I don't exactly know how to do the quoty thing, so here goes:

quote:

That might be true if the critics are shortsighted and conservative. A good critic wouldn't be.

My point is essentially that the language itself is inescapably rooted in shortsightedness and conservatism, whether some critics be more myopic than others or not.

quote:

Yes it is. Don't think of the word "chord" as merely a technical term.

I think, to answer the pigeon-hole question, the language that analyzes chord structure, while pretending at talking about something inherent to the musical piece, is really only another way
of turning music into a social language--and a very limiting one at that. My point is that calling a chord purely "technical" is misleading or, if it's not, that technicality itself is fake--that technicality has been invented for the very purpose of rejecting new musical languages, even if it has been used later to advocate new trends. Thus, it seems like critics, even when supporting the genre, can only understand punk rock by the absence of certain technical structures, a sort of defining absence.

The ruling standard of music criticism is, and has always been, one that privileges formalism. When a sloppy band is well-reviewed, it is because of their relationship, negative in this case, to formalism. There is not enough talk about the experience of listening itself (during which formalist concerns and historical placement do not usually figure prominently).

While I do support historical analysis in reviews, I support it only insofar as it talks about society and doesn't leak into what I suppose one would call the analysis of the musical artwork. Anthropological analysis should talk about how the artifact of the music relates to social history, but it shouldn't judge the music on that basis--note, also, how closely related formalist language and historical pigeon-holing are in most reviews.

quote:

There was no complaint about the C note. Notice that I said that the critic's reaction could be "bored, calm, etc." I am very aware that there are many reactions that people could have to a piece such as this, one of which could be boredom. The fact that you said that someone was "complaining" about the C note says something about your own biases. What I am proposing is that your style of reviewing, in which you only speak about your reaction, is meaningless to other people and that a good reviewer will talk about reactions AND do his/her best to explain some reasons for these reactions. People generally don't read reviews just for an account of a listening experience. They usually read them because they're wondering whether or not they will like this music. Your kind of review will only tell them this if they are sure that they will have the same reaction that you had. They can't know this unless you make some attempt at explaining why you reacted in a certain way.

I actually read the "(bored, calm, etc.)" as part of one reaction, whatever my biases might be. Anyway, even a positive review of the C song that is based on an analysis of the chord repitition turns that song into its C chord. It doesn't matter whether the review is good or bad. Then again, that is just a simplifying analogy. In reality, it seems like the C chord song actually is intended to enter into a formalist dialogue. It wants the repitition to be discussed historically and formally.

But if one looks at a more complex song, one that is not as self-conscious, pulling it apart on an artificially formal level is harmful. A lot of what good music these days is trying to do is to escape that language of formalism, to speak on another level. Thus, to review it best, we should look for that language and respond in that language. Regardless of what the reader is seeking, it is not the critics job to indulge in a tradition that puts negative pressure on musicians and their music. Look at how tense and strange the relationship is between reviewers and artists. This is because the world of music criticism is trying to establish a sort of dominance over the artistic world, a dominance that relies upon a rigid signification system.

The best reviewers these days are the ones who try to write in a language that rolls with the music. Said the Gramophone demonstrates a great language of musical writing. Not coincidentally, look how amazing its relationship is with artists and the music world in general.

I totally agree that everything we say or do is mediated through an institutional haze. I just think that formalist and simplifying writing is way more "hazy" in this sense. I think one should look to the poetic for musical analysis. Poetic language is a language that "means" while it simultaneously destroys meaning. It builds and rebuilds, flows, stops, repeats, just like music.

Thanks in large part to a stifling critical tradition, jazz (for instance) has firmly entered the arena of concert halls and bourgois values. Positive reviews of jazz all-too-often try to hammer nails into it, to talk about its "complex formalism" or "complex lack of formalism" when the greatest jazz eminates from the body and the subconscious. It is appropriate to talk formalistically when that is the intent of the artist, but that language should never be forced.

I hope these thoughts are clear enough, in any case. Cheers.

quote:

This is because the world of music criticism is trying to establish a sort of dominance over the artistic world, a dominance that relies upon a rigid signification system.

This seems awfully arbitrary to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't help but think this is a key peice of your argument as well.

Isn't it far more likely that the world of music criticism is full of a bunch of music geeks who are-- YEA-- geeked about being able to listen to and write about music for a living?

I mean, I honestly don't think there's a conspiracy.

I've met lots of professional music critics, and not one of them seemed to have a sordid agenda. Most just came off to me like really sweet, geeky people, layers of any other kind of affectedness be damned.

