets (not to say their hands are clean but new media is more vulnerable).
In general, you're painting with a very broad brush and I don't know how one can respond to a criticism as ham-fisted as "Music criticism is truly a form of marketing," especially when you're invoking Ebert, who, along with Siskel, reduced movie criticism TO A FUCKING THUMBS UP OR DOWN. I have no beef with Ebert at all, I just don't understand how what he does is a better form of criticism given that it's a pure consumer-driven impulse. How is that any less a form of marketing when countless studios have emblazoned "TWO THUMBS UP" on advertising copy for movies.
I cram to understand. (And seriously, what criteria would one have to meet to be considered an "Ebert or Kael of music criticism"?)
In any case, you say that "I can't stand critics, much less music ones" (yet somehow, Ebert and Kael get the pass?) but if that's the case, why are you invested in getting folks to explain why you should stand them, especially at a time where the kind of music criticism you're talking about is quickly being outmoded and transformed by the forces of new media? I smell a setup. Or at the very least, an insincere way to begin a conversation.
It's like me going up to you and saying, "I hate your music. Convince me why I shouldn't."
Alright, don't throw your shoe at me here O, but I wasn't trying to uphold Kael or Ebert as the pinnacle of GOOD writing or criticism or anything. 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.
I regard criticism as an art, and if in this country and in this age it is practiced with honesty, it is no more remunerative than the work of an avant-garde film artist. My dear anonymous letter writers, if you think it is so easy to be a critic, so difficult to be a poet or a painter or film experimenter, may I suggest you try both? You may discover why there are so few critics, so many poets. - Pauline Kael
Brought up Ebert purely because of his longevity. Never been a fan of Siskel and Ebert.
I am more interested in asking you what writers are respected in the same way in regards to Music?
mannybolone said:
If you don't mind, I'd like to see some specific examples that illuminate the phenomena you're talking about.
I'm gonna catch a pizza with some homies right now.. but I'll bust out a quick google for ya man, and do the rest tomorrow when i got more time.
3) Writers whose opinions are too easily tainted and swayed by money and influence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I grew up in an age when a album or single review in a magazine would, more or less, influence whether or not I bought the record. And I still like to read reviews, even if I already bought (or, yes, stolen) an album to find things to listen for. I don't expect most pieces of criticism to rise to fine art, only to provide a few helpful notes on a of piece of music, film, literature, TV or whatever.
1)"the quality of the writing" - a good writer can word a paragragh about just about anything and make it interesting.
2)"the opinion" - i like how the guy is saying it but i don't agree with what he's saying. b/w i dislike both what he's saying AND the way he's saying it. and all different combinations in between.
i don't think music writers really affect my actual purchases much. but they can command my interest level in something, particularly when they are injecting passion and excitement into the subject.
its annoying when people say "oh i don't like that guy, he's a shit writer" - when they don't agree with the opinion in the piece. having an opinion is different to the way that opinion is worded. the whole thing is more fun when theres a bit of character and personality in there. maybe some humour too.
As we've discussed before, consensus and a canon that everyone agrees on are long gone in this era. But dissensus is not a bad thing, in fact its a lot more "real" than acting like there are 25 albums in the history of the universe we can all agree on.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
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.
I really don't read about music nowadays either. I just like listen to the music and leave it at that.
Yea. 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. Anything I read will be in the "oh, isn't that interesting?" category. Sometimes I care about context and history of the music, a lot of the time, not.
I understand the concept of informed music wiritng, but even the most informed can have terrible taste. I guess it all depends on what you hope to get out of reading about music.
But you know what I do love when it comes to music writing? When folks tell me about the first time they heard a song or why a certain song will always stay with them. O mentioned James - James wrote a personal music piece for O's site which not only made me tear up, but put me right there.
Did I miss it? Did anyone mention Lester Bangs? I know he's the easy go-to, but for good reason. It was his personal touch - or cuff - that made him so great imo.
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 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?
Comments
That wasn't your original post. You've now flipped the script entirely.
I'm out.
Exactly.
If you're going to bring a topic up don't bail on it.
Maybe I'm not being "unbiased" enough when I say that, though.
The Rex Reed of his time.
Had to reread the op, and while it's hard to follow, I wouldn't say he changed his point. If anything, it illuminates the discussion he was attempting to bring about.
No. The first posts were "hey, who are the GOOD music critics because all the ones I read, suck."
Now it's "I don't care about music critics and I don't know why anyone bothers to."
I fail to see the illumination.
The first post didn't make any sense until I reread it with his last statement in mind. So what he appears to be actually saying from the start is: 'I deplore music criticism. Someone give me a reason to read it, and show me some respected music critics'.
Or that's just my best guess.
Good point! It really doesn't take much to be an online critic.. all you need is an opinion, a platform and a computer.
- spidey
I looked at your blog and it appears you aren't interested in writing about music.
It makes sense that you aren't interested in reading about music.
It seems as if you'd be happy continuing to not read or write about music.
-bull_ox
My apologies if I wasted anyones time here especially with my own uneducated rambling. I was looking for answers, and was probably asking vague thoughts in the form of questions. I think I was able to sort of indirectly gather my own answers from the responses in this thread. I didn't flip the script, maybe I just wasn't clear enough with my original post.
In a nutshell:
I can't stand critics, much less music ones. I feel that a lot of so-called "intelligent" writers talk more about themselves then the artists they are writing about which is a quality I would consider BAD writing.
As a musician (which I am definitely not even qualified to call myself that really..) I am interested in CRITICISM, especially psychological, and consumerist. It's not really a factor or a thought in how I create my art, but it's interesting to understand how others perceive it.
