Dumb Descriptions in Music

[The Bear Jew]

It's cool to get nice reviews on one's work, and I am certainly not immune to feeling a little puffed-up when I see that a writer went to the trouble of hooking up a good review of my music.

 

And, as a former music journalist, I am aware that certain musical styles are known to attract a specific set of adjectives from writers who specialize in those genres.

 

For example, alt-country acts are probably sick of hearing their music described as "achingly beautiful" or "tender and heartfelt." Similarly, many metal bands of different stripes have been described as "mercilessly brutal" and "molten and raw."

 

The problem with these descriptors is they really don't mean anything and are too often solely based on opinion that they fail to do anything for the reader. I mean, yes, I get it--some of this stuff will only apply to certain genres, so these terms act as simplified ways to say, "I think this recording is a really good representation of the band and its genre. If you like this kind of stuff, you will totally dig this recording." But that doesn't really describe the music. It just means you liked it.

 

And I can't help but get a little annoyed when reviews of my own music, especially when they're meant to be complimentary, make us sound like bad people.

 

I mean, my vocals have often been described as "whiskey-soaked" or "smoke-darkened." My music has been described as "drug-fueled" and "nihilistic." Great. I'm a drug addict/alcoholic who cares about nossink. Awesome. While you're at it, maybe you could describe me as someone who leaves the seat up, runs with scissors and doesn't finish his vegetables. My mom would be horrified.

 

Of course, who really wants to read about a metal band of guys who are family men, work out regularly and like to be in bed before 11pm on weeknights?

 

"These nine molten tracks of psychedelia and doom could only be the work of a tea-drinking editor who loves bad puns, a dog-loving public utility worker and a health-obsessed high school administrator with an ivy-league education."

 

Yeah, it doesn't sound very metal, I guess. I just wish writers would challenge themselves a little more and learn better ways to describe the music they hear.

[jcadmus]

I mean, my vocals have often been described as "whiskey-soaked" or "smoke-darkened." My music has been described as "drug-fueled" and "nihilistic."

 

Wait. Those are the GOOD reviews?

[The Bear Jew]

That's just the point--these are meant as complimentary for this genre of music, but they sound really negative. I mean, would it be so hard to say that I have a coarse or rough-sounding voice instead of implying that I sound like I need to check into rehab? Or saying that the music sounds reckless and unconcerned with traditional song structure instead of giving folks the impression that we spend our time in a dark room discussing Kierkegaard?

[Tom Capasso]

Aw c'mon. Are you really going to make me ask questions (that you know the answer to)?

 

First - who is the audience?

Let's try to be simplistic and not insulting. The audience of these reviews could fall into two groups - the more discerning (Erik - that's you) {MD} and the less discerning (some of your fans) {LD}.

 

By making generalizations like "whiskey-soaked" or "smoke-darkened" they will appeal to the LD but musicians and other interested parties will continue to read these reviews. The MD will get any facts (like where the band is playing, stated influences, etc.). Put both together and you have a decent sized audience.

 

Go to the trouble of unique and well-thought out descriptions - and you'll agree this is not easy - and you will lose the LD who can't keep up.

 

Second - aren't we a prejudiced bunch?

We (the folks I've come to know on this board) are a varied group, but many fit your paradigm-shifting example. We are good people, with varying degrees of responsible lives, work lives, and viewpoints. Most of us are not gin-soaked bar-room druggie musicians who fit into a stereotype. But it does seem strange to think that we "semi-normal" individuals rock our socks off and write interesting songs about lots of topics - from love songs to political statements.

 

So how do you write in such a way that is so broad, when so many of your readers are kids (part of the LD) who haven't lived long enough to understand that this is the case?

 

Now that I've stated the obvious, I will look for, praise and respect "better" descriptions. Because they are worth the effort. I just don't expect them very often.

 

Tom

[Richard W]

Best post ever.

 

"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." (a quote ascribed to either Martin Mull or Steve Martin).

 

I feel like this is also a problem in classifying music generally. "Alternative Rock"--alternative to what, opera? "Progressive Rock"--progress from what, 12-bar blues? And my personal favorite, "Space Rock," usually used to describe anything by Pink Floyd, I guess because they put out an album that had the word "moon" in it.

 

I don't what the answer is to the problem you describe. But you described it perfectly.

[kenfxj]

People who read those reviews know what they mean. Shite like this goes with all the ridiculous genre/niche/pigeon holes that everyone wants to shove each band into. I want my proto-nu-deth-metal to be moltenly brutal. I might even want my new-alt-country to be achingly heartfelt in a whiskey smoked kinda way.