I reskimmed Said the Gramophone, an example you gave. They, like Pitchfork or Tiny Mix Tapes, seem to use music criticism as an opportunities (occasionally, anyway) to write prose and not just criticism. Sometimes the writing may contain elements of memoir, non-fiction, poetry and so on.

I don't know what music crit you've been reading, but I think you need to read more (or at least different) stuff.

quote:

Anyway, even a positive review of the C song that is based on an analysis of the chord repitition turns that song into its C chord.

Huh? The effect of language on music seems to be another key piece of your argument, so you need to explain your above statement. Keep in mind that the aforementioned "C Piece" consisted of only one note, played repeatedly.

OK, I'm not talking about some kind of malicious conspiracy or anything like that. I'm talking about the kind of language that is taken up in music crit. I read a lot of reviews, and it frustrates me how arrogant and over-confident they seem toward the artist. It's like they're trying to prove how much smarter they are than the band they're reviewing. Even when this effect isn't glaring, there's the basic notion of outright judging a band, pulling it apart in a way that doesn't illuminate any feeling or art, but that valuates a consumer product. The worst case of this, in my opinion, is CokeMachineGlow (Pitchfork comes in a close second). Brilliant guys, but whether they realize it or not, they are "confrontational" in a way that really pits them against the artists they write about, even on the most positive reviews. There might be plenty of music geekery there, but there is also this sort of spasmodic reaction to the threat of having to put yourself in (and binary) relation to a certain album--a need to make oneself convincing as an authority on the band. I think, in terms of sites that review albums, Stylus was probably the most gentle and had the best relationship to the artists. Stylus was probably also the most aware of the dynamics of music criticism as it relates to art, with all their wonderful articles on the industry, etc.

And about playdough's question: so, my more important point about the C note piece was that it could not be extrapolated to most other musics since the song was clearly intended to spark a formalist dialogue, etc.

But, to extrapolate it anyway, attaching the formal elements of a song to certain values or emotions tends to turn that song into its formal elements, its artificial parts. A song is, first, received as a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts--an organic unity, you could say. This unity is, obviously, threatened by the very act of criticism. However, criticism and analysis are definitely important. The key is to find a language that respects the pre-verbal spirit of the art while also communicating something about the piece. A review based upon a formal and technical language plants the dialogue and the song on a plane in which the reviewer and the consumer are in control. I believe that the song should be, so to speak, in control. I guess that's a bad phrase because it implies that negative power relation. I think the review should for the most part eschew any language that would "sell" the song, divide it into properties (pun intended) before it reached the consumer's ears.

Music critics really aren't in competition with each other. Usually doesn't happen.

Most of the time, when they get together, they know they're in the same club.

Lazarus, a somewhat obscure singer-songwriter on Temporary Residence, said "There's no competition when you're writing a song."

I say there's no competition when you're writing a review. The main reason why most reviews are impregnable or seemingly judgmental as might SEEM to be outdoing each other is because music writing is self-indulgent. When have you ever heard of people competing over self-indulgence and what would be the point of it?

Most self-indulgent music critics are too busy navel gazing to compete with others.

Perhaps I was unclear?

I was talking about critics "competing" with artists, not each other.

quote:

attaching the formal elements of a song to certain values or emotions tends to turn that song into its formal elements, its artificial parts.

What would be the "artificial parts" of a song?

quote:

A song is, first, received as a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts--an organic unity, you could say.

It sounds like you're making an assumption about how people hear music. When I, and many other people, listen to music, even if it's the first time hearing a song, we hear many things. I consider the way I hear music now (as opposed to when I was younger) to be a far more rich and rewarding experience. In some of your posts it sounds to me like you think that music is a fairy and if we look at it too long it will lose its wings. But music is something more complex than that, and people's listening experience can be more complex than that.

quote:

A review based upon a formal and technical language plants the dialogue and the song on a plane in which the reviewer and the consumer are in control.

I disagree with this. You might be able to come up with some pedantic, linguistic defense for your opinion, but I think that discussing an artist's music shows respect to the artist. It seems to me that the way that you want reviews to be written would require only a superficial listening experience ("This music made me feel like a frisbee" or "I listened to this CD and I wrote this poem..." When you review the music, and specifically refer to it, it puts the musician in control because you are acknowledging that he/she has the ability to make music that is worthy of examination and debate. That he/she has made some music that has excited many aspects of the critic's intelligence and emotions.

