Should music writing have a knowledge of musicality? Is ILM representative of music fandom in general?

When I write I think the best I can do is to come up with ideas about how I think the song works while being unable to trace back to why, musicologically speaking, it works that way. I think the 'how' is very interesting, though. But then I would.

ILM is not in any way representative of music fandom in general. I'm not sure where that bit's heading either!

to be honest i find formalist criticism of movies *and* of music a bit boring, and also quasi-scientific. last night i was reading about a film from 1929 which was part silent, part sound (sound in only two scenes). the writer had only seen the film as a silent print, and it wasn't a good print, and yet he was making all kinds of wild post-structuralist hay out of details you'd only see if you ran the thing back and forth, as you surely wouldn't have done in the odeon of 1929.

Do you need a knowledge of musicality to be able to 'critique' Babyshambles, for example, when most of their basis for existing is based on their image/lyrics/personality?

xpost

franz ferdinand are a worthless pile of offal and it is convenient in several corners of the industry for them to be commercially successful, although given that their new album has already fallen to number five in its second week of release, we will hopefully be seeing the back of those chancers soon.

This changes everything.

I'm kind of tired so I don't have any real coherent thoughts right now. I'll try again this afternoon and after some other people have chimed in.

The interesting, unspoken part of Dominique's statement is the question - OK, why did pop music criticism become like this? How come its practitioners ended up with these different sets of expectations and requirements?

I'm sort of intrigued by the way film crit keeps getting cited here, because the film crit in say newspapers, and even in mass-market film mags like Empire, doesn't make a great virtue of technical knowledge. Are all those critics people who HAVE that knowledge but know not to express it for uninterested readers?

yes, you would end up learning a lot about theory in this process, but ideally, you'd learn more about "music", "art" and how they relate in real, relevant ways to the rest of the world

A critic should always bear in mind the form-vs-content dialectic. To apply so much structuralist erudition to, say, "Since U Been Gone" or a Michael Curtiz film makes you look real silly.

Sometimes it's useful. Last week, Dan and I had a lively debate on the Killers vs Maroon 5 about head vs chest voices.

Then again, I'm constantly making exceptions. Good writing is the ideal balm.

This strikes me as an unnecessary question.

I am also vaguelly suspicious of the idea that if one knows a great deal about music technique then one can end up admiring stuff rather than liking it (or liking it because you admire it) - I had a friend at university like this, and listening and talking about music with him was a nightmare because anything I liked he would decry because it wasn't formally complex enough, no matter what reasons I gave for liking things.

Double-X - both explain why please!

X-post - Mark OTM.

magazine reviewers are quite different from newspaper reviewers, and i think they tend to know more about filmmaking, or aspects thereof. often broadsheet reviewers are failed men of letters who are there to crack wise. not all of them, though -- and also 'technique' in film runs to some things they do understand: drama, acting, script, those things, if not more specifically 'filmy' stuff like sfx. so you get much more film crit about acting than you do music crit about singing. maybe.

A critic should always bear in mind the form-vs-content dialectic. To apply so much structuralist erudition to, say, "Since U Been Gone" or a Michael Curtiz film makes you look real silly.

i'm baffled by this, from start to finish.

Nick, I think those are good points (and maybe reason why you don't see this kind of analysis in pop music crit). I don't personally believe one has to like a piece of music to write about it in depth. One can "admire" a painting and not like it, right? One can admire a person, and not particularly feel like hanging out with him. At a point, what's relevant is a judgment call (just like art) - in the process of writing about this stuff, yes, I think that there are going to be a lot of judgment calls made about what is and isn't important, but I thought that's what writing about music in detail was about anyway.

(xpost: There are a lot of chord progressions in homespun beats that are essentially first-year music theory problem sets; also, seeing as gear plays such an important part in beat construction, I don't think that analyzing the sequencing patterns of loops and the variations introduced over the duration of the track is any different to analyzing the way someone plays a guitar and which strings they choose to solo on etc etc etc. The fact that it isn't a "traditional" musical instrument doesn't mean that there can't be any type of basic theory behind its use.)

XTC and Bach are greater than Wutang Clans and Grandmother Flash. Fact.

I understand, and that's good, but there's something implicitly patronizing about the approach. It reminds me of those high school English teachers who still bore their children to tears praising Dylan and Tupac as "poets" and then comparing their lyrics to T.S. Eliot and Ginsberg.

I love "Since U Been Gone" to death!

i'm baffled because
i) structuralist theory (which i hate) is usually very ignorant of how music/films are made
ii) but it has been used on popular culture as much as 'high art'
iii) what is the form-content dialectic?

Tom OTM re: film criticism. The amount of technical knowledge required to review movies today is equitable to knowing what guitars and "hooks" are. Magazine film reviews are equitable to throwing around words like auto-tune and melisma.
-- miccio (anthonyisrigh...)

maybe this is true -- haha i tend tonly to read very old magazines about film, and things were better 'back then'.

