What would good music criticism look like?

[cooliofranco]

Going through the Syro reviews, it seem like everyone complains about album reviews and music criticism in general. My problems with a lot of music criticism are

1) i think there's payola going on

2) too often overwrought / pretentious

3) emphasis on cleverness of writer at the expense of actually describing the music

 

I'd like to see more

1) "this reminds me of this"... probably best way of placing music in context and a great way for me to discover new music

2) artist bios... i think it's important to know what kind of person is making the music and whether it's worthwhile to support that person. i think separating art from artist is silly for various reasons but mainly because it's never consistently applied

3) deeper descriptions of technique, gear and relevant music theory... i don't know much, but i want to learn!

 

what does everyone else think?

 

[eugene]

there's no need for music criticism of the "a few paragraphs of text about an album and a rating" kind now that you can get any music instantly, it take less time to listen to a couple of songs off an album and decide for yourself than to read that stuff.

[Zephyr_Nova]

Going through the Syro reviews, it seem like everyone complains about album reviews and music criticism in general. My problems with a lot of music criticism are

1) i think there's payola going on

2) too often overwrought / pretentious

3) emphasis on cleverness of writer at the expense of actually describing the music

 

I'd like to see more

1) "this reminds me of this"... probably best way of placing music in context and a great way for me to discover new music

2) artist bios... i think it's important to know what kind of person is making the music and whether it's worthwhile to support that person. i think separating art from artist is silly for various reasons but mainly because it's never consistently applied

3) deeper descriptions of technique, gear and relevant music theory... i don't know much, but i want to learn!

 

what does everyone else think?

 

 

I agree with all the above. #3 in your bottom list is a biggy that almost never gets covered competently in music reviews, though the gear used isn't terribly important for the review. But insights about the art itself are the most important thing, and the most you can usually expect out of a journalist is some lyric quotations. You almost never hear anything about the new musical ideas being tried out, or the way certain production ideas serve to do X for the music. You learn less about what the artist's intent may have been and more about what the critic's expectations were. Given the way most critics focus on lyrics, you'd think they wanted to be book or poetry critics.... so of course it's an overwhelming cringe-fest any time the subject is instrumental music.

[beerwolf]

I think The Quietus reflects good music criticism, some of their pieces are very well written. A lot of other places and websites it seems like individuals showboating a load of intellectual bollocks and proving how clever they are. I think the line is crossed when the critic seems to want to ape some sort of limelight for themselves. Thats why I have also have a problem with somebody like Zane Lowe, whereas Mary Anne Hobbs or Tom Ravenscroft play records and put a little shine in the spaces inbetween, somebody like Zane Lowe can't stop his ego and his mouth from splatting over everything, to the point where it's all about him. Some of these critics forget that music is sometimes about the visceral rush of a tune, not a masturbation session over a bloody thesaurus.

[Zephyr_Nova]

Some of these critics forget that music is sometimes about the visceral rush of a tune, not a masturbation session over a bloody thesaurus.

 

I think it's mostly a matter of them using what they know to hide what they don't --ie. a journalist understands writing, but probably doesn't understand music very well, so they use colourful writing to distract from their lack of comprehension. If it's worded cleverly enough, the reader doesn't even realize that nothing of substance has been said.

[poblequadrat]

good music criticism is either a discussion of musical form, or, broadly speaking, a discussion of ideology/society/politics. "should i listen to this?" is... dunno. you don't need journalists for that. basically give music criticism over to art historians and the like.

[cooliofranco]

been tracking the syro reviews and this one from Wire has been the best so far.

[funkaholic]

“The best criticism, and it is uncommon, is of this sort that dissolves considerations of content into those of form.”

[Candiru]

One that I actually agree with!

 

I honestly don't know about music criticism and don't care quite as much as I do about film criticism. I actually respect Roger Ebert, for example.

[Npoess]

Honestly... I like a bit of objectivity in music reviews, even though that probably sounds a bit strange and contradictory, because how can you not be subjective when reviewing something. But I just kind of want a of cold description of what it sounds like.

 

100% objectivity is of course not possible, but the more the better I think.

 

I mean the way people emotionally respond so music is just so different, that a music reviewer's personal experience, from listening to something, just kind of becomes irrelevant to me, because I might have a completely different experience. So what's the music reviewer's experience really worth to me as a reader in the end?

 

This only applies to music reviews for me though, because I literally can't think of a thing more subjective than musical preferences. More so than movies, books, games, whatever. There I don't mind subjectivity.

 

But music has always been a "strange" and abstract thing to communicate about to me, also because the emotional aspect is such a big part of it, and it varies so much from person to person.

