This is probably too big a topic to cover in one bite-sized blog, but worth pondering...
While my own small experience with printed criticism of my music has been positive, I do find it rare that any band or album to which I taking a liking gets positive press (Rolling Stone famously panned all nine Led Zeppelin albums, for example). Likewise, artists that enjoy media-darling status often leave me scratching my head - not that I don't understand the artist's intent or the critic's appraisal, but because I'm beyond mere disagreement with the critic. Sometimes I can't even imagine the headspace from which the review originated. About a decade ago, it was pointed out to me that most music critics have degrees and/or qualifications in journalism, but usually none in music - this was an 'aha!' moment for me.
The irony here is that in most cases, the more one immerses oneself in the study of music and in building skills on an instrument, the less one hears music in the same way as a non-musician. Non-musicians, meanwhile, are a diverse lot - some may have natural musical ability (tho' unused), some may be deep musical enthusiasts, and some may see music as little more than aural wallpaper or the back-drop to celebrity soap opera. The question is - for whom should the music critic speak?
Jerry Seinfeld raises an interesting point - as a comedian, is he not in a position to know more about what is funny than his audience? After all, he studies the art full time. Why should some uneducated schmo in the crowd have some say over Seinfeld's act by either laughing or heckling?
Neil Peart provides some answer to that. One cornerstone of his own evaluation of art is: what is the artist trying to express, and how successfully is the artist reaching that objective? Seinfeld's intent is (presumably) to make Mr. Schmo laugh. Amusing a stranger is no easy art, I'm sure (right, stranger?).
Add to this the generation gap. It's quite plausible that the reason Zep was panned by Rolling Stone so consistently was because of the band's time of arrival- they were the first band to make the baby boomers feel threatened, old and out of touch, at least the taste-monger variety at RS. Grunge and Hip Hop have probably suffered somewhat from the same phenomenon.
The conclusion is that a music critic needs to take into account the musicality and age perspective of his or her readers, and be aware of his or her own singular biases...but here we get back to what is moral, and what ultimately sells. Would you rather read the work of a critic who seems consistently fair and substantial, or one who is outspokenly biased, able to inspire and annoy you? Frankly, I prefer the former, but I suspect that's just because I'm a musician. Music criticism, much like music itself, is seen by many as just another form of entertainment.
So - anybody out there want to review this blog? ;)
While my own small experience with printed criticism of my music has been positive, I do find it rare that any band or album to which I taking a liking gets positive press (Rolling Stone famously panned all nine Led Zeppelin albums, for example). Likewise, artists that enjoy media-darling status often leave me scratching my head - not that I don't understand the artist's intent or the critic's appraisal, but because I'm beyond mere disagreement with the critic. Sometimes I can't even imagine the headspace from which the review originated. About a decade ago, it was pointed out to me that most music critics have degrees and/or qualifications in journalism, but usually none in music - this was an 'aha!' moment for me.
The irony here is that in most cases, the more one immerses oneself in the study of music and in building skills on an instrument, the less one hears music in the same way as a non-musician. Non-musicians, meanwhile, are a diverse lot - some may have natural musical ability (tho' unused), some may be deep musical enthusiasts, and some may see music as little more than aural wallpaper or the back-drop to celebrity soap opera. The question is - for whom should the music critic speak?
Jerry Seinfeld raises an interesting point - as a comedian, is he not in a position to know more about what is funny than his audience? After all, he studies the art full time. Why should some uneducated schmo in the crowd have some say over Seinfeld's act by either laughing or heckling?
Neil Peart provides some answer to that. One cornerstone of his own evaluation of art is: what is the artist trying to express, and how successfully is the artist reaching that objective? Seinfeld's intent is (presumably) to make Mr. Schmo laugh. Amusing a stranger is no easy art, I'm sure (right, stranger?).
Add to this the generation gap. It's quite plausible that the reason Zep was panned by Rolling Stone so consistently was because of the band's time of arrival- they were the first band to make the baby boomers feel threatened, old and out of touch, at least the taste-monger variety at RS. Grunge and Hip Hop have probably suffered somewhat from the same phenomenon.
The conclusion is that a music critic needs to take into account the musicality and age perspective of his or her readers, and be aware of his or her own singular biases...but here we get back to what is moral, and what ultimately sells. Would you rather read the work of a critic who seems consistently fair and substantial, or one who is outspokenly biased, able to inspire and annoy you? Frankly, I prefer the former, but I suspect that's just because I'm a musician. Music criticism, much like music itself, is seen by many as just another form of entertainment.
So - anybody out there want to review this blog? ;)