The interplay and tension between form and content.

actually Mark, I think one of the good things about theory is that one doesn't have to be aware of doing something to do it. it's an objective thing - just like in sociology, one doesn't have to be aware of being a racist in order to act like one (as defined by the discipline).

as for hip-hop, I agree - but then gear and having a good ear (which btw is half of what they teach you in music theory classes - they call it "ear training") are both technical aspects of music, and not so unrelated to "theory"

patronising cunt

I guess if you equate having more than a surface knowledge about how something works with being patronizing about it, that makes sense.

(xpost: again Dom OTM)

i think TS would see yer man allen as FIRMLY in the tupac/dylan camp. and so in fact would ginsberg.

iii) what is the form-content dialectic?
The interplay and tension between form and content.

-- Alfred Soto (sotoal...)

and what is this 'content'? how do you get to the content?

I'd love to read something comparing Eliot's method's with DJ Shadow's, actually. That would be awesome.

A lot of what makes writing criticism so fun is that as a critic you MUST define, and then, probably in the next sentence, affirm how such and such album is a little different from the paradigms you just outlined.

Word counts have so much to answer for.

Critics do it all the time! Because you're placing an album within a tradition, and then you either show how it's part of the tradition or how it disrupts it.

This is the post I keep coming back to. I think it's not wrong exactly, but oddly emphasised. Isn't the problem that pop music, unlike film and jazz and visual arts and literary criticism, has almost never developed vehicles for 'serious' specialist criticism, the equivalents of Sight And Sound or Frieze or whatever? Because actually the bulk of published film and art and book criticism shies away from technical criticism.

Obv. there's The Wire and the story of why The Wire went for non-technical obfuscation instead of the technical kind is indeed interesting.

(There's also the sense I get that a lot of art and lit criticism doesn't actually take the 'technical' (in the sense of 'how exactly these effects are achieved') into account, the specialist knowledge required is a knowledge of theory not practise.)

Yeah, but before or after they hear the music? I'm no genius of music theory, but I know a thing or two (I played for 20 years), and I try to work that in when I can. I find a lot of the impressionistic, non-technical approach lacking in being able to give a sense of what the music sounds like to someone who hasn't heard it. It often does an excellent job of recapitulating the experience for a reader who's heard the record: "Yes! Sunlight through leaves! That's exactly what it sounds like!" But "sunlight through leaves" can sound like a lot of things, and if I haven't heard the record, I'm not helped as much.

move along, there's nothing to see here.

Does the average record buyer and review reader need to be interested for it to be a desirable thing? Like Dominique and Dan, I'd be very interested in reading this kind of pop music writing.

I think this is really key.

On the other side, Pauline Kael was contemptuous of theory and still evoked what a film looked and sounded like better than any of her contemporaries.

(I'm hungover and my grammar and theorizing skills are shit today, which is why I probably deserve most of the darts coming my way).

-- Tom (freakytrigge...), October 19th, 2005

film was the first mass medium to have to fight to 'get taken seriously', and a lot of film culture (especially sight and sound -- of course, it was until this year govt-funded...) bears the scars of that engagement. film and books ect are also academic subjects in a way that pop isn't, hence the kind of hackademic slant you get in the 'serious' film mags. this is really only an effect of the last 20-30 years, though.

music writing, and indeed all criticism, should be geared towards the audience who will be reading it. end of. a 100w film review in a tabloid is no less culturally valid than a 5,000w academic treatise: they're simply doing different jobs for different audiences.
move along, there's nothing to see here.

it's not that pat, is it, because these audiences overlap. there's no point in the academic treatise if it doesn't feed into the 100wd reviews. which is why i do both obv.

On the other side, Pauline Kael was contemptuous of theory and still evoked what a film looked and sounded like better than any of her contemporaries.

-- Alfred Soto (sotoal...)

haha yeah right.

Tom, I totally agree - but IMO pop music isn't viewed as a field of expression by most people in the same way as literature or visual art (esp visual art). However, I'm not sure visual art, for example, was always written about the way it is now (and I disagree about art crit, I can't tell you how many painting critiques I've read that discuss how the painting was made - I mean, genre names like "minimalism" or "cubism" tell you a lot) - I think a long time ago, people used to write about it much more at "face value" than by trying to dissect it (in the hopes of revealing a truth that expands beyond the canvas).

There is also the notion that any art form, given time and support, will eventually aquire a formalism that makes writing about technical aspects of it not only appropriate, but necessary. (whether or not this kills all the fun is open to debate)

a) write well and

b) have a good working knowledge of music making; music theory; music history; literary criticism; sociology; sound engineering; video making; marketing; economics; fashion which they would

c) apply incisively to make points, rather than show off.

very few, directly, but before the 70s, when a lot of film-crit energy got siphoned into the academy, middlebrow crit was much higher brow than it is now. it's not so much a matter of referring to theory, as of letting the ideas percolate. i doubt that i'd really trust simon reynolds *as a philosopher* but those ideas 'made the text go' for him.

Peter Pedantic, it's not that difficult. We contexualize. We do it all the time on ILM. To take a random example, I hear Liz Phair's new album, it sounds as slick and professional as the last one, only the arrangements are looser and tougher, and songwriting is weaker.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; maybe I'm not being clear.