Also, you frequently refer to "formalism" and "formal elements" in your posts. We had a debate, in this thread, about "formalism" and I think the consensus was that "formalism" is an ideology that is for people who think they know a lot about music, but do not. Go back and read. And who are these "formalists" anyway? Can someone point me to a review? I always thought that a formalist was like Bigfoot- lots of sightings, but it doesn't really exist.

In reference to "chord":

quote:

that technicality has been invented for the very purpose of rejecting new musical languages

How's that?

Are you kidding me? You really don't see any formalism around? I just went to Pitchfork and opened the first review I saw. Literally, the whole review consists of this sort of language:

quote:

The best tunes on Bionik do just that. "Lotuseffekt", an edit of the "Bionik" single, explodes a synth-poppy arpeggio into something grand and unbridled; the lead keyboards are inflected with trance music's shivering detunings, and the bassy counterpoints are tailor made for spinning deliriously. "Löwenzahn-Luftwaffe", likewise, sinks its teeth into an anthemic melody while it busies its hands on batucada-like drum fills. The rhythms on both numbers are far more controlled than is usual in Eulberg's productions, eschewing chaos and clatter in favor of controlled grooves; "Freche Früchte" benefits from the same kind of concentration, highlighting ghostly tonalities hovering like halos over his electronic toms, and a snare sound so perfect it'll have bedroom producers buzzing the Ableton forums in search of the sample.

Album centerpiece "Autopfoten" is one of the heaviest things Eulberg has done yet, letting a chugging, unfussy drum track serve as the foundation for gradually unfolding rhythmic variations. Oblique vocal samples suggest dark forces lurking in the background, as Eulberg plies his favorite trick, a clave-like cowbell pattern cutting crosswise through the headlong rhythm.

The entire review, besides a bit of context, is a piece-by-piece dismantling of the album's sonic elements. Formalism does not only means talking about chords and scales. Artistically, it is simply the focus on breaking up a work into compositional or structural elements. What I have been arguing is that this decomposition usually has the result of putting certain important musical qualities and inspirations in the background, qualities that come out in a more natural listening mode. Also, this critic-speak which I'm talking about usually goes hand in hand with the name-dropping and stylistic-pigeonholing that runs rampant through the critical community, as such "genrefication" (is that a word?) is based upon the recognition of formal elements and the conversion of philosophies into labels and marks of production.

quote:

What would be the "artificial parts" of a song?

I answered this question a million times. These are the more superficial divisions of "art" imposed on a piece by an analytical mode. As in, "let's talk about the drum rhythms separately from the guitar melodies, 'cause they're played by different instruments and are easily distinguished!" I am arguing for another perspective, one which reads the music as a living and, yes, pre-verbal blah blah entity. You cannot talk about drums without a vital connection to the guitars, for instance. Not just a formalistic, dynamic connection, but a fundamental one!

quote:

It sounds like you're making an assumption about how people hear music.

Yes, I am. I understand everyone listens to music differently, but I am arguing for a fundamental structure as well. It's not as clear or literal as you'd like it to be, but I think it's there.

quote:

You might be able to come up with some pedantic, linguistic defense for your opinion

Thanks. I'm glad you've been respecting my argument. PS: Are you one of those who thinks that philosophy and reality are opposed? That philosophy and poetry are superficial to some real existence or realm?

quote:

When you review the music, and specifically refer to it, it puts the musician in control because you are acknowledging that he/she has the ability to make music that is worthy of examination and debate. That he/she has made some music that has excited many aspects of the critic's intelligence and emotions.

Actually, most of the review sites we read seem to choose artists based upon promos and popularity, even in a limited circle. I know the site I write for does. I certainly don't get the sense in most of these reviews that the reviewer sought out the artist's work.

But look, on the other hand, at Said the Gramophone. They have a policy of not accepting official promo material and company e-mails. Meanwhile, they illustrate this model of respect I'm talking about. Just read the way they talk about the work and about the people who make it. Look, even, at the new video contest they're holding. They foster harmony, not hierarchy (don't get me started about rating systems).

Wow. I can't believe I just read all of this. Formalism in music reviews? Who cares? That example P4k review doesn't enable me to hear the music in my head as described. Just tell me if you liked the album or not and why. Don't make it so complicated, be original, but not for original's sake.

Here we are on the MetaCritic Boards critiquing the critics who critique music! I must be bored.

quote:

Are you kidding me? You really don't see any formalism around? I just went to Pitchfork and opened the first review I saw.

