Originally posted by jonathanbrisby: It may be far fewer times that you'll see the technical aspect of music brought up in reviews of music in pop-culture oriented publications but then again the audience for those publications may not warrant it.
There's a symbiosis there - a rag writes what its readership will/wants to read, and the readership looks for reading material it will (understand) enjoy/agree with. Now in P4K's case, the reader base has changed dramatically in the last couple years. I think the writing has also changed. Normally I would say it's a chicken/egg type deal, but in this case it seems to me that the changing audience is responsible for the change (as I see it, tho I'm sure some people will want to say the P4K staff was already full of pompous, half-literate assholes before they made the big time).
In response to Mark's comment about this being the difference between a critic and a reviewer, I would disagree with that. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive or even separate entities. I think what we're talking about here is the difference between critics/reviewers and musicologists. Maybe I'm wrong, I'd love to hear some responses.
Discussion doesn't preclude a well-educated and well-informed opinion that includes some degree of what we'll just call real musical knowledge. Also, the proper analogy is more with a music theorist rather than a musicologist.
Discussion doesn't preclude a well-educated and well-informed opinion that includes some degree of what we'll just call real musical knowledge.
"Real" musical knowledge doesn't say anything about "taste." There is no "right" or "wrong" way to go about discussing/analyzing music and in the end that is all I wanted to get across. It is merely a matter of personal opinion and we definitely differ on it.
Everyone is talking about getting "technical" about music in reviews, but I don't think it's necessary to talk about modulations, time signatures, secondary dominants, etc in order to talk about the music. If I was going to criticize Spoon I would say that there is a lack of range in the vocal melodies (just listen to "The Underdog"- lots and lots of repeated notes, with hardly any large leaps). I talked about the music and nobody's brain got fried.
But I think that this brings us to an even bigger problem, and that is- it's practically impossible to explain "why" a piece of music is good. You can talk about modes or Italian Augmented Sixth chords all you want. It still doesn't explain why it's good, it just explains why it might be interesting. When a music theorist analyses a piece of music he/she doesn't make a judgment on whether or not a piece is good, they just explain how it's put together. You can write the most complicated piece of music ever written, but it doesn't mean it's going to be any better than "Tutti Frutti". Music critics have a hard job and I think that most music critics don’t realize that it's a hard job.
That being said, I think that music criticism is important because it creates discussion and, after all, opinions can be valid even if they are not well articulated. I just think that the discussions and opinions in the reviews are more interesting when they at least attempt to talk about that which is important- the music.
mymindisblank is an "Enthusiast" poster from Kentuky. His new review of the "A few points about popular reviewing techniques" post on Metacritic was put up on Nov.8 2007, and is his 75th post. It was a very short post and it had a green smiley face at the end. It was written with white text against a blue background.
Originally posted by playdough: Everyone is talking about getting "technical" about music in reviews, but I don't think it's necessary to talk about modulations, time signatures, secondary dominants, etc in order to talk about the music. If I was going to criticize Spoon I would say that there is a lack of range in the vocal melodies (just listen to "The Underdog"- lots and lots of repeated notes, with hardly any large leaps). I talked about the music and nobody's brain got fried.
But I think that this brings us to an even bigger problem, and that is- it's practically impossible to explain "why" a piece of music is good. You can talk about modes or Italian Augmented Sixth chords all you want. It still doesn't explain why it's good, it just explains why it might be interesting. When a music theorist analyses a piece of music he/she doesn't make a judgment on whether or not a piece is good, they just explain how it's put together. You can write the most complicated piece of music ever written, but it doesn't mean it's going to be any better than "Tutti Frutti". Music critics have a hard job and I think that most music critics don’t realize that it's a hard job.
That being said, I think that music criticism is important because it creates discussion and, after all, opinions can be valid even if they are not well articulated. I just think that the discussions and opinions in the reviews are more interesting when they at least attempt to talk about that which is important- the music.
P.S. “The Underdog” is a great song.
I don't think anyone meant to say that it's necessary to explain the theory behind the music in reviews. I tried to make it clear that I thought it was at most an option among the range of options. Speaking for only myself as a reader of reviews, I'm always curious about learning new tricks, so I certainly wouldn't mind if reviewers started talking shop more. But I also definitely don't want to try shoving Baroque counterpoint down the throats of everyone I see on the street.
quote:
It still doesn't explain why it's good, it just explains why it might be interesting.