 

Now if you'll excuse me I have to get back to work on my post-acid-folk ballad, Tender Is The Mice.

[rumpelstiltskin.]

get off my lawn.

 

robb.

[jeremy c]

The SF newspaper has a weekly section devoted to up and coming bands. There are usually at least a half a dozen bands that get a page with a description by the writer and a description by the band itself. There is always a picture of the band. There is also information as to where they are playing.

 

From reading these pages, I don't have a clue as to what any of them might sound like and of course I never hear their names mentioned ever again.

 

I don't think I can really describe the music I write, either.

[thabottomend]

You don't finish your vegetables?

 

 

You animal.

[jcadmus]

You have to remember, many of these people are the same ones who regularly point out that ZZ Top drummer Frank Beard is the one member of the band WITHOUT a beard.

 

That's what passes for insight here.

[kenfxj]

I saw some comedian, I forget who, riffing on ZZ Top. He said they got together and said "OK, we'll meet back here in one year. NOBODY SHAVE!" Then a year later Billy and Dusty are like "What the f***?" Not a team player.

[Cthulhu Fhtagn]

No "face melting" guitar solos?

[b5pilot]

Wait, you're a tea drinker? So that explains the Earl Grey- soaked vocals!

 

Sounds like these are the same people that write the instrument adds about guitars sound being crunching, searing, etc.

[picker]

Of course, who really wants to read about a metal band of guys who are family men, work out regularly and like to be in bed before 11pm on weeknights?

 

Erik, do you remember a post I wrote a while back about the questionable credibility of "dark" lyrics written by pretty normal people? I think you just made my point...

[plangentmusic]

The trouble with people who write about music is, they may be musically knowledgeable , or may be good writers, but they're rarely both. And of course, at the end of the day, it's still just an opinion.

 

I've been both criticized and complemented unfairly. : )

 

In the end, all publicity, like applause, is good.

[Paul K]

Well, at least the writer liked it.

 

When I sent my disc to the local paper, the dude HATED it. Trashed it really. I had saved the clip, but threw it out in a cleaning jag, and it's no longer on-line. If I'd have saved it, it'd have made you feel better. Sorry, dude....

[thabottomend]

I mean, my vocals have often been described as "whiskey-soaked"

 

 

No wonder I don't sing very well. I ain't soaked up enough whiskey yet. I gotta get to woodsheddin' with the bottle.

 

Thank you, you sexxxxay beast. Now I have a legitimate reason. I'm improving my art.

[The Bear Jew]

Of course, who really wants to read about a metal band of guys who are family men, work out regularly and like to be in bed before 11pm on weeknights?

 

Erik, do you remember a post I wrote a while back about the questionable credibility of "dark" lyrics written by pretty normal people? I think you just made my point...

 

Did I?

 

I think I covered this with you before.

 

What isn't credible about telling a story?

 

Bram Stoker never met a vampire or drank blood, but he wrote Dracula. Is that not credible? Dewey Bunnell never rode through the desert on a horse with no name. Is his song not credible as art? Is The Shining not a credible novel because Stephen King didn't have the experience of murdering his family while possessed by the malignant spirit of an old hotel before he wrote it? Was Anthony Perkins not a credible actor in Psycho because he never stabbed a woman in a shower while dressed as his mother? Does one need to be personally familiar with the eating preferences of livestock in order to sing "Mairzy Dotes?" Can one credibly sing a blues song if they aren't carrying a black cat bone? I don't think Elton John is a part of the space program, but I still think it's OK for him to sing "Rocket Man."

 

Some people write reality-based lyrics. That's cool. Joni Mitchell does that. So do a lot of other songwriters. They put their own lives or experiences into songs, and that's their thing. Nothing wrong with that. When guys like Geezer Butler write lyrics about the horrors of war or Satan, I don't think they're trying to get anyone to believe that they've actually been in wars or met the devil. They're telling a fantasy story. Nothing wrong with that, either.

 

So if I write a song that makes a reference to the ancient practice of augury, does this mean I have to actually disembowel a sparrow and try to predict the future from its entrails, or can I just use a term I learned when I was reading Hamlet in 12th grade?

 

Just as movie don't need to be documentaries to be legitimate, songs don't need to be reality-based to be credible.

[Tenstrum]

You're "achingly beautiful"!

Wait...what are we talking about?

Nothing to see here. Move along...

[kenfxj]

I think he's more roguishly handsome. Tee hee.

 

[Eric Iverson]

It's not easy to write about music well. Non-musicians, who may be very intelligent and sensitive people, don't understand musical terminology or care about those details, necessarily. "I like him because he plays such and such a scale over this or that chord progression" will mean nothing to them.