 

I'd rather listen to something than talk/read about it.

[Candiru]

I know a lot of you won't like this, but despite his overly quirky delivery, Fantano actually does a pretty great job describing the actual music and it's form, remaining objective and explaining his point of view.

[Npoess]

Yeah... For all the Fantano hate, I agree that he does a good job at maintaining some sort of objectivity when describing, in most his reviews.

[poblequadrat]

Fantano is good but in the end you might just as well listen to the album. I think criticism is something else, but amongst the "this album sounds like this, it comes from this school and you should listen to it"-type reviewers, he is pretty much as good as it gets.

[Boxus]

I agree with objectivity. Mostly what I like in reviews is to see what parallels are drawn between the album and other music or art. I think a good reviewer is able to express their impressions in a way that is relatable and gives the reader a real glimpse of what they were thinking and feeling when they heard the album. This doesn't even have to involve a rating or any kind of quality assessment. I just like to see what the album reminded people of, where it took their thoughts.

 

Fantano is the most punchable person in the world.

 

And my favorite reviews are beer reviews, heh

[Npoess]

If you guys were to point out one particular review, that stood out to you, what would it be?

[Nebraska]

Going through the Syro reviews, it seem like everyone complains about album reviews and music criticism in general. My problems with a lot of music criticism are

1) i think there's payola going on

2) too often overwrought / pretentious

3) emphasis on cleverness of writer at the expense of actually describing the music

 

I'd like to see more

1) "this reminds me of this"... probably best way of placing music in context and a great way for me to discover new music

2) artist bios... i think it's important to know what kind of person is making the music and whether it's worthwhile to support that person. i think separating art from artist is silly for various reasons but mainly because it's never consistently applied

3) deeper descriptions of technique, gear and relevant music theory... i don't know much, but i want to learn!

 

what does everyone else think?

 

 

i definitely agree with you about their being payola happening but here are the parts i disagree with:

 

1). the people that do music reviews (mainly the professional ones) are writers- so there is an emphasis on vocabulary to articulate and describe sounds. this is might come across as having "an emphasis on cleverness at the expense of actually describing the music" but usually one is required by the editor or just simply out of respect for the artist to write a little more than who it reminds them or what gear was used because i see the music review being different from a technical review. (although they can be both, the latter usually ends up being uninteresting facts with little opinion)

 

2). i know a lot of people that dislike being compared to other artists for different reasons. who for example would you compare aphex twin to if you were to introduce him to someone that never listened to him?

 

3). as far as artist biographies, i can see this being incorporated in the review, but i kind of like doing my own research rather than having it summarized in reviews. i'm one of those people who regardless of what i read, i like to get a few perspectives of it especially if i'm curious about the music or artist

 

to be honest, if i read an interview and someone tries to give me a bio of that artist/group, i quickly skim through it, because it's my interest of their music that will determine whether i will be interested in knowing more about them (rather than the other way around)

 

with that said: i've kinda stopped reading music reviews from major publications and now focus more on just googling and finding individual user blogs. i also don't take youtube reviews seriously because everyone is trying to build their brand and ("please don't forget to like and subscribe if you already have not so you don't miss a single one of my reviews")

[kinski]

i would love to wake up one day in a world where people understand that a review is just an opinion of the person who writes it and if you disagree it does not mean the peron is wrong or stupid, because all music is subjective.

[peace 7]

The best reviews are by people with interesting character and insight on the subject matter. That's it. Much like how horrible interviews are conducted by those with no inherent grasp of fucking anything, the worst reviews are by people who can technically type text to present a possible opinion but otherwise shouldn't even be covering the material. As ze OP mentioned about artist and artwork being related, reviewers and reviews are also related. Reading them, it's sometimes like, "Why the fuck should I care about what this dude thinks?"

 

So I don't believe an idealistic superficial format exists for reviews, but I do believe a great reviewer can exist. How many people can accurately review sex? A lot. How many people can review sex in a way that's interesting to read and makes you want to have it? Not as many. Yah- music reviews are something like that. For a 5/5 album, an ideal review for me would convey the 5/5; making me want to listen to the music. Too much technical details aren't necessary. I'd rather have, "The warmth of the strings in this track made me feel more cozy than heroin on a rainy day.", than, "The orchestral bits in this track were recorded live at Barbados Concert Hall- known for its mixture of redwood and paulownia interiors- so the sense of organic singing highs and clear bottom is quite remarkable."

 

I wanna know what people feeeeel, myaaaan.....

