So there's the continual pitchfork dialogue, duh. Are there legitimate websites that review non-indie, non-hipster type music reguarly and well? Despite its name, I was a big fan of indieworkshop.com. They'd review a Kayo Dot release with some degree of enthusiasm and circumspect. I feel like any site that reviews outside of the realm of what's popular at any given time may be very subject to fanboyism (take absolutepunk.net for the world of pop punk and lambgoat.com for the world of bad metal).
But my main point of confusion has more to do with music reviewing. It seems like a big aspect of reviewing is the writing itself. There needs to be a way to draw the reader into the review. One can't get one's opinion across without a reader actually spending the time to read the review in the first place. So the writing has to be catchier or at least more journalistic, which is entertaining and engaging on the surface, but ultimately seems to fail. It doesn't fail because it's bad writing, but because it doesn't do much in terms of understanding the music. There is no analysis. I know I know, if I wanted to read musical analysis I'd pick up a journal on theory or some other publication, but there has to be some attnention paid to the salient musical techniques belong employed. This can range from the simplest 3 chords in a punk song to the most elaborate rhythmic structures in a math metal song, all the way to the must lush instrumentation and use of ambient effects in an Animal Collective record. If reviewers lose sight of real musical events and prefer to focus on more abstract notions like aesthetic then isn't the opinion or view of the music rather shallow and unsubstantial? I don't need a PhD in theory to explain the same shitty guitar riff in every corner of the new Kid Rock album, but I don't I need somebody who's going to at least write about the music rather than get cute by focusing on Kid Rock's probably Hepatitis B infection? I feel like reviewers get so wrapped up in the presentation of their ideas that they lose sight of giving depth to the ideas themselves, instead of just their writing. I guess I'm just sick of reading 5 paragraphs about the band's influences, subculture, scene, etc. before getting a half-baked 6th paragraph that discusses the "real" musical traits of an album. A particular review can be read here: http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/197...ed-in-the-comatorium For all of the chatter aand focus on memorable writing techniques, most of the commentary is forgettable because so little time is spent to understanding the music. It's more of an "I like this I like that" kind of observation. The review itself behins with 4 paragraphs with very few specific things to say other than the lyrical commentary, which itself is treated as a side note as much as an important analysis. I guess I'm just a hater to an extent.
Excuse the bump and the few typos I had in my initial post but I'm going to take the non-response as an invitation to assume I'm mostly correct. Somebody please contend this. I'm very curious as to what people here think.
Well there are two strands of possible discussion. Also, in terms of what I'll call errors of journalism, pitchfork is one of the most egregious, popular offenders though other sites fall trap too. If I have a moment later today I'll glaze over the metacritic list and pick out a few choice reviews.
So basically you're asserting that there needs to be a technical understanding of music in order to review it? There was a nice article recently on Stylus (RIP) about this subject exactly. A "why don't reviewers talk about the technical aspect of music when reviewing it" article.
Personally I think that lack of technical language to describe the music itself should not bar criticism. If I want to read about the technical musical aspects of the subject I'd read a Guitar/Bass/Drum oriented magazine, except that they don't necessarily cover more obscure music. Just because I lack the formal language to adequately describe a key change in the bridge section of a song by The Mars Volta shouldn't bar me from being able to say "that sounds bad to me" or "it rules." One could nitpick apart the writing in just about any and all major music publications (online and print) if one were so inclined. The argument seems to be circular at best. While it may be nice to have a technical understanding of music in order to better communicate effectively what you want the reader to know about the music, it can also be extremely boring and stuffy while alienating readers who may not fully understand the concepts you're addressing. On the other hand, there is a wealth of information available to the public online about different technical aspects of music and if they wanted to learn badly enough, they could read up and be better able to understand the concept being discussed. In the meantime you're going to lose a majority of casual readers who could give a shit about the technical aspects of music and just want to know about the things you mentioned like background, scene, history, and whether it's a good or bad album in the opinion of the reviewer.
