Two articles in The Guardian last week discussed whether or not critics serve any useful purpose. The original articles were about classical critics, which I don’t know enough about to comment meaningfully on. A lot of the resulting comments shifted the discussion towards rock critics.
In my opinion, rock criticism is completely and fundamentally broken, to the point where I’m much more likely to trust the opinion of an amateur blogger or web message board poster than most so-called professionals. Partly it’s because I know my own tastes in music are 180 degrees in opposition to the collective groupthink of mainstream rock critics, which seems to date from the punk era of the late 70s.
They pretty much all seem to toe the following party line:
- Music and artists are supposed to be ‘of the moment’ and aren’t supposed to last.
- Image and attitude are more important than substance
- Raw passion is infinitely more important than craftsmanship
- Any diplay of instrumental ability beyond the most rudimentary is self-indulgence of no interest to anyone other than musicians.
All of those are highly subjective premises, but they’re presented as inerrant gospel truths. That might be valid if it was just one of many schools of music criticism, but unfortunately it has come to represent the mainstream consensus. So you end up with ridiculous amounts of praise directed at anyone that conforms to the above template (Can you say ‘Pete Doherty’? Yes, I though you could), and marginalisation for anyone that doesn’t. Entire genres of music get dismissed with a sneer.
Then there’s the fact that when the critic do pay attention to content rather than image they only seem to be interested in the lyrics rather than the music. And it often appears that they’re reluctant to listen to any record more than once, so anything that takes several spins to appreciate will have trouble getting a fair review.
Another big problem with the British music critic establishment is that they’re so obsessed with finding ‘the next big thing’ (so that they can bask in reflected glory, perhaps?) that they tend to overlook the sort of artists that don’t start producing their best work until several years into the careers. Then we have the dreadful “build ‘em up and knock ‘em down” attitude. The result is all too often massive hype directed at some fresh-faced hopefuls who have yet to do anything much. The moment they fail to live up to the unrealistic expectations thrust upon their shoulders the inevitable backlash begins. Then you get the archetypal ‘difficult second album’ followed by a quick exit to the ‘where are they now’ file.
As I said, mainstream rock criticism is broken.
“Groupthink” is a good word for it. This is not a case of critics trying to set up a bulwark of taste against what their perceive to be an imperceptive public — like, say, Lester Bangs defending “Metal Machine Music” or the downtown no-wave crew DNA against almost certain critical and popular rejection. It’s a case of all of them not wanting to defect from the hive mind and admit that maybe their conceits aren’t built on the most solid ground anymore.
The point of a critic, as I see it, is to recognize good music in whatever form it comes. I try to do that on my own, when I can, with the things I know I’m interested in, and that I feel qualified to comment on. Many critics don’t seem to think there are many things they are simply not qualified to talk about. I wouldn’t dream of trying to write a coherent review of a Van der Graaf Generator album, although I’d dearly like to — if only because I suspect I wouldn’t be able to do it justice.
And it often appears that they’re reluctant to listen to any record more than once, so anything that takes several spins to appreciate will have trouble getting a fair review.
I think that’s all one can reasonably expect from a mainstream critic (and that’s not a criticism of the critic). There just isn’t time for a non-specialist to commit to hearing something multiple times – the demands of the format are such that an album has to catch the attention first time, or not at all.
Doesn’t mean I like it, but I do think you’re criticising apples for not being orange and citrusy. Newpaper reviews are supposed to be about what’s hot now and attractive to a mass-market, so don’t expect anything deeply-considered.
I rarely read ‘em at all, myself, but I do think they’re fit for purpose.
‘We made a land where cr*p is king
And the good don’t last too long’
Neal Morse / Spock’s Beard
The Good don’t last
If anybody doubts just how right Kalyr is about rock / pop criticism being broken they should have been watching the BBC over the weekend. On Friday night Jonathan Woss had Pete Dougherty as a guest, Saturday the series Seven Ages of Rock ended with a double length episode on how indie came to rule the world, and Sunday saw Donnie Osmond and Jason Donovan at Wembley to remember Princess Di. Ok so the latter were not critically acclaimed but….
Outside of a ghettoised underground most things that pass off as rock press and most broadsheet newspapers praise worthless, crass pop ephemera. Much of what is misrepresented as rock is commercialistic, lowest comon denomenator hype. If you were to play music with real substance and lyrics with genuine meaning to the twerps at Q or NME or any heavy newspaper, those philistines would react with scorn.
Part of the problem is that to be hip these days music has to be ironic, not take itself too seriously, and to be disposable. Music with real quality is too earnest for the average critic.
In an ideal world Jonathan Ross would be interviewing the new singer in Nightwish, Seven Ages of Rock would be discussing how Dream Theater led to an entire genre of progressive metal bands, and Mostly Autmn would be headlining Wembley while competing with Magenta for shelf space in Tesco.
Pingback: Where Worlds Collide » Blog Archive » Critics: What are They Good For? II