While I think that technical knowledge can make your descriptions more acute, I don't hunger for more pieces that announce its employment, because they tend to have really fucked-up value systems. In film you really get people who are hungry to appreciate the work at a higher level than most, to the point where they just reward pretension. A classic example John Huston used to talk about was how TIME magazine would end reviews by describing "the best shot," which was usually a person reflected in a doorknob or some equally ridiculous bit of directorial flamboyance.

I think a bigger problem is writers who presume to much and make more informed readers' heads explode with their brazen inaccuracy. I don't think demanding they rush to express their "knowledge of musicality" is going to cut back on the pomposity.

Exactly! Some of the writing on Billy Wilder and Howard Hawks also borders on the absurd.

This tells me absolutely nothing about the new Liz Phair album because I never heard the previous one and is a classic example of how half the musical discourse on this forum is useless.

well, it's all about context isn't it? but this kind of shot-reverse-shot chauvinism is why most hollywood filmmaking has always been, formally, redundant (and of course why the auteur theory was wishful thinking). i mean ffs it's a visual medium, of course you should talk about, like, how it looks! but i'm not very interested in huston.

alfred -- that's because hawks and wilder had next to no visual sense at all!!!!!!

Neither did John Huston!

Or rather, "useless to someone who isn't already more than passingly familiar with the artist in question".

But that's the rub. As a reader I don't give a damn about Animal Collective, so I'll probably skip the review, no matter how well-written.

x-post I read some NME collection of britpop articles the other day and those people are high.

"Some implied knowledge" shouldn't be "a comparatively nuanced understanding of Artist X's back-catalogue and passing familiarity with three [3] of Artist X's artistic inspirations". I rarely venture onto threads that aren't about artists I already know very well because it seems like no one is willing to have a ground-level conversation about anyone who isn't a Brand! New! Artist! One reason why I wish people would spend more time talking about the way the songs are constructed and rhythms/tempos/key signatures/etc is because that is a language that I know and it's common to EVERY SINGLE PERSON OR GROUP EVER DISCUSSED HERE; using those terms as the foundation for your conversation gives the people who have no clue about the artist/genre in question a hook upon which to glean something from the conversation beyond "So-and-so likes band X and hates band Y".

Depending on how long ago you're talking, that probably has to do with the fact that an art journal can now have large, full-color pictures of the work in question.

But that's the rub. As a reader I don't give a damn about Animal Collective, so I'll probably skip the review, no matter how well-written.

-- Alfred Soto (sotoal...), October 19th, 2005. (Alfred Soto)

But how do you know you don't give a damn about Animal Collective? From having heard them, right?

Dan's right; words such as "tougher" and "weaker" don't say much (particularly "weaker" songwriting). "Looser" means something, but only because I've heard some Liz Phair, including her previous album.

-- Geir Hongro (geirhon...), February 4th, 2004.

I generally like a lot of stuff. But the stuff I like most is the kind of stuff that I really miss having more of in the current hitlists.

And while I have downloaded some of it to check out, I am not at all impressed by current R&B, apart from Alicia Keys and some others, who appear to have more of a musical talent than most of the rest of the bunch.

-- Geir Hongro (geirhon...), February 4th, 2004.

I guess the ideal rock/pop critic would

a) write well and

b) have a good working knowledge of music making; music theory; music history; literary criticism; sociology; sound engineering; video making; marketing; economics; fashion which they would

c) apply incisively to make points, rather than show off.

ha sounds like the infamous Univ of Liverpool masters degree course:

http://www.liv.ac.uk/music/postgraduate/ma_popmus/programme.htm

MA in Popular Music: Programme structure

The MA Popular Music Studies programme is made up of a mix of core and optional modules. Students complete eight modules and a dissertation to achieve the MA award. The taught component is delivered over two semesters. Students select two core modules and two optional modules per semester.

There are four core (compulsory) modules:

MUSI 510: Studying Popular Music 15 credits
MUSI 508: Popular Music and Daily Life 15 credits
MUSI 512: Topics in History 15 credits
MUSI 511: Textual Analysis 15 credits

In addition to these modules, students complete four option modules from a choice of:

MUSI 519: Music for Film and Television 15 credits
MUSI 520: Globalisation and the Music Industry 15 credits
MUSI 507: Popular Music and the Politics of Place 15 credits
MUSI 517: Independent Projects 1 15 credits
MUSI 521: Critical Music Analysis 15 credits
MUSI 516: Music and the Legal System 15 credits
MUSI 518: Independent Projects 2 15 credits
MUSI 309: Advanced Music Technology 15 credits
MUSI 525: Composition for Film and Television 15 credits

Dan's right; words such as "tougher" and "weaker" don't say much (particularly "weaker" songwriting). "Looser" means something, but only because I've heard some Liz Phair, including her previous album.

My adjectives were an attempt at shorthand; I published a longer review in Stylus if anyone's interested.

But Dan underestimates how educational a lot of the artist threads are; for example, every New Order and Pet Shop Boys thread to which he (and I) contribute frequently will have posts in which people will approvingly cite "the way the songs are constructed and rhythms/tempos/key signatures/."

