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?

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?