Originally posted by jonathanbrisby: So basically you're asserting that there needs to be a technical understanding of music in order to review it? There was a nice article recently on Stylus (RIP) about this subject exactly. A "why don't reviewers talk about the technical aspect of music when reviewing it" article.
I'm definitely going to check out that article.
quote:
Personally I think that lack of technical language to describe the music itself should not bar criticism. If I want to read about the technical musical aspects of the subject I'd read a Guitar/Bass/Drum oriented magazine, except that they don't necessarily cover more obscure music.
A big problem with that, at least coming from the perspective of a guitar player, is that those magazine are generally intended for beginners or idiots. They put in tabs for songs from Green Day's American Idiot and interview Steve Vai every other magazine. Their knowledge of theory is sort of weak too.
quote:
Just because I lack the formal language to adequately describe a key change in the bridge section of a song by The Mars Volta shouldn't bar me from being able to say "that sounds bad to me" or "it rules."
I think when I mean technical writing or analytic writing I don't mean pointing out something like a key change for the sake of itself but using one's understanding of such a moment to give a qualification like "that sounds bad" or "it rules." If somebody tells me they think something sucks, the inevitable question I have is "why?" If a critic doesn't have a response to that s/he immediately loses credibility. A humorous aspect of the example of The Mars Volta is that their self-indulgence is both their blessing and their curse. They are compelling and bombastic but also end up having long drawn out sections of inert, ambient noise. To give them shit for "sucking" when there is a lot more going on musically than, say, in the sparse beauty of the recordings of an artist like Damien Rice, is to neglect a massive component of TMV's music. Not to say their new album didn't suck pretty hard for its self-indulgence, but TMV has produced some pretty convoluted music, so to reduce that to "good" or "suck" with no deeper understanding of the mechanics of the album and just a surfacey understanding is unfair and undermines the validity of the reviewers' opinion.
quote:
While it may be nice to have a technical understanding of music in order to better communicate effectively what you want the reader to know about the music, it can also be extremely boring and stuffy while alienating readers who may not fully understand the concepts you're addressing.
I couldn't agree with you more. I myself, being a technicality nerd, tend to get excited about the microscopic technical elements of the album, which ultimately cripples my prose.
quote:
casual readers
I'd argue that too many publications cater to such an audience. Not to push for some elitist hypertechnical analytic form of writing as the only viable form, but shouldn't there be a middle ground. There should be more of a respect for the technicals of an album but there is no reason that that can't be balanced with the extramusical aspects of the album.
Sure. That would be nice. Someone should start up a website like that, I think I'd enjoy it. Something that caters to people with a bit more musical knowledge and technical knowhow. If it was too square though, I might get turned off.
Originally posted by Haunted Goathouse: Sure. That would be nice. Someone should start up a website like that, I think I'd enjoy it. Something that caters to people with a bit more musical knowledge and technical knowhow. If it was too square though, I might get turned off.
Well, I write for sputnikmusic.com. I definitely have a technical slant to my writing, however my prose is somewhat crude or think out cute metaphors to spice up my style. I think my main problem is that I don't proofread my reviews. A problem about the site though is that there are a variety of staff reviews, which are more technical and informed, but also a mass of non-staff reviews, which are usually fairly retarded. As I mentioned earlier, another site that was pretty well-informed was indieworkshop.com, which hasn't been operational for about a year and a half to two years I think.
Therein lies the problem, how technical can you get before you're playing the literary version of Steve Vai trying to play a solo by trying to adequately describe something small in a song that doesn't really warrant such microscopic analysis. Middle ground to me seems the path most often taken to mediocrity. I say if you want to read a magazine or site like that, start one and try finding writers who would be technically minded without the preference to cover such artists as Vai, Satriani, Malmsteen, etc. The problem I've run into is that most technically minded individuals seem to lean towards music that is highly guitar-centric and metal-oriented. Don't get me wrong, I love music, I love metal, I love the guitar. I have been playing guitar since I was 11 and I'm 27 now. There isn't a single piece that I can't play if I want to, from the simplest three chord punk to those ridiculous shred-for-the-sake-of-shredding numbers. However, I cannot read music and it has never been a detriment to my own playing. That being said, I don't think it's fair to try and offput technical speak on artists that obviously don't think and don't care about such when crafting their own music. As for my comment about saying "that sounds bad" or "it rules," those were hyperbole and oversimplification of the subject at hand for the sake of brevity. I wasn't going to go into detail in this discussion about some hypothetical album and what made it "rule" or "sound bad," I was primarily using that as an example to point out that it is in fact a viable option to review records by using jargon that only expands on those ideas.
