Mr Writer!

When it comes down to it, the purpose of art is to stimulate response, i.e. criticism - it's just a pity that the word "criticism" has come to mean people bashing out hundred-word reviews of Travis for local newspapers.

otherwise, i'll be back later with an actual answer. for right now, my shower is calling me. (baaaaaaaaaaaaalllly hiiiiiiiiiigh...)

Apart from the ones who give Fosca decent reviews, who coincidentally happen to be fabulously wise and sexy human beings and are possibly the most intelligent and attractive people alive.

I'm neither a writer nor a musician.

I am a callous consumer of both their product and never let the fact that their product is produced by people who have feelings get in my way of evaluating their product.

I'm terrible at avoiding telling people what I think of their product. I've often told musicians that I am not keen on some aspect of their work. I said to emil y of this parish that her band were nearly great but the vocals lacked texture and this ruined them (I also said that the last song they played when I saw them was fantastic and it was a shame more of their songs weren't that good)

This faint praise didn't seem to bother the band too much (and I did mean it, they really are nearly great). Many musicians seem to cope with this OK as long as it isn't sneering or supercillious critisism.

But it is never wise to talk to Writers about their work. Mention that you disliked a poor piece of writing and the, uh, critisism of the critic will be received with immediate and complete hostility (see the black type on the NME letters page for examples).

I'm not sure I get how this works.

I like writers to be just as good as the best things they review, and they almost never are.

The exception to this is when it's a jazz/classical/formalised music critique. But a lot of reviewers in the indie/pop genres tend to capitalise on fashion. I mean, to an extent, that's what pop is. But it should never be more about trends than the content. As a result, things that are more considered and less cool often get passed by. And this influences musicians in turn, who, while despising critics, yearn to be lauded by them--and thusly attempt to be the "new" thing even though the "new" thing may not actually have any intrinsic worth.

It never ceases to amaze me when critics who are woefully unequipped to cover a genre does it seemingly with no shame. Wire is a perfect example--some punkass indie reviewer thinks that because he can spell Nancarrow and has heard something called twelve-tone row, that he is fully qualified to pass judgement on it. I actually read a review where someone compared Steve Reich to Tangerine Dream. The gall that it must take to assume that your know-next-to-nothing opinion is an apt judgement on work that is most probably ten or twelve levels above your head is stunning!

The usual argument from people in that situation is that all they're doing is talking about their relative perspective--and everyone's perspective is valid. Well, that might be the case, but the reason that critics get paid is because they are usually assumed to have some mastery of the genre, or at least an informed opinion to make a reasonable assessment of the value of a work on which they are passing judgment. I mean, would you want Ravi Shankar to review the latest Wu-Tang cd? (Other than for the novelty of it, I mean.) If not, then why the fuck would you want a reviewer who has grown up listening to Stereolab to review Tuval Throat Singers?

Usually a critic is some mix of all three; but in the pop world, there's just so many different disciplines and so few truly well versed critics, especially critics who can play music, that the value of the criticism shifts alot.