The review has formalistic elements, but I wouldn't consider it to be "formalism." I would just call it a "colorful description," which is what people do when they don't even know enough to be a formalist. A formalist wouldn't say "explodes a synth-poppy arpeggio into something grand and unbridled." That review is painful to read.

quote:

Actually, most of the review sites we read seem to choose artists based upon promos and popularity, even in a limited circle. I know the site I write for does. I certainly don't get the sense in most of these reviews that the reviewer sought out the artist's work.

What I was saying is that the reviewer has actually put some time and intellectual thought into the music, regardless of where he/she got it.

quote:

These are the more superficial divisions of "art" imposed on a piece by an analytical mode. As in, "let's talk about the drum rhythms separately from the guitar melodies, 'cause they're played by different instruments and are easily distinguished!"

"Artificial parts." I guess I just don't get the use of the word "artificial" here. I'm arguing that people should be able to analyze and listen to music from all angles. That is what gives a person the most rich listening experience. If you study and discuss the lowest voice of a Bach Fugue, are you turning that voice into an "artificial part?" Is there something wrong with engaging in that activity? Sure, the interaction of the different voices is one of the things that makes it great, but such complex works are worthy of all kinds of examination. Just like rock is.

I guess I'm not talking about formalism in a deep music theory way, but "colorful descriptions" like that are formalistic in that they end up putting the parts before the whole, the qualities before the experiences of them, the sensations before the perceptions. I just think there's something inhuman about that.

I think there is a time and a place for those kinds of descriptions. My point is that "popular" music criticism, a medium that has one type of relationship with music that different media do not share, should be more conscious of this relationship. It should know what relationship it has to consumerism and what relationship it has to the production of art and to the experiencing of that art. I feel like what I call "formalism" is one way in which reviews these days isolate themselves and the music that they are talking about, ignoring certain dangers and responsibilities that the popular critic faces. I imagine it must be difficult to form a fresh perspective on every album, etc., but I think that that priority should be heightened and that the critical mass should at all costs avoid the kind of institutionalization (I hope that's a word) that threatens on all sides.

It's sensitive stuff, and our fundamental ideas about music as it relates to society clearly differ. I don't know if we will get anywhere more with this argument, but I am glad you have been arguing a strongly practical view. I think the dialogue, at least, needs to exist.

I thought I had said all I really wanted to say on this topic, but then this morning I read Mark Richardson's Resonant Frequency column on Pitchforkmedia. I think Richardson is a great writer, one of the best out there and especially at Pitchfork. He made a very interesting and valid statement that seems to concern this topic so I'm going to quote him here and leave it at that:
"I'm not writing for musicians. I'm writing about listening, for other people who listen. Exploring music from that perspective is enough for a lifetime. On my long list of limitations, all the things that keep me from writing well about music, my ability on various instruments is pretty far down there." This was in response to a question posed to him by his father-in-law which seems to mirror the sentiment expressed by this thread, to paraphrase it: If you can't play music with any real proficiency, do you have the standing to write criticism?

quote:

Originally posted by jonathanbrisby:
If you can't play music with any real proficiency, do you have the standing to write criticism?

This question is raised from time to time, but I think the real answer is that you don't have to know how to play music to understand and appreciate it on any level. Do film critics need to know how to execute every aspect of writing/directing/acting in/producing/editing a film? No, that's absurd. Does a food critic require chef's training? No. You're coming at it from a different side. That isn't to say that all music critics have no musical training. But that musical ability is merely just a somewhat different influence on how they approach their critique.

quote:

Originally posted by jonathanbrisby:
I thought I had said all I really wanted to say on this topic, but then this morning I read Mark Richardson's Resonant Frequency column on Pitchforkmedia. I think Richardson is a great writer, one of the best out there and especially at Pitchfork. He made a very interesting and valid statement that seems to concern this topic so I'm going to quote him here and leave it at that:
"I'm not writing for musicians. I'm writing about listening, for other people who listen. Exploring music from that perspective is enough for a lifetime. On my long list of limitations, all the things that keep me from writing well about music, my ability on various instruments is pretty far down there." This was in response to a question posed to him by his father-in-law which seems to mirror the sentiment expressed by this thread, to paraphrase it: If you can't play music with any real proficiency, do you have the standing to write criticism?