I only get uneasy when such talk becomes too abstruse, as in "The Pretenders' `Tattooed Love Boys'" is so great BECAUSE it's in 7/8 [someone correct this if I'm wrong :] time."

It's also a matter of (the eternal question) whether criticism should be more for the purpose of illuminating something the reader has already heard or for letting them know about something they haven't. Knowledge of music theory is probably more useful for the first purpose than for the second.

Not really the point though, is it. Being able to recognize if something is in the key of G makes you a better critic so that you don't have to say something stupid like, "something about the songs feels very samey" or give them more credit than they deserve in other regards.

Edd Hurt also OTM.

It's funny because "crescendo" is one of the most misused pop-crit terms out there! People use it whenever they hear a series of ascending chords!

Counterpoint: How many reviews of the first Raveonettes record talked up the point that all the songs were in Bbm, as if anyone cared?

If you write for Entertainment Weekly on the other hand, you have to assume that a lot of your readers are probably celebrity junkies or movie buffs who just happen to also be flipping through the music section. Nick Drake might fly, as a more "obscure" reference, but Bert Jansch or Pearls Before Swine would probably fly over people's heads.

Most of the time, I think, people have the ability to understand unknown terms in context. "Non-proliferation," let's say - one may not know what it is but ne would get a feeling that it has to do with NOT making MORE oof something.

Okay, now we're way the fuck off-topic, sorry.

Part of the big problem with writing about music or art or even literature (generally) is that most people think about music or art in comparative ways. While the tonal structure is fixed (A4=440Hz), I think that most people think of notes in terms of higher or lower than what's around them, sort of like how colors are percieved dependent upon the background.
And besides, I rarely want to write about a band being piccolo or forte...

Right, sure. I love the odd-time bits, but if I were writing about it I'd have to explain WHY they helped the song. (By the way, it alternates 7/4 with 8/4. Sorry.)

It's also a matter of (the eternal question) whether criticism should be more for the purpose of illuminating something the reader has already heard or for letting them know about something they haven't. Knowledge of music theory is probably more useful for the first purpose than for the second.

Good point. I assume the former, but that's not always true, is it? Depends on the piece, I guess: a 250-word piece on a record that hasn't even come out yet would be the former, I think, as would a passage about a record that's part of a live-show preview-interview (which is 90% of what I write). But for a piece on, say, the Rolling Stones that isn't going to come out until a month after the record's been released, you can probably assume it's been heard.

I know, at least through my group of friends, that most people who don't consider a love of music to be central to their identity really don't have the bredth of background to be able to what someone means when they say a song is "She's Lost Control meets I Want Candy."

I don't know what that means either. What aspect of She's Lost Control meets what aspect of I Want Candy?

I too get bugged when someone talks about a song in 6/8 or in 5/4 or whatever and simply calls it "odd time signature" or something.

...

Knowing the word "crescendo" obviates the need to say "it gets louder and louder", knowing what 7/8 is prevents you from having to say "something about it is jerky" and not knowing what, etc.

That also depends whom you're writing for - and who's editing you. Sometimes I know that a song is jerky (though that's not a word I usually use) because it's in 5/4, but I can't just say "it's in 5/4." I have to describe the feeling that the 5/4 evokes. By which point, keeping an eye on the word count, I might as well ditch the 5/4. Heck, I once had to fight to keep the word "unisons" in a review, which seems pretty straightforward to me.

the correct assumption that his audience is a) really smart and b) just happens to not have any fucking idea what he's talking about.

That is the ideal, isn't it? Ultimately, you have to tell the redaer how the music makes you feel, but also why it makes you feel that way. And sometimes some knowledge of how music was made helps. And you should be able to assume that your reader may not know, but wants to.

Sure, but mentioning that they're all in the same key 1) explains, to the people who do understand, why the songs are similar and 2) explains, to the people who don't understand, that you are someone who really does know a thing or two about music and thus should be listened to. All for the "price" of seven words.

And besides, I rarely want to write about a band being piccolo or forte...

Well, yeah. Pop music is generally not made with those precise terms in mind. Quiet and loud, however ...

Right. And all he/she had to say was "the chord structure of She's Lost Control and the rhythm of I Want Candy" (or whatever) and a huge percentage of the readership would get it.

nope...it isnt created or traded in the same way at all. i have always thought it was a mistake to think film writing should have much of anything to do with music criticsm in grand sense (though some means of writing ina formal sense will overlap). And one of the tricks with pop music is the fact that it doesnt really exist as something people really want criticsm of. people wanna dance and chew gum to pop music. and a variety of other things. we can't really treat a comodity as flexible as pop music is inthe same way we treat film.

You may be assuming too much here. For instance, if I read a review that praised an album for having a "totally tight and focused sound with little excess to slow them down" and I buy it only to find out that what the reviewer really means is every song is in the key of G and there are only 10 2-3 minute songs, all of which are truly simple but not performed by any means "tightly," then such a review has no value to me. In fact, it convinced me to waste money on an album I dislike, so it is less than worthless.