Like I said before, basically you're going to divide people into two camps: those that want their music reviewed with an ear for the technical and those that don't or don't care. I don't think it's fair to accuse writers who don't come from a technical background of lazy journalism or bad writing simply because they choose not to engage in discourse or pontificate on the technical aspects of the music they're reviewing.
The problem I've run into is that most technically minded individuals seem to lean towards music that is highly guitar-centric and metal-oriented
This absolutely kills me. I'm studying music right now and when I hear people say technical, I can assume they mean one of two things: shredding guitar or "mathy" time signatures or tempo shifts. A band can be very technically or "theoretically" interesting and never play a guitar line that hits two adjacent notes faster than a 16th note or never leave 4/4 or 6/8 as a time signature. Other than the fact that there are certain bands that write intriguing music with regard to "simple" shred and time sig constraints (e.g. Dredg), music does not stop and start with rhythm and melody. I feel like a topic generally unexplored by music reviewers is harmony. Maybe it is because of a lack of knowledge, but nobody really talks about harmonic richness in popular music. People only think in terms of chord progressions and don't think to look for other ways to connote harmony. I think an amazing aspect of popular music is that Radiohead has become unbelievably popular off of their harmonic intrigue (or rather their ability to write interesting harmonic progressions and still sound catchy) even though nobody has straight up observed that the reason they're unique and appealling is their wonderful sense of harmonic progressions. A popular track of theirs, "Pyramid Song," begins with an awesome and unusual harmonic gesture of moving from a I (or maybe an i) to a bII (neopolitan) harmony. Such a devise is rarely used in popular music but Radiohead employs it with a deft touch and without anybody really picking up on it. Also, my seeming obsession with harmony ignores all of the other cool technical aspects that can be observed in popular music like dyanamics, timbre, tone, production, instrumentation/orchestration, etc.
Originally posted by jonathanbrisby: Anyway, not meaning to double post but....
Like I said before, basically you're going to divide people into two camps: those that want their music reviewed with an ear for the technical and those that don't or don't care. I don't think it's fair to accuse writers who don't come from a technical background of lazy journalism or bad writing simply because they choose not to engage in discourse or pontificate on the technical aspects of the music they're reviewing.
It's not that I blame reviewers for not knowing anything about music. It's when certain reviewing styles are lauded as more legitimate (as in the general public response to a site like pitchfork) than others that I find cause to talk shit. Also there is a certain pretention and elitism to pitchfork that I find to be ridiculously unjustified. Ya, they're great journalists and great writers, but they're terrible music writers. They've never told me anything I couldn't pick up from a cursory glaze of a band's wikipedia coupled with a spin or to of a band's single.
A band can be very technically or "theoretically" interesting and never play a guitar line that hits two adjacent notes faster than a 16th note or never leave 4/4 or 6/8 as a time signature.
I couldn't agree more. In fact I was referring to the fact that most of the people I've run into at least who want to discuss music technically are only interested in "shred" music. Highly unfortunate considering the vast amount of music out there. On the other hand, when you start talking about the specific harmonic gestures in a Radiohead song, that's precisely the kind of thing I find boring and I know that for every person that is interested in it there is at least one that would be turned off by that. Maybe what you're striving for is the kind of technical writing that would be more appropriate for research-oriented publications, scientific journals, etc. that are aimed at covering music and not more pop-culture focused music related magazines and sites.
Ya, they're great journalists and great writers, but they're terrible music writers. They've never told me anything I couldn't pick up from a cursory glaze of a band's wikipedia coupled with a spin or to of a band's single.