This guys' stance gives a perfect example of why pitchfork fails me in so many ways. "I'm writing about listening, for other people who listen" is the linchpin statement. Writing about listening is inclusive of all extramusical events surrounding an album (their scene, their hairdos, etc. as were noted in a Mars Volta review) that make the listening experience richer, but also, and more importantly, is the actual musical content. To neglect adequately articulating your thoughts about the musical content because your aim is to write for some listeners audience is really really narrow. Music writing should be all inclusive and as broad minded as possible. This guy just comes off as somebody who has a chip-on-the-shoulder because he knows nothing about music. Making vague justifications for ones' shortcomings don't make your understanding better. He could be the greatest writer in the world. He could be the greatest writer about music culture in the world. However, that statement makes me think he isn't a great music writer. People don't understand that listening is about the music, from the macroscopic level that deals with things like scene, aesthetic, etc. down to the microscopic level of harmonic progressions and melodic contours.

quote:

This guys' stance gives a perfect example of why pitchfork fails me in so many ways. "I'm writing about listening, for other people who listen" is the linchpin statement. Writing about listening is inclusive of all extramusical events surrounding an album (their scene, their hairdos, etc. as were noted in a Mars Volta review) that make the listening experience richer, but also, and more importantly, is the actual musical content. To neglect adequately articulating your thoughts about the musical content because your aim is to write for some listeners audience is really really narrow. Music writing should be all inclusive and as broad minded as possible. This guy just comes off as somebody who has a chip-on-the-shoulder because he knows nothing about music. Making vague justifications for ones' shortcomings don't make your understanding better. He could be the greatest writer in the world. He could be the greatest writer about music culture in the world. However, that statement makes me think he isn't a great music writer. People don't understand that listening is about the music, from the macroscopic level that deals with things like scene, aesthetic, etc. down to the microscopic level of harmonic progressions and melodic contours.

I completely disagree with what you're saying here. I don't want to read some bullshit music writing that tries to be everything to everyone. That usually leads to failure to be anything to anyone. Richardson is a great writer in my personal opinion, maybe you should bother reading some of his column and reviews before being so dismissive.

quote:

Originally posted by DFelon204409:

quote:

Originally posted by jonathanbrisby:
I thought I had said all I really wanted to say on this topic, but then this morning I read Mark Richardson's Resonant Frequency column on Pitchforkmedia. I think Richardson is a great writer, one of the best out there and especially at Pitchfork. He made a very interesting and valid statement that seems to concern this topic so I'm going to quote him here and leave it at that:
"I'm not writing for musicians. I'm writing about listening, for other people who listen. Exploring music from that perspective is enough for a lifetime. On my long list of limitations, all the things that keep me from writing well about music, my ability on various instruments is pretty far down there." This was in response to a question posed to him by his father-in-law which seems to mirror the sentiment expressed by this thread, to paraphrase it: If you can't play music with any real proficiency, do you have the standing to write criticism?

This guys' stance gives a perfect example of why pitchfork fails me in so many ways. "I'm writing about listening, for other people who listen" is the linchpin statement. Writing about listening is inclusive of all extramusical events surrounding an album (their scene, their hairdos, etc. as were noted in a Mars Volta review) that make the listening experience richer, but also, and more importantly, is the actual musical content. To neglect adequately articulating your thoughts about the musical content because your aim is to write for some listeners audience is really really narrow. Music writing should be all inclusive and as broad minded as possible. This guy just comes off as somebody who has a chip-on-the-shoulder because he knows nothing about music. Making vague justifications for ones' shortcomings don't make your understanding better. He could be the greatest writer in the world. He could be the greatest writer about music culture in the world. However, that statement makes me think he isn't a great music writer. People don't understand that listening is about the music, from the macroscopic level that deals with things like scene, aesthetic, etc. down to the microscopic level of harmonic progressions and melodic contours.

Writing about listening is not about anything but listening. Listening does not include that which cannot be heard - like clothes.

listening is something the ears do. You can listen to something completely removed from its original and most relevant social context.

Buuut, it is still fun for the other senses as well as the mind to find out the story behind what you hear. Richardson is a good writer if and only if he brings that fun of discovery to the people. Whose people though? I guess that would be the next question...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: V,

Obviously this quote or my other additions to this thread have done nothing to end the ridiculous amount of circular prostheletyzing and back and forth arguments on a touchy subject. Hence, again, I am done adding opinions here. Everyone has their own ideas about what good music writing is/should be about and obviously we will NEVER all agree on it. I'm not dismissing any opinions here, they are all relevant and important but even more than that they are all different and possibly irreconcilable. Good luck to all of you in your further discourse on the subject.

Coward.