 

Of course, it's easy to resort to cliches; it's not just that easy to come up with fresh insights.

 

Then there is the school of thought where they mostly focus on the meaning of lyrics, or the artist's place in the cultural world and what they represent, etc. Fair enough, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the artist in question thinks that way.

 

So, Mr. Bear Jew, what is your place in the cultural world, and what do you represent, other than being a guy who wants to make good music? LOL

[The Bear Jew]

Aw c'mon. Are you really going to make me ask questions (that you know the answer to)?

 

............

 

Now that I've stated the obvious, I will look for, praise and respect "better" descriptions. Because they are worth the effort. I just don't expect them very often.

 

Tom

 

I get your point, Tom. I just wish reviewers would break away from those dumb cliches we've all seen too many times and work on more meaningful, useful ways to describe music.

 

Back when I was actively reviewing music, I tried to draw comparisons to similar acts and look for varied terminology to help bring folks a greater understanding of what I was hearing in some of these recordings. I'm not saying I was the best music reviewer in the world, but at least I made an effort.

 

Is it so bad to wish that others would do the same? I don't think so.

 

And yeah, a lot of these reviewers seem to be the same sort of writers who come up with the marketing terminology for music gear. It's always funny to see the combinations they decide to use... especially when they're contradictory. "Blackened sludge" is a good one. First of all, it sounds like a cross between toxic waste and a Cajun delicacy. Secondly, it makes no sense... "blackened" metal is generally fast, but "sludge," as the name implies, is slow. So what the hell are they saying? Fast slow music? Do they split the difference and play mid-tempo? Oh yeah, FWIW, I saw the band that was described this way. They played fast.

[Tenstrum]

I tend to totally ignore critics and music write-ups all together. I prefer to actually listen to the music to see if it is something that I might dig.

 

[Tenstrum]

BTW - Totally cracks me up that you have your published date as: 18 December 1974. Awesome touch!

[Paul K]

Back when I was actively reviewing music, I tried to (Let Paul K fill in the blank)

 

...use your brain and not just phone it in.

 

That's your problem, baby. You're holding others up to your high standards. That'll drive one crazy faster than my first wife.

[The Bear Jew]

BTW - Totally cracks me up that you have your published date as: 18 December 1974. Awesome touch!

 

Thanks. I think we made a pretty good record for a four-year-old and two dudes who weren't alive yet. Actually, I gave it that date because December 18 is my birthday, and one of our friends told me that 1974 was the year music was perfected. I think he heard that on The Simpsons.

 

And Paul, I think the sad part about this is that I don't think I have high standards... but I do have standards. That's probably the root of the problem. I should just dumb myself down a bit more... like that's possible.

 

Eric... I don't think it's necessarily easy to be a good music writer, but I do think it's possible to listen and learn to be a better communicator. So many of the reviewers I have encountered don't seem to develop their skill--they just drag out the same old chestnuts (brutal, molten, etc, etc) to describe different acts... and I know they don't all sound the same. Eh, I don't know. Maybe I should start acting more like a Honey Badger--"Thanks for the review, stupid."

[Imogene]

The trouble with people who write about music is, they may be musically knowledgeable , or may be good writers, but they're rarely both. And of course, at the end of the day, it's still just an opinion.

 

I've been both criticized and complemented unfairly. : )

 

In the end, all publicity, like applause, is good.

 

plangent, you're such a cynic. But then again, you make a great point. Whiskey soaked vocals? Who wouldn't want that tasty tidbit out on an internet forum? And who hasn't been complemented or criticized unfairly?

[EddiePlaysBass]

Bram Stoker never met a vampire or drank blood, but he wrote Dracula. Is that not credible?

 

Now wait a minute, here ...

 

Dewey Bunnell never rode through the desert on a horse with no name. Is his song not credible as art?

 

But ... but ...

 

Is The Shining not a credible novel because Stephen King didn't have the experience of murdering his family while possessed by the malignant spirit of an old hotel before he wrote it?

 

Aw man, c'mon! Erik, dagnabbit, you just went and ruined my view of three classics! I never saw Psycho but now there's no need to any more. If these guys all just made up all that stuff, then what do I care Where's the authenticity?

 

[Paul K]

And Paul, I think the sad part about this is that I don't think I have high standards...

 

Just smarter than your average bear jew.

[picker]

Just as movie don't need to be documentaries to be legitimate, songs don't need to be reality-based to be credible.

 

To quote Robert A. Heinlein, "Durnedest thing I ever saw since my two-headed uncle debated Free Silver and refuted himself." Congrats, Erik, I think you just successfully argued both side of the same question. Have you ever considered a career in politics? Erik for The Bear Prez!