I think I have seen you say this before, but it's a really great (and astute!) observation.

to an end i agree, but i think a good writer can have a lot of effect with synesthesia (granted i still use a chunk of decadent writing as inspiration for my own wrk which may or may not fail due to excessive synesthesi). i think the needs and skill s of an audience need to be considered and that a good writer can explain what hes trying to say when using technical terms in other words.

one thing i tend to ask my writers to do is to look for what they mean when they say x sounds like y or use a bit of jargon is what that comparison or phrase would mean and say that (wrd count does make things hard). thats no grand revelation, but it seems to not occur often enough

again, a good writer should be able to use his knowledge to craft a text which informs, inspires, and educates. and the good writer does that slyly. like a good teacher does.

now to catch up again

and rick is damnedrigt to position the need for technical knowledge in criticsm at all. that knowledge can lend weight and explain, or atleast posit, why somehing works. that needn't be obnoxious.

i think that complaint is often in the minds of readers, but is worth considering while in the processof writing. sometimes reminding yrself to avoid sondig like a prick/prat can help you get down to some tighter wordsmithing.

if any of my writers are reading: surrey.

i do think (despite the specialness of this "community") that weve seen enough evidence here to encourage an editorial shift. lets hope it works.

but Ned, what of all the people who like stuff 'cause its fun, or dirty, or is elliot smith?

you can't deny that ther are huge blocks of fans/listeners who deal with music as a primarily emotional utility.

my mother could care for craft, and perhaps that why she seems to care for crap, yet will buy music and listen intently.

I thought the rule was we hated fun.

or dirty

Kate and dronerock boys to thread.

is elliot smith?

He dead.

as i often try and write to the emotional/experential side of a record, i agree pretty much whole-hog, especially since the stuff i write about is usually more on the experimantal/art-rock side. at the same time, i think my writing would/cold be better if i could provide a better foundation. though i don't really want that foundation to be visable, cause that does tend to be a bit boring or alientating.

I find it difficult to grasp technical dissections unless I already know the songs. I'm sure this is indicative of my knowledge of musicality, i.e. if I knew more, then I'd be better at constructing sounds in my head based on a "cold" reading of a technical review (and that is exactly what people are suggesting that a more musically versed readers and writers should be able to do).

i know exactly how you feel. i always listen to as much as i can, but.....

(plus were basicly on hiatus right now..so i'm having trouble motivating.)

way to out me Mark! ;) Actually, in the grand scheme of things, my interest in theory isn't something I queue up before I write a review - it's one of those things that I have at my disposal if it feels relevant at the time. (I'm sure it affects my analysis in subtle ways that I couldn't articulate - and I do believe that the form of music, on its own terms, is sufficiently interesting and relevant to warrant being part of the discussion of music in general)

"decrescendo" would be an odd word to precede a cock flex with.

I don't think an expansive knowledge of music theory is going to create a better rock critic (I like Chuck Klosterman, fer Christ's sake) but it might add to a critic's appreciation of the more subtle elements of music.

Snotty answer: I expect a critic to know more about the inner workings of music than I do.
Realistic answer: Entertain me, damn it!

i was waiting for that..

(and js: i was mostly kiding, but i've never bought the whole saddle creek stable. and i still don't by sufjan either (i'm confused by blog-rock). and i dont think a better grip on theory or music making would help in either case).

and to tack on to darin: it would also aid the reader's ability to hear it too.

Namechecking. I don't mind it when a reviewer describes a new band's sound by comparing it to another group that the audience knows. Although it's an overused technique ("No effin way, they sound like MBV too?!"), it can provide a valuable reference point to readers. I've found a few great bands this way, and more importantly, I've learned to recognize when I probably won't like a band. When I write, I always think how could I quickly but accurately describe this band to someone I just met at a party? You'd probably start with a few comparisons: "Well, it kind of sounds like a mix of Television, the Smiths, and Joy Division." And if you've had a few drinks, you might even be bolder: "The guitarist has a technique similar to Verlaine on Marquee Moon but with the melodic ear of Johnny Marr. Oh yeah, the singer sounds dead nuts like Ian Curtis. Fucking creepy. Hey, do you wanna make out now?" Of course, you can get into trouble if you start name dropping just for show, but if done tastefully, it can really help give readers a context.

Alliteration - I'm a sucker for this because I think it works. I appreciate it when a review contains words like "lush" and "buzz" and "murmur" because it gives me a feeling about how the record sounds. And sometimes its just the image that a word or phrase conveys that sticks in people's heads. I'll never forget buying Pretty Hate Machine in high school because I read a review that said something like "...melodies buried beneath concrete-shattering riffs..." (now whether or not that was true is another matter.) Anyone who reads a lot knows that very few people in this world have time to pore through every article word for word. Human beings are just too freaking busy and there is so much shit to get done that we try to do things as efficiently as they can. We browse, we skim, we cut corners...it's in our nature. Musicians like Beck are skilled at writing lyrics that convey meaning just because of the way they sound when sung aloud. And a good reviewer does the same - she chooses her words carefully because the way they look on paper and they way they sound in our heads (should) communicate something relevant about the music.

yr goddamnedright

I disagree. Beavis and Butt-head spent a lot of their airtime criticizing the music that was presented to them.

