RE: Why I'm starting to loath news paper music critics

["Hartung, Kris" <kris.hartung@hp.com>]

I dunno either...these days, I've been contemplating this music
evaluation thing more and more, and I am about to the point to where
I'll only make damn certain factual claims about a person's music, or
only positive subjective claims.  The negative subjective claims are
just so painful for my ego, and although I can get on my mean streaks
(like what I did with that critic who made pseudo factual claims about
my music), I always regret what I say and feel something less than a
decent human being....I'll admit it -  my feelings get hurt easily
despite my thin austere veneer exterior.   We used to have a music
critic here in Boise who said if he didn't have anything good to day, he
wouldn't say anything at all....he wrote some of the most crafty reviews
that were insightful and sensitive. And he substantiated his factual
claims. It is hard, however....it's a skill that I'll have to work on
constantly for the rest of my life.

Yes, what you say about the Voice of Authority below is right on the
money. It urks me too...seems haughty and indignant.  It's a power trip
for some critics...the ability to slam and deface a musician in the
public eye and get away with it.  And I don't know about the rest of
you, but it is the non-musicians who sometimes make the most ignorant
claims about artists' music.

Speaking of musician quotes regarding reviewers....here's one from
Fripp:

"In our actions we reveal the world in which we live. We speak of what
we see, and understand, and know. That is, everything we do is
reflective of who and what we are. A musician presents a view from the
world in which they live. This provides an opportunity for an audience
to look into this world. Similarly a reviewer reviews himself or
herself." - Robert Fripp

Kris


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Nelson [mailto:psychle62@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 8:48 PM
To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
Subject: RE: Why I'm starting to loath news paper music critics


--- "Hartung, Kris" <kris.hartung@hp.com> wrote:
> I bet you would have been really irked if I had
> said): 
> "The backdrop in the beginning of the song is
> decent, but somewhat watered down as if the artist
> is attempting to emulate Robert Fripp's Soundscapes,
> but unsuccessfully so...and the bass groove that
> eventually comes in is tasteful, but too low in the
> mix.  Not too bad. The song has too much inside
> melodic work for this particular genre."

I dunno, most of those criticisms would have probably
been more accurate* (except for the Fripp part; if I'd
been aping a Soundscape, I would have had to do a lot
more whooooshing sounds...:)) *Definition of
'accurate': "In accordance with my OWN opinion."

 But I think what many of us object to most about
certain critics is the way they posit themselves as
the Voice of Authority, as you point out, using their
opinion as a substitute for objectivity and possibly
tainting/coloring the experience of listeners who've
read their comments. "It MUST be true; I read it in
the  newspaper." One of my old bands was once reviewed
by a critic who complained in a magazine about our
vocalist's "phony British accent"; it wasn't until
about a year later that we found out that his
assessment hinged on ONE misheard word in ONE song.
(He thought the word 'glossy' [as in a photographic
print surface] was actually 'glassy' pronounced a la
Greg Lake...) But a number of people at our shows
who'd read the review afterwards made comments like
"You know, I'd never noticed that before, but he DOES
pronounce some of his words like that!", and he ended
up being a bit self-conscious about it. It's one thing
if the reviewer is slamming the artist for poor
musicianship or shoddily crafted songs, but it's
another story altogether if their opinion is informed
by ignorance or through (mis)interpretation of things
often having little to do with the music itself.

> Your juxtaposition point below validates that those
> claims which contradict each other are likely
> subjective claims about one's emotive response to
> your work, rather than a factual claim about the
> work itself.

Absolutely. The strategy we took by including the bad
ones alongside the good ones in the press kit
addressed the natural curiosity that controversy stirs
up. If the opinions of Critic A and Critic B differ so
substantially, there's a natural tendency to want to
hear the album/see the band's show to find out for
yourself what all the fuss is about. As no less a
pundit than Gene Simmons once said (something like):
"I don't care WHAT the critics are writing about me. I
just care that they ARE writing about me."

-t-


                
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com