Yes, but explaining why something might be interesting, boring, off-the-wall, etc is better than nothing. You can lead a horse to water (if you're good and lucky) but you can't make him drink.
I don't think anyone meant to say that it's necessary to explain the theory behind the music in reviews.
I was commenting on the post as a whole. On the first page lots of people are debating the use of technical musical language/analysis in reviews.
quote:
Yes, but explaining why something might be interesting, boring, off-the-wall, etc is better than nothing.
I agree with you. I'm saying that it's very difficult to write about music, I'm not saying that people shouldn't try. I just think that if critics and readers realized how very hard it is to critique music, then the standards would go up. I think that a lot of critics just listen to an album a few times and then go looking for a way to fill up 500 words.
I think we're talking about aesthetic vs. technique -- art vs. science, if you will.
Pitchfork, since they're essentially our focus, (and I've been saying this for a while) disguises prose as music writing, in my opinion.
It isn't disguised well, but a peice tries to convince you its a record review, when what's really written is either a) an essay, or b) prose.
Now just about anything is prose, and sometimes P4K's "reviews" are so avant-garde you can't assign any other name for them except "prose".
That said...
All music writers ever (including P4K's) in my ideal world would have at least basic music theory knowledge. They'd be able to look at sheet music for, say, Grizzly Bear's "Knife" and plunk out its main melody on a keyboard, or at least know what the fuck is going on when they look at the sheet music in some way. That would be really nice is all I'm saying. There are plenty of brilliant music writers whom I love and read who (probably) don't know a thing about sheet music or music theory at all.
Begs the question: Should all MUSICIANS know basic music theory? Yes. Again, I love plenty of them who have gone on record saying they have no clue about it, but an artist should be able to approach his/her art (like a music writer should approach his/her art) aesthetically as well as technically.
And while I posited this discussion as one vs. another-- dichotomous-- let me take this into another gear. This isn't about that kind of battle, it's more about choosing plurality over singularity.
Does a good music writer focus only on what the music sounds like and that's it? No. Does he/she focus only on the context/subtext of a record, its social, cultural and even political implications? No. A good music writer is a dilletante and focuses on as much as possible in as many ways as possible. This a) makes for a good piece, something to be proud of, inspiring others to heights of creative inspiration or b) at very least, fills up a word count, which a lot of these writers are just trying to crank out for a check anyway... I would know, sort of.
So to approach music purely aesthetically turns music from a moving art form to a still one, represented by words, images and words as images. To approach music purely on technicality turns music into a science with empirical rights and wrongs... objectivities.
Neither is desirable by itself, in my opinion.
So there's a balance that should be struck, right? People, including some in this discussion, are going to prefer one more than another, and that's fine, but I think everyone is helped by achieving some sort of balance for themselves, by themselves.
I don't want to be overly diplomatic, but... I just wanted to clear up some stuff that I thought was bypassed in this discussion. If more people respond, I'll fill in some of my own... my "divots," if you will.
I agree with a lot of what Yay! is saying here. Although, I don’t think that anyone is saying that music reviews should be one thing or another, just that some discussion of music in music reviews would be nice.
But... I disagree with the statement:
quote:
To approach music purely on technicality turns music into a science with empirical rights and wrongs... objectivities.
This is the kind of statement that gives people the wrong idea about music theory. Even if a discussion of music is entirely technical it can never turn “music into a science with empirical rights and wrongs.” There are no “rights” or “wrongs” in music. Can you name something that would be “wrong”? I would be interested to hear it.
Keep in mind I'm no expert in music theory. I took it in public school... American public school and some dabbling in a private music school.
One, arbitrarily, can turn anything abstract into something concrete by drawing lines where there weren't any before. It makes an order for him or herself. That order in our music discussion is, if you'll allow, melody and rhythm.
So in music theory-based music criticism, some will dismiss certain peices of music as amelodic or arrhytmic or even atonal and "not making any sense." I've heard this criticism before, criticisms like "Autechre isn't music" or "John Cage isn't music." This same criticism might say that these are sound artists and not musicians.
I speak of formalists following formalism when I talk about those who think in terms of "right" and "wrong" music. Those who say "that chord's not supposed to do that" as if it were something objective, and they use music theory to back up their opinion as mathematical music fact.