[joshuatxuk]

been tracking the syro reviews and this one from Wire has been the best so far.

 

Agreed.

 

I don't write reviews but I try to keep things in mind before I consider it's worth artistically.

 

• I strive to hear it objectively. If I can't get past that hurdle, I at least acknowledge this fault of mine. I just don't like certain styles of music, but I can at least appreciate it if it's well done.
• If it's very progressive or experimental, there's a question of musical focus and actual aesthetic appeal. Like there's a question of novelty reactions versus actual emotional connection to music that's very experimental.
• If it's technically amazing or if the artist is amazingly talented, then the question is whether it's important or not. Some virtuoso covering classics is impressive but needless. Likewise simple or amateur made music can often be emotionally stirring or have other appeal that makes up for it's lacking in skill.
• Is it historically important? This is a huge question considering how much retro-sounding music is out there, and furthermore an increasingly difficult call to make considering how much social media and hype can make a faux classic out of anything. Something well-executed but completely devoid of novel or unprecedented sounds, arrangements, or concepts should be praised cautiously.
• I'm usually not that critical unless there's some form of misinformation or arrogance to the music. I can't stand overrated music when it's clearly aping something without either disclaiming it or admitting so when called out...or if it's self-righteous. Either way, I try to spend much time or energy on crap. If it's harmless, then let it be. Like, I dunno, most EDM.

 

For me a general trend of bad or at least less than worthwhile reviews has to do with how tied to PR, both for the artist and the hype the publications themselves try to push, to the inevitable "review." It's a lot more complicated and often more alarming than straight up payola. It's more like a paid for 15 minutes of fame: for example all of those streaming albums on Pitchfork - they rarely score beyond the 6-7 range. And that's it. Back to the next hyped bullshit. I actually miss the hilariously random nature of scores from 00s era Pitchfork reviews.

 

And another huge factor is the lack of breathing room...so many albums in the past had long staying power - people kept pushing them and playing them because they resonated. Now things have such a short shelf-life - end of year lists and "best new album" tags and all of that shit sucks a lot of earnest praise from consideration. There's actually fewer and fewer harshly critical or overwrought loving reviews. I mean, so many classics were often slagged off in the past - NME bashed Slowdive's later work, Abbey Road had extremely mixed and reviews, Rolling Stone gave Nevermind 3/5. Drukqs has lukewarm reviews outside of the IDM fan forums. These were all listened to, reviewed, and "scored" over much longer periods of anticipation, PR, and staying power after release dates. They were listened to over weeks and months, not days...and when they were published there wasn't a rat race to get FB likes and re-tweets within 24-72 hours.

 

I'm actually trying to get a better idea of review sites I like. Tiny Mix Tapes, Ad Hoc, Quietus, and Wired are up there. There's a bunch of cassette tape blogs I follow for that scene/niche subculture. FACT and RA often have good detailed and objective oriented breakdowns. Stereogum, XLR8R, and Gorilla Vs Bear are ok but they're cookie-cutter and owned by SpinMedia. I still read certain freelancers who write for Pfork (metal and electronic mostly). I miss Dusted and Stylus. I quit Pitchfork last year after reading them daily for years and years.

[cooliofranco]

Cool cool. All these posts have been very thoughtful. What jumps out at me is that reviews of music in the age of low-priced digital reproduction are waaaaayyyy less important that they used to be. You don't need to subscribe to a zine and pour over some guy's review of the new Coalesce album to see if it's really worth asking your mom for $15 to buy the CD at Newbury Comics. You can just find some it online and if you like it, you can work a little to download the whole thing or spotify it or gosh! pay some money for it.

 

I'm having a little trouble understanding what everyone means by objectivity. Like, "this song has these synthesizers and in this scale and is at this bpm?" that seems pretty dry and unhelpful. Or do we mean, "this sounds like this and is in this genre." well the latter isn't really objective. I'd argue "objectivity" really shouldn't be a goal because looking at music that way isn't fun. There's definitely a role for describing the equipment and some of the theory (as i said, i would like to see more of that), but let's not go overboard.

 

I like how Peace 7 puts it-- balancing storytelling with information giving seems to be the way to. So Like, tell us what this sounds like, and when you tell us, don't be boring. Also, don't be a jerk.

[usagi]

it'd look like this, ideally.

[Candiru]

I'm trying to step away from the whole music review/message board situation as I just find it a bit aggravating. If you know what you like and have noticed your attention levels increasing while listening over the years, it's easy to tell what's what and who has a similar outlook as you. You know right away if someone is approaching music the same way you are. And if they aren't, their opinion won't matter as much if at all.