Phish is phenomenally fantastic for fancy fretwork frenetically fused with fun far-reatching freakishness, which occasionally flies into full-on foolishness. But, if you feel in fact you've heard that before, you may be fully surprised to find it refreshingly none too familiar.

Actually that's onomatopoeia, I think.

(xpost DAMMIT too slow)

I made the same mistake on my 10th grade English exam.

Thanks.

My critical side is constantly at war with the impulse described above -- a more impressionistic form of reader-response theory, critic-as-artist, that sort of thing -- and the Gore Vidal dictum, which states that a good critic's job is just to describe without fuss what he reads, listens, watches, etc.

Take a descriptive passage, not about music: "The room was dark and shabby, and had little decoration. The main piece of furniture was a card table, at which a couple of men sat in silence. One was counting a wad of money. The other squinted at a sheet of paper." Now, when you read that passage, you will see a table in your mind's eye, and men, and you might even add a dim lamp in the corner, and situate the scene in relation to north and south, perhaps adding details from a room you remember from childhood, or from a crime movie you saw the other day. So your imagination will rise to meet those words and create a rather vivid picture, even if your picture doesn't match the one in my own mind when I wrote the passage. But if I were to add, "An old radio in the corner was turned low; a dreary country and western song competed with static, but no one bothered to reset the dial, or hit the off switch." Now notice something: When I wrote the simple words "card table," you pictured a table. But when I wrote "country and western song," you didn't hear a hear a melody. I suppose if I'd written "Your Cheatin' Heart," you might get that melody in your mind, but you most likely wouldn't even do that.

So music description feels vague and imprecise in comparison to visual description, since our mind's ear can't conjure the vividness that our mind's eye seems to add automatically. In fact, the voice we hear when we read isn't the singer's but the author's. When I read a Tom Ewing or a Dan Perry, the sound I hear is his writer's voice, not the sound of what he's describing.

So in reading music criticism there's built-in dissatisfaction; we're not feeling the music on the page, and we wish something would make up this deficiency. This dissatisfaction might be one reason we desire that music writing be more technical. We hope for a precision that will compensate for the emptiness in our mind's ear. But the technical terminology won't do this for us, though of course it has other value.

I don't think this is a fair comparison, because the descriptive passage you give is not only not about music but is not about art at all. This card-table paragraph has a different purpose from music criticism.

I suppose if I'd written "Your Cheatin' Heart," you might get that melody in your mind, but you most likely wouldn't even do that.

I wouldn't assume that. (Of course, a whole range of literary writers and critics would say that there is such a thing as too much detail, but that's another discussion.)

This dissatisfaction might be one reason we desire that music writing be more technical.

Maybe, but I think it's more a belief (expressed by others above) that more music readers know a little about the details of music and recording than they're generally given credit for.

I will now buy Frank a drink.
-- Alfred Soto (sotoal...)

Wish I could be part of that.

I agree wholeheartedly. Often, there's an emptiness in writing it as well. By nature, words that describe sounds will always pale in comparison to the sounds themselves. Music must be heard to be felt. But still there are days when I say, "I WILL find a new way to express this."

It is a labor for the damned.

You're saying that counting money isn't an art?

Dan, it's because basic to a lot of communication - and to a lot of thought, period - is to describe the unfamiliar in terms of the familiar, and then modify your description so as to explain/understand how what you're describing differs from the thing you initially identified it with. For instance, "What does Tania look like?" "Well, she's got an oval face and straight hair like Sarah's, and medium-brown hair, also like Sarah's but a bit lighter. And come to think of it, her face has got more angles than Sarah's. Not that it's that angular. You wouldn't want to play pool on it. But it's got a few more bumps and hollows."

(xpost)

The music critic with a strong sense of history and theory serves a purpose, but not if his voice as a critic is thereby weakened by an unnecessary focus on peripheral matters. Lester Bangs, for example, is just fine as he was, and I don't think he would have been better if he digressed infinitely about harmony and the history of the blues and whatnot. In fact, it probably would have lessened his power to some degree.

It certainly doesn't have to be a digression, but in practice it's often the case, you must admit.

But I still get your point.

If you're not going to consider music as art/craft, why bother writing about it at all? I mean how much can you say about the pure experience of being consumed emotionally, and how much of it will translate to your audience?

This thread made me start thinking about film criticism. Film is something I like and appreciate but don't know a great deal about - never took a class, never read any major books on it or anything. But I've picked up a few terms here and there and I find them not only useful but illuminating. I'm actually kind of excited by formal discussions of film, because when I find a moment in a film exciting, knowing more about what that moment is only makes it more exciting. I mean there's this double consciousness thing going on where on one hand you're just overwhelmed by a certain shot and on the other hand you're aware that there was a man who decided exactly how to set up and frame that shot, that you're looking at something manipulated, not just an exciting slice of reality, which is, like, really cool.