Do critics take into account the audience's opinion?
Probably not, from what I gather most generally assume a lack of knowledge from the audience.
Or how much Personal Bias disconnects readers?
Fair journalistic objectivity (does this even really exist?) has nothing to do with Criticism which is born from opinion. There is a difference between Journalists and Critics.
However, personally I still feel that the opinion of Music critics (especially those from non-musician critics) are hardly ever constructive, and the writers opinions are too easily tainted and swayed by money and influence.
So, I conclude that most musical opinions are worthless, and that true Objective journalism in art can't exist.
Or comprehend how to judge art based on it's own merit without comparison?
I now understand why this is used by writers to establish "context", and understand in lesser hands it can be an overused annoyance.
Internet made opinions even less valid. Why should anyone listen to a critic? ( Music Knowledge? Grammar skills? Reputable publication?)
I sort of gather now that Music criticism is truly a form of marketing. So, ultimately It's up to the audience to decide to read it, buy into it, or not.
I don't understand how critics make money?
It's just a writing job. Publication + Advertisers + Record companies. I get it now!
Who are the Roger Eberts or Pauline Kaels of music journalism?
They don't exist.
- diego
Yep. You get me. I am very interested in making music, and experiencing music and discussing it ad naseum.
- d
Exactly.
- d
So, for example, if you're looking through the review sections in the New Yorker, Rolling Stone, Fader or Pitchfork, what are the examples of:
1) Writers talking more about themselves then the artists they are writing about (I don't now about Pitchfork, but this definitely is not the norm at RS, NYer or Fader from what I recall).
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?")
3) Writers whose opinions are too easily tainted and swayed by money and influence.
I really want to see the overwhelming evidence of this in effect, especially in OLD media. There's ample evidence to suggest that the more influential music blogs are heavily co-opted by the industry, much more so than more traditional music journalism outlets (not to say their hands are clean but new media is more vulnerable).
In general, you're painting with a very broad brush and I don't know how one can respond to a criticism as ham-fisted as "Music criticism is truly a form of marketing," especially when you're invoking Ebert, who, along with Siskel, reduced movie criticism TO A FUCKING THUMBS UP OR DOWN. I have no beef with Ebert at all, I just don't understand how what he does is a better form of criticism given that it's a pure consumer-driven impulse. How is that any less a form of marketing when countless studios have emblazoned "TWO THUMBS UP" on advertising copy for movies.
I cram to understand. (And seriously, what criteria would one have to meet to be considered an "Ebert or Kael of music criticism"?)
In any case, you say that "I can't stand critics, much less music ones" (yet somehow, Ebert and Kael get the pass?) but if that's the case, why are you invested in getting folks to explain why you should stand them, especially at a time where the kind of music criticism you're talking about is quickly being outmoded and transformed by the forces of new media? I smell a setup. Or at the very least, an insincere way to begin a conversation.
It's like me going up to you and saying, "I hate your music. Convince me why I shouldn't."
Brought up Ebert purely because of his longevity. Never been a fan of Siskel and Ebert.
I am more interested in asking you what writers are respected in the same way in regards to Music?
I'm gonna catch a pizza with some homies right now.. but I'll bust out a quick google for ya man, and do the rest tomorrow when i got more time.
3) Writers whose opinions are too easily tainted and swayed by money and influence.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/reviews/album/45342/232350
http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/14880-my-beautiful-dark-twisted-fantasy/
- spidey
Chicago rock critics Greg Kot and Jim Derogatis have hosted this radio show in some form or another since the nineties.
I grew up in an age when a album or single review in a magazine would, more or less, influence whether or not I bought the record. And I still like to read reviews, even if I already bought (or, yes, stolen) an album to find things to listen for. I don't expect most pieces of criticism to rise to fine art, only to provide a few helpful notes on a of piece of music, film, literature, TV or whatever.
1)"the quality of the writing" - a good writer can word a paragragh about just about anything and make it interesting.
2)"the opinion" - i like how the guy is saying it but i don't agree with what he's saying. b/w i dislike both what he's saying AND the way he's saying it. and all different combinations in between.
i don't think music writers really affect my actual purchases much. but they can command my interest level in something, particularly when they are injecting passion and excitement into the subject.
its annoying when people say "oh i don't like that guy, he's a shit writer" - when they don't agree with the opinion in the piece. having an opinion is different to the way that opinion is worded. the whole thing is more fun when theres a bit of character and personality in there. maybe some humour too.
As we've discussed before, consensus and a canon that everyone agrees on are long gone in this era. But dissensus is not a bad thing, in fact its a lot more "real" than acting like there are 25 albums in the history of the universe we can all agree on.
So, you don't like this album, I guess
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.
I actually haven't heard it yet.
- diego
Yea. 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. Anything I read will be in the "oh, isn't that interesting?" category. Sometimes I care about context and history of the music, a lot of the time, not.
I understand the concept of informed music wiritng, but even the most informed can have terrible taste. I guess it all depends on what you hope to get out of reading about music.
But you know what I do love when it comes to music writing? When folks tell me about the first time they heard a song or why a certain song will always stay with them. O mentioned James - James wrote a personal music piece for O's site which not only made me tear up, but put me right there.
Did I miss it? Did anyone mention Lester Bangs? I know he's the easy go-to, but for good reason. It was his personal touch - or cuff - that made him so great imo.
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?
http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/14822-complete-mythology/
- spidey
seriously, go read a Lester Bangs anthology & stop poasting this crap
BAN!