Critical acclaim VS. listener appreciation

[Michelle ggurl]

A friend and I were talking about bands and the relationship between them and their fans ... and between them and critics. There is a specific band we were talking about that basically got very mixed reviews when they started out, but then they went on to really become known for a different sound; in the end, their vision was certainly validated.

 

Then there are the bands that never take off comercially, even though they are the critics' darlings.

 

So, what do you all think about this? How much weight do you put in critics when evaluating whether music is good? Or, how much do you dismiss a group if they are too popular?

 

I just thought it was an interesting topic ...

[Philip OKeefe]

I reserve the right to form my own opinions and make my own judgements.

 

That doesn't mean I don't find reviews useful. The trick, IMO, is to keep track of how well your opinions and tastes, and those of various critics / reviewers line up. When you find someone who hears things and has opinions that are similar to yours, you can give them a little more weight than reviews from someone you've never heard of, or someone who you know from past experience doesn't normally share your tastes.

 

As far as how I feel about the subject of reviews, it's nice when someone gives something I've worked on a positive review. Feels good. However, an artist needs to be careful about believing their own PR, or taking reviews too much to heart. Don't let the good reviews go to your head, and don't let the bad reviews prevent you from following your muse. As always, I'm willing to consider anyone's opinions or comments - good or bad - I'm just saying I think it is a mistake to take reviews of one's work and use that as a means of deciding what sort of work you'll go for in the future, or how you'll approach things artistically, or basing your worth as an artist on them.

 

Personally, I'd much rather hear from a listener that something I worked on moved them and / or meant something to them in the way that many records mean something to me. That's the greatest compliment, and I value that far more than getting some positive press from a critic... so I guess I would say that mass popularity is less important to me than a deeper appreciation from a fewer amount of listeners, and both of those mean more to me than being the critic's darling.

[ryst]

Originally posted by geekgurl:

A friend and I were talking about bands and the relationship between them and their fans ... and between them and critics. There is a specific band we were talking about that basically got very mixed reviews when they started out, but then they went on to really become known for a different sound; in the end, their vision was certainly validated.

 

Then there are the bands that never take off comercially, even though they are the critics' darlings.

 

So, what do you all think about this? How much weight do you put in critics when evaluating whether music is good? Or, how much do you dismiss a group if they are too popular?

 

I just thought it was an interesting topic ...

Well, in the end it's all just an opinion, isn't it? I try and not form an opinion until I have listened to the music myself. The same I do with people. The problem with critics is that they go to school to learn how to write (journalism), not to give an opinion. I don't know what gives a "critic" more authority to critique a piece of art. Why is do they even have a platform?

[Prague]

Credibility -

 

Rollingstone: 0%

Critics: 0%

Popularity: 20%

Word of Mouth: 50%

Personal (respected) recommendation: 75%

Me: 100%

[TeleCarlos]

A very touchy, yet very valid question. Everybody will have an opinion. If muster some time, I'll give you mine!

[TheSoundman]

I listen to everything I can get my sneaky little hands on. If it sucks, it sucks. I've never really seen much of a need for music critics. Most of them couldn't find their own asshole with a flashlight.

[philbo_Tangent]

Many critics are simply pimps - working for a magazine or newpaper owned by the same mega-corporations that own the record label the album was done on. These, even if honest (pretty rare), have zero credibility for me.

 

In fact, I use this to decide what music & movies to avoid. Overall, it works in a most excellent fashion - - almost everything these guys fawn over sucks....

 

OTOH, there are a few critics I trust. I generally check out the albums they talk about in Mix, EQ and TapeOp, and am usually happy I did so.

 

Just my opinion...

 

 

"They call 'em fingers, but I've never seen 'em fing." - Otto

[Billster]

I'm sometimes amazed at the gap between critical success and commercial success. I'm aware of this ne book called "The Rock Snob's Dictionary" or something like that - I saw an interview with the authors where they listed their ten favorite albums, and the ten albums that were supposed to be their favorites. It's kind of cynical, but the point is well taken.

 

Im not sure critics listen for the same things in music that typical listeners do, and I'm almost certain that critics don't listen for the things that matter to musicians.

 

Another level, which GeekGurl touched on, is artistic progression. Listen to early Beatles and late Beatles, or the re-inventions of Miles Davis during his career. That sort of thing is practicallly disallowed by critics, and by the current marketplace that needs to categorize everything to the nth degree. They flipped when Dylan went electric too.

 

I like it when artists do different things, and I can listen for the touchstones of their personality in different contexts. I wished for things like Whitney Houston (pre-Bobby Brown/drug haze, etc.) doing a record of classic blues/R&B in a small band setting, without the big pop production and schmaltzy songs. I love what Brian Setzer does with his big band, and I think it took a lot of courage for him to go that way when he was well known for something else entirely.

[coyote]

I don't look for critics to mirror my own tastes. That would be just silly.

 

What I look for in a music critic is the ability to review on multiple levels. Can he step outside his own taste realm to give a truly honest review? Most critics cannot, and indeed are often paid to make spectacles of themselves rather than give informative reviews. Therefore, their opinions are of little use to me.

 

On the other hand, there are tens of millions of folks who like badly executed music in styles I don't dig! So the mere fact that an artist has sold 40 million records does NOT neccessarily validate that artist's music to my ears.

