Music Criticism
-
Artist:
-
Album:
-
Track:
The Mog Father put up a video today that's prompted me to write a post that's been floating around in my head for some time. David's post is about the death of music criticism, which I hope isn't the case, but there is something to be said about the difference between good music criticism and bad music criticism.
A while back, I took issue with AP's Ron Harris' review of Already Free, the new album by the Derek Trucks Band. In the comment thread of that post, Fritz pointed to Ben Ratliff's review of the same album. Both reviews panned the album, but I defended Ratliff's review after having panned Harris' review. I'd like to explain why, and I'll use the DTB's version of Afro Blue to explain.
Writing a music review is generally about expectations, but there's always the question of whose expectations ought to form the basis of that review. There are a number of possibilities, but there are generally three perspectives involved: the artist's expectations, the reviewer's expectations and the expectations of the reviewer's audience.
Of those three, the least defensible basis for a review is the reviewer's personal expectations. That kind of review turns the reviewer into an autocratic arbiter of musical taste. it's wholly subjective, and it provides no basis for discussion or informed comment. Most often, this kind of review happens when a reviewer tries to justify an initial personal impression of a work without paying much attention to the content or ideas that the work expresses.
The other two perspectives are defensible, but in different ways. I personally favor trying to evaluate a work against what the artist has set out to achieve, and that evaluation involves assessing whether or not the artist is trying to say something new and different as well as assessing how well the artist achieves those artist ends. While this does involve some aesthetic values, these are objective aesthetic values. Paradoxically, this stance can lead one to praise the artistic value of a piece of work that one personally doesn't enjoy, but I think the goal of reasonably objective criticism is worth-while.
The other perspective is the one that forms the basis of Ratliff's review of Already Free. It's a valid perspective, particularly for someone, like Ratliff, who has a known audience who does have some pretty standard expectations. He's writing for an audience that's well-versed in jazz, and his approach to Already Free is informed by that perspective.
To get a sense of that perspective and the kind of expectations Ratliff's audience might have, listen to this performance of Mongo Santamaria's Afro Blue. As jazz performances go, this is high quality. It's not a rote recital of a song that many other artists have already recorded, and it draws on the particular strengths of the musicians involved, notably Kofi Burbridge's flute and Trucks' unique slide guitar phrasing. If you're a fan of jazz, you really want to hear more of this kind of work, because this is the kind of thing that keeps jazz alive.
Now, put yourself in Ratliff's shoes, and think about what Trucks is trying to accomplish with Already Free. The DTB is setting aside much of that jazz flavor that showed so much promise on earlier albums. For lovers of jazz, this is the wrong direction, and most of Ratliff's readers are not likely to enjoy the direction that Already Free takes despite any artistic value it might have in terms of Trucks' musical objectives.
I've hoped to highlight, here, the difference between a good music review and a bad music review. A good music review is defensible in terms of the expectations that form the basis of the review. A bad music review is not. At the same time, the difference between a good music review and a bad music review has little to do with whether or not we might, as individuals, agree with what the reviewer says. And, while I'm disappointed by Ratliff's conclusion regarding Already Free, I believe his stance is justifiable.
More importantly, if we put some effort into recognizing and following reviewers who write good reviews, even if we don't agree with their conclusions, then, perhaps, music criticism won't be dead after all.
Comments (6)
I always wonder about panned albums by major reviewers, but I stopped paying attention long ago in terms of finding out about music. MOG is free you can hear the songs again and again if you wish.
I guess I still read reviews, but mostly for the writing, not for the thumbs up or thumbs down. The guy in the MOGfather's vid makes pretty good point about the reviewer being obsolete. It is just too easy to hear something and make up your mind on your own.
Now when reviewers reference other work in their reviews it is sometimes helpful (in discovering those mentioned artists). Reviewers can be great for context, ie. where the particular work is falling in the current and historical music continuum.
I think the cultural/genre vs. purely sonic evaluation dichotomy is at the heart of it for me. I usually work in the cultural/genre realm which has its set of expectations. I'm not musically trained (technically) but I have listened to a lot of music, so I'm comfortable with cultural impacts and genre stuff. That's why I tend to stay away from current material..I need it to have time to sink in.
I think it is very hard to guage the artists expectation, a little easier to judge audience expectation (especially in the cultural/genre zone), and it's easy to know my expectations, so I really have to fight relying on those.
I just try to be truthful to what I feel, but of course, I get to choose what I write about, so I don't have to waste my time with negativity (even if I feel it).
Having spent an inordinate time this past few months dealing with music aesthetics for a philosophy class, it's difficult to think any kind of concensus aesthetic can be acheived. Describing music is a tough gig. I like folks who tell me something I don't know and who will be ready to defend what they say, especially when it is negative.
I keep coming back to this (Duke Ellington):
There are simply two kinds of music, good music and the other kind...but the only yardstick by which the result should be judged is simply that of how it sounds. If it sounds good,it's successful;if it doesn't it has failed.
I don't totally buy into this, but it is a good place to start.
It's usually difficult to put into words exactly how a piece of music succeeds musically. One can look at a review and imagine a piece of music which conforms exactly the reviewer's description but which creates in you a wildly different verdict from the reviewer's verdict. You're both right about the value of expectations. A reader can learn to trust a critic's opinions by comparing verdicts over a period of time, and by noticing whether the critic shares the reader's choices of which musical criteria are important and which are not. For instance, at one point in the past I noticed that Jon Pareles's NY Times music reviews put great importance on whether he agreed with the attitude expressed by the lyrics, a criterion which to me is almost always irrelevant.
As a former music critic, and now a published author of numerous legal texts, I shall throw in my two penn'orth.
Good reviewing is often dependent on the level of knowledge the reviewer brings to the table; when writing about the drug casualties of rock, Nick Kent is peerless, but his reviews of Bob Marley, from a position of ignorance and disinterest, both used in the correct OED sense, were not his most insightful. It is a brave reviewer who admits that he or she is out of his depth; in respect of the track above, I can compare it to John Coltrane and Mongo Santamaria, and reach my own view. Incidentally, that is "Interesting take, nice to hear rock instruments used outwith the standard format, but not wholly successful in conveying the Afro-Cuban feel I think necessary for the tune. (*** out of 5).
Going back to the more general point - if, at the end of an album review or a MOG post you have a greater insight into the music than you had before, and the writer/poster knows what he or she is talking about, then that is a "good" review. If the writer is bluffing, in the era of the Interweb, they should be found out pretty quickly.
do you like it or not--Its not a tough question
I loved Already Free, mostly because there are so few new blues records coming out these days that are really worth listening to. I can see where fans of his other records may not like it as much given the different direction of it, but it's still some damn good music.
i'm a huge fan of metacritic.com
the average aggregate rating works incredibly well. i don't see a movie unless it gets above a 65. i NEVER see a bad movie.
check it.