I think the same thing can happen in music too - knowing John Coltrane is taking a popular standard and reharmonizing it, and that it's in 6/8, and that it uses an ostinato bass figure or whatever, and also just finding it really mezmerizing and overwhelming.

OTM, especially if you're planning on getting paid for it. Beyond that, criticism is whatever you want it to be. Make an argument, fortify/elaborate with evidence, and offer conclusions.

Have you ever considered that cliches are something people repeat over and over again because they're true? Well, if you want something more challenging to mull over, how about this; a film director (can't remember who - Tarkovsky? Godard?) was once asked about the relation of literature to cinema, about how one adapts a book for the screen, and he responded "Literature is smelted in the forge of cinema." Which is a poetic way of saying that a book gets destroyed when it's brought to the screen, and there's nothing wrong with that; it's part of the process of creating something new. So maybe dancing about architecture isn't such an ignoble goal for music criticism after all - it's just that music critics are often bad dancers...

The best music criticism can't / shouldn't be boiled down to two parts music theory, one part sociology, three parts aesthetics. You can either write about music well, or you can't. You can be a great music critic with a bare grasp of the fundamentals, or a bad one with an extensive knowledge of the nuts and bolts. Or vice versa.

In general, music reviews suck because so few critics challenge themselves. Most of what passes for "music criticism" is garden variety journalism. I can't imagine that a general knowledge of music theory would improve the situation - it might make it even more boring than it already is. Few people can consistently explain why a piece of music is good, explain why we should care, or successfully ground a review in the context of the readers/writer's lives and experiences. The writing is rarely as sensuous as the subject - so why bother?

Why is it like this? A bunch of reasons, some of which have been cited above; 1) most writing about music is driven by the soulless vacuum cycle of the newspaper / magazine / recording industry, 2) there is no formal academic study of music criticism, 3) lack of serious journals, 4) lack of mentoring among critics, 5) music fans are lazy bastards, 6) I'll throw in another cliche for good measure, "Rock journalism is mainly people who can't write, interviewing people who can't speak, for people who can't read." But I'd mostly blame the musicians who can't speak. It seems that in music, more so than in literature, art, or cinema, the artists are largely inarticulate about their own work. I'm assuming a lot of people here have interviewed a musician - it's illuminating, innit?

And the "demise" of music theory in music journalism doesn't have anything to do with punk - I'm sure the classic rock fans who sneer at the punk rockers that don't care about formalism sound an awful lot like the jazz journalists who sneered at the idiots who took pop music like Led Zep or The Beatles seriously (just like the jazz journalists had been sneered at by the classical music journalists).

Personally, the reason I read music reviews is the same reason I read the morning paper; to find out what's going on. I don't expect to learn anything. I wish to hell somebody would go about changing that.

well, i head 'visions of johanna'.

shockingly I found myself OTM-ing Dan Perry's every post!!!

Yeah, but Christ, some of the writing that bores me the most is when Pitchfork writers try to do this with every goddamned release. And, frankly, it's very, very, very rare that I give a shit about the writer's life in the review/writing. Maybe it's because I come from a straight journalism background, but when reviews start with the word "I" it tends to mean a shitty self-indulgent review is on its way.

Seconded, but it's not just Pitchfork. personal-anecdote-as-way-in sort of rules the roost right now, and it's not a terrible approach, just really tired & overdone; not every review need begin with some comp-class conceit. One might, shock horror, even start addressing the musical content of the item in question in the first line of the review. The first line of the first paragraph, not the second.

I view this whole problem as 1) rather more spiritual than technical in nature and 2) probably a function of youth vs age, which is the elephant in this thread's living room I think

http://content.ytmnd.com//60000/60849/image.gif

In fact, maybe reviewers should always put a little picture of themselves in the corner, as is sometimes the case, so you can see who's giving you their opinion and better judge if you should waste your time reading it.

You're right hurting. My questioning in regard to emotional consumption was wondering whether or not I should care how a record has that emotional effect. And when/how rigorously considering how that might happen should be woven into review copy.

it was the "in fact" that had me reading it that way I think, my bad

that, btw, is the truth of it. So then, the crux of the writer is to explain to the reader why the craft is interesting (esp if that reader is the sort that goes the emotional consumption route). Having the ability to consider the musicality of the piece, then seems almost necessary. It might be the difference between the critic and the consumer that allows the critic to effectively explain.

1.) Spiritual vs. technical 2.) Youth vs. age

Good points, which is why we have all different sorts of reviewers, obviously. It is somewhat frustrating to me that a lot of reviews are geared toward a mindset I frequently find myself identifying as "for kids," but I suppose that only stands to reason since pop music is a youth-targeted product for the most part and the readership of those magazines and columns is largely under the age of 40, I would imagine. To tie this in with my comment about the bling bling guy in that gif image, the "spirit" and [mental?] age of the dude in that image is exactly why I wouldn't want to waste my time on one of his reviews (although if a review was stuck right there in the middle of the paper, I probably would read it out of curiosity). But, someone else would, no doubt, immediately be interested in what this person has to say based on the very things that turn me off about the gif image. Of course, you don't need to include a picture of the reviewer; spirit and age is conveyed in reviews by the language used. It might take more time to get a bead on it, it might not. It is represented in the very qualities you single out and I'm going to go with a more technical, mature viewpoint every time over a spirited youthful one.