(I realize these people are not the majority and they are as subjective as we are. I haven't met many of these people on my own, but I have become aware of this perspective.)
I'm talking about those who follow major and minor chords like scripture and for whom an augmented chord is "iffy." God forbid something slightly displeasing or foreign to their ear should waft their way.
I hope that better explains what you disagreed with.
Originally posted by playdough: Although, I don’t think that anyone is saying that music reviews should be one thing or another, just that some discussion of music in music reviews would be nice.
No, I don't think anyone is saying that explicitly, but I think this discussion got pretty tunnel-visioned and I wanted to open it back up again. Hence, I wrote what I wrote.
So in music theory-based music criticism, some will dismiss certain peices of music as amelodic or arrhytmic or even atonal and "not making any sense." I've heard this criticism before, criticisms like "Autechre isn't music" or "John Cage isn't music."
It sounds to me like you’re talking about people who don’t know much about theory, but use theory to try to back up their opinions. The “rights and wrongs” are their opinons and have nothing to do with “rights and wrongs” in music theory. Two totally different things. If someone says that atonal music is “wrong” according to music theory, or that a certain chord is wrong because it's “not supposed to do that” according to music theory, then you can be sure that they don’t know what they are talking about. If there are musical “formalists” out there who “use music theory to back up their opinion as mathematical music fact” then you can be sure that their proofs are completely invalid and that they probably know a lot less about theory than they think they do.
I think the problem arises from the fact that when people start to take music theory they are taught what is “usual” in music and since they’re getting graded on it, and it can be marked right or wrong, they think that these things are rules. But you’re actually being graded on your knowledge of how things usually are, not the way that they must be. As you study more music theory your studies can encompass everything from Inuit Throat Singing to 12 Tone Serialism to Renaissance Motets to Aleatoric music.
quote:
I'm talking about those who follow major and minor chords like scripture and for whom an augmented chord is "iffy."
It sounds like someone who read the first 3 chapters of an introductory theory book and decided that the content of those chapters should be applied to all music. If that's how they want to form their opinions, then that's fine for them, but if they say that x is wrong because of some rule of music theory... that's misinformed.
Remember that critics of anything are usually people who are unable to do the thing they are critiquing. I'm sure thats been said on here before. Some people just want to express opinions, some want to use music critiquing to springboard their "career", and some just want to get paid. Thats how I see it. But I know nothing of music theory and can barely play piano, bass, and drums. I try to find reviewers that have the same tastes as I do and follow their suggestions. Pitchfork have dug themselves in a hole trying to keep up pace with hipster douchebags like many of us, their reviewers rarely know if they actually like the music they are critiquing and are aware of their influence of a good or bad review. It would be a tough position to write your way out of.
Posts: 627 | Location: kentucky | Registered: 02 October 2007
Originally posted by Yay!: So in music theory-based music criticism, some will dismiss certain peices of music as amelodic or arrhytmic or even atonal and "not making any sense." I've heard this criticism before, criticisms like "Autechre isn't music" or "John Cage isn't music." This same criticism might say that these are sound artists and not musicians.
I speak of formalists following formalism when I talk about those who think in terms of "right" and "wrong" music. Those who say "that chord's not supposed to do that" as if it were something objective, and they use music theory to back up their opinion as mathematical music fact.
I'm glad somebody else has joined in on this topic!
When somebody wants to throw John Cage out of the gallery, it eases the pain in my heart to realize that we are simply using difference definitions of music. Their musical universe of discourse is limited to sounds which "make sense" to diatonic scales and the chords based on major and minor modes. My motivation in using the wider sense is simple and egotistical: it's because when I can enjoy (and I think this is key to really LEARNING any new kind of music) much more when the whole world is musical.
Some people might find it useful to compartmentalize sound from music. I'm kind of sloppy - I think I use the words almost interchangeably.
and about the "right" and "wrong" of music... this is tricky. I don't think formal structures can write music - they can point to common tendencies among various themes from various pieces, but they can never write a theme (there are developments in programmed electronic music which lie in a fuzzy grey area with regard to this. I'll elaborate - if anybody cares to hear, just holler..).
I can definitely hear when a chord progression makes a misstep (to my ears at least). So there is a "wrong" that is recognizable. and I can hear when something REALLY clicks, and I go "oh shit," they did that right. But as far as I can tell, it's only the phantom taste that I can point to but never grasp and explain in a formula.
Metacritic Forums 