[theblue1]

I don't, as a rule, read musical criticism and haven't since the late 70's/early 80's. Since I use a subscription music service, I can usually hear most new big releases if I want, so I don't really need anyone to tell me what's good or not.

 

It's nice to have people to flip up music I haven't heard before, but a lot of critics seem like they just read other critics and tend to get their opinions from other critics.

 

 

I talk to a lot of different folks in the 3DW, a lot of musicians and more than a couple behind the scenes folks, as well as a lot of youngsters. I figure I'll hear about stuff soon enough if it's any good.

 

And so little of it is...

 

[TheSoundman]

I heard Lee Flier's latest release rocks... I'm not a music critic, but I play one on TV

[Franky]

I've read that in the UK music criticism is a much bigger deal, and people are much more likely to read about a band first than to hear them on the radio. Maybe some of the UK members could tell me how much of this is really true.

 

I noticed on a local level that when a band gets written about in the local newspaper or alternative weekly it can really increase the number of people in the audience.

 

"Writing about music is like dancing about Architecture" -Frank Zappa

 

I'm not sure if I agree with Mr. Zappa.

[Michelle ggurl]

Great responses, folks! Thanks for the reality check, I was sure it wasn't just me who often use critics as a sort of inverse litmus test ... it does definitely depend on the source though. The Internet is great; people can preview music as soon as they find it, no intermediary pundit required.

 

Originally posted by coyote:

Can he step outside his own taste realm to give a truly honest review? Most critics cannot, ...

Bingo! I wholeheartedly agree. We were marvelling over how in some cases critics will bash something until they see the public respond to it, and them flip their position. It took people listening to the music with their HEARTS, not just their heads. Which, where does music live for the listener if it actually has meaning, anyway? A listener who identifies with the music isn't coming from the snobbery of "well, this genre should sound like X and have Y elements ...."

 

 

Originally posted by Soundman:

I've never really seen much of a need for music critics. Most of them couldn't find their own asshole with a flashlight.

Now, that's naughty. But amusing.

[Michelle ggurl]

Originally posted by pseudonym:

Don't feel bad, all the bastards will go to hell when they die and in the mean-time you can become an alchoholic or drug addict to feel better.

Uh, Pseu-Pseudio ... are you OK?

[fantasticsound]

I have no use for music critics. I have yet to read a music review that truly captures my full appreciation of good music or accurately addresses the weaknesses of what I consider bad music.

 

And I have yet to find a music critic who approaches music outside his/her taste in genre with the objectivity of Roger Ebert and the late Gene Siskel critiquing movies. I've seen Ebert and Siskel preface a review by saying, "This is not a movie I like. I will never like this type of movie. But as an example of the genre it's strong because ___ ____ ___ ____ and will be appreciated by the audience it was intended for." That, to me, is responsible, objective criticism. Music critics see fans of music they hate, almost universally, as pathetic losers.

 

Originally posted by Billster:

...I like it when artists do different things, and I can listen for the touchstones of their personality in different contexts. I wished for things like Whitney Houston (pre-Bobby Brown/drug haze, etc.) doing a record of classic blues/R&B in a small band setting, without the big pop production and schmaltzy songs...

Agreed. But there are situations where artists strayed so far away from who they were that I cannot follow with joy in their new music. For the most part, I'm bored with the last few Sting albums, but I'm also a rabid fan of The Police and his solo Dream Of The Blue Turtles album. On the other hand, I love the changes in Paul Simon from early Simon & Garfunkle to late to 1970's Paul Simon (solo) to the mid-1980's Graceland album. Some people maneuver to new things without losing the existing audience with grace and style. The Wilbury's albums would be great examples for everyone involved, from their earlier work.

 

I would have loved to hear just such an R&B record from Whitney.

 

I love what Brian Setzer does with his big band, and I think it took a lot of courage for him to go that way when he was well known for something else entirely.

Again, agreed. The seminal example of this has to be Joe Jackson. He had a clause in his record deal that allowed him to make a big band, jazz record that was to be put out like any record, but that he really didn't expect to sell very well. The result is a wonderful bunch of Louis Jordan covers and a few other great songs entitled, Jumpin' Jive which was released a decade or so before Brian Setzer made the retro big band sound chic. His version of Five Guys Named Moe is better, IMO, than the Louis Jordan original. The entire album is strong.

 

I was very happy to see Brian Setzer pick up this ball and run with it.

[pseudonym]

Uh, Pseu-Pseudio ... are you OK? [Confused] [Wink]

 

Sorry, I've just been looking at too much doom and gloom lately............................

[Michelle ggurl]

Neil, the Ebert & Roper analogy is a very good one, thanks for that! Indeed, there are very few critics/Self-deemed Denizens of Culture who can honestly claim that kind of perspective. BTW, I too love "Jumpin' Jive"! But, on topic, I'm sure it wouldn't surprise if I told you there are some jazz aficionados who'd say that isn't real jazz.

 

Pseudonym, don't worry about me ... Sounds like you got crushed somewhere along the way, fairly young ... well, even if I were so lucky as to ever see a review of my music in print, it certainly wouldn't drive me to drugs or drink. Besides I've been around a while, and I've seen as well as heard of (directly from the people involved) some pretty harrowing things in this business.

 

Not to mention that do actually have a background in journalism, and I know it's anything but objective.