-- js (roc...), October 20th, 2005.

I agree with you. But I'm not saying that there's no one trying - it's that so few music writers consistently pull it off successfully. Perhaps they would be greater in number if some of the factors I mentioned above were in place. If music journalists had their asses kicked by teachers and editors the way real journalists (*ducks*) and creative writers do, maybe the quality level would inch a little higher.

The goal is not to turn every record review into a confession booth - the goal is to write well. Be engaging. I don't care if you want to write about 7/8 time signatures and the pentatonic scale - if you're writing well, it will be engaging. Maybe I'm an old idealogue, but my question is, if the record review were a book, would you sit down and read it? Will this review make any sense 10 years from now?

Having a review be relevant to someone's life and experiences doesn't mean the new Sufjan Stevens album reminds me of the time grandma backed her Lincoln-Continental over my cat, and boy did that make me sad. What makes his music meaningful? What is it about longing that feels right? Why do we crave sad songs?

If you want to talk about how his time signatures and chord progressions do or don't support his aesthetics, great. But if I read a review that says "Tattooed Love Boys" has a 7/8 signature, I'd hear some warning bells. Why not say it has an irregular time signature? A jagged rhythm? A disorienting rhythm? If the writer isn't adding some value during the transmission of his technical understanding to the reader, it's going to be a slow read. Of course, if your writing is compelling enough, maybe you'll make me look up what a 7/8 time signature is. But it's not going to be compelling if there isn't some substance besides a technical analysis. People react emotionally to music. End of story.

I'll throw in here that unlike poetry, prose, painting, sculpture, film, etc., music is not a representational art form. Most other art forms simulate real objects, making writing about them a bit more grounded in an everday world of nouns and verbs - music is just music. It doesn't represent anything but itself. This alone makes it challenging to come up with the proper language to analyze it.

Is there anyone in academia doing systematic study of human's perception of music? Of understanding how people are affected by music, and what terms the lay person uses / understands when describing music? Would a rock journalist study such things, even if they existed, in order to better his/her writing? Is anybody reflecting on the nature of music? Is there a philosophy of music?

Ah, fuck it. I'm gonna go put on some Sabbath.

You are also the 1,000,000th person to use this cliche.

Much like warning bells go off in your head when you see explicit mentions to specific time signatures, warning bells go off in my head when I see people actively championing ignorance. Your entire argument boils down to an anti-intellectual stance that disparages learning or writing about music from a technical or theoretical standpoint; your "it needs to be written well" point is completely immaterial because if a review IS written-well, it doesn't matter what tools were used to get the point across and there's no particular point in talking about how talking technical ruins music writing.

Ack! I've been busted.

Wow, I've never been charged with that! I'm starting to like this place.

Your entire argument boils down to an anti-intellectual stance that disparages learning or writing about music from a technical or theoretical standpoint;

Glad to hear you've boiled down my argument; maybe if you read it a few more times you'll start to understand it.

Me.

In case you were being serious (Ned, sometimes I have a hard time telling with you)...

1) Music criticism is a multi-faceted thing. A music critic should have some understanding of theory, history, aesthetics, sociology, but most of all a good understanding of how people process and experience music.

2) First and foremost, music critics are writers. Working on improving writing/reasoning skills will make you a better music critic than studying music theory, even if you are taking a purely technical approach in your writing.

3) A more formalized avenue of study than interning at Spin and hanging out at the Knitting Factory is required to realize points #1 and #2.

4) While there are methods to pursue a formal study of music theory, there are far fewer to pursue a formal study of music criticism. A higher priority, then, would be to create this formal study.

Ergo create the environment to realize points #1 and #2. If necessary, the technical will follow.

Caveat: Great writers break all the rules.

All my love,
The anti-intellectual

anyway the problem is that a vocabulary for pop CAN exist, but terms developed in the production of classic music are only partially successful. the modern avant-garde in its own way ran into this issue -- that music theory 101 or even 4000 only describes a limited subset of the vast sonic possibilities of people making noise. you need ot be able to count, sure, but when timbaland calls certain drums "dirty" that's also a technical term, but one that only means the same thing to a limited subset of ppl. timbo's dirty drums and dj paul's dirty drums are probably a very different thing. so if you asked either to make the drums dirtier they'd do something different and if you asked either what the other did they'd describe it differently. music's unvoicability is a block language where everyone is shouting orders and making up new rules as they go, based on seeing one man shout orders and another, unrelatedly (maybe) tossing a block halfway across the room.

the technical vocabulary of today's music is protools and synth presets and breaks. know a boom-bap from a poum poum. know how baltimore cuts the other half of the breakbeats to draw the sound out. that's technical, and you don't need to speak a lick of cod italian.

I hope not. So is it a random/google thing to like Franz here?