This would be the point where I ask you why you're reading Pitchforkmedia in the first place. If you know this much about the music itself, why on earth are you referring to a site you obviously find inferior or that doesn't represent or cater to your interests?
If you want to know why people flock to something like Pitchforkmedia, well the general public is always going to be interested in a group of people talking shit and slinging opinion as opposed to someone writing about the technical aspects of music. Thats just the way it is. You want a more specific kind of site that caters to a different audience. I believe Pitchforkmedia is hitting the target audience they're trying to reach. I also don't think they purported to be authorities on the technical aspects of music. Not that I'm defending the credibility and writing style of Pitchfork writers, some are better than others and no one is perfect.
A band can be very technically or "theoretically" interesting and never play a guitar line that hits two adjacent notes faster than a 16th note or never leave 4/4 or 6/8 as a time signature.
I couldn't agree more. In fact I was referring to the fact that most of the people I've run into at least who want to discuss music technically are only interested in "shred" music. Highly unfortunate considering the vast amount of music out there. On the other hand, when you start talking about the specific harmonic gestures in a Radiohead song, that's precisely the kind of thing I find boring and I know that for every person that is interested in it there is at least one that would be turned off by that. Maybe what you're striving for is the kind of technical writing that would be more appropriate for research-oriented publications, scientific journals, etc. that are aimed at covering music and not more pop-culture focused music related magazines and sites.
Well that Radiohead observation was me getting very specific to make a larger point. The takeaway is that Radiohead are really interesting in ways nobody places a finger on, but can actually be explained rather simply using kindergarten-difficulty music theory.
Do you listen to Dredg? They're a band that write pop songs (verse-chorus-verse song structure with catchy hooks and melodies) but have interesting orchestration and rhythmic complexities in their songs. The drumming is absurdly original and memorable. Their best album is El Cielo, which is more concept-based and lofty but they have a more song-based album called Catch Without Arms that is pretty amazing as well. Imagine a combination of Pink Floyd and Tool without the pretention (well some pretention on their earlier albums).
Looks to me like there are at least two questions embedded in that page. This is my kind of stuff! I've been pondering in this same territory on a regular basis for a while now.
So here are the questions I'm talking about:
1. Should reviewers know music theory?
Well, IMO a really good reviewer knows and is interested in EVERY aspect of music. So knowing is better than not knowing. I mean, there was that P4K New Pornographers review where at least a paragraph was devoted to 'properly evaluating Challengers in [the]context [of NP's other albums],' but next to nothing about what actually came out of the fucking speakers when he played it! It might lead a person to assume that he neither knows nor cares about such things. (I do however think that any attempt to accredit reviewers or try to enforce a mandatory music theory for reviewers course would be ridiculous.) But this leads to the second question...
2. Should reviewers talk theory in reviews?
This one is a little trickier. I think technical talk may be helpful in a review, but it's not necessary by any means. Use your best judgment, eh?
I think that when you hear something that really knocks your socks off and it is like nothing you've ever heard before, technical talk can and should be seen as another tool in the box. I mean, even if you're only using negations to explain what doesn't happen, that's a start. And if you can use past examples of music best described by using theory talk which have something in common with what you're listening to, go for it! But you've got to know it first. And it's not always helpful - sometimes it can be just another distraction, or even worse, an attempt at inflating one's own cred (AKA masturbation - making yourself feel good).
I've hinted at this before in a post some time ago, but I think there's a real class-ish hierarchy in the world of music. The problem is that in the world of popular music review, the general inclination is to shun or shy away from the trappings of the 'upper class' or academia. The academia developed and described music theory, and as such it seems to be made and structured to best suit the upper class. So you'll get analysis by the buttload in academic mags, but (almost) never in Rolling Stone.
It's interesting to note that some other cultures using different tonal/theoretical "systems" don't seem to have that class struggle of symbolism. I'll have to look into this closer though.
This would be the point where I ask you why you're reading Pitchforkmedia in the first place.
I've gotta know what the enemy thinks, you know?
I think that's a good point. I mean. you know shitty music when you hear it, right? But you still need to have heard it so you can stop and never listen to it again.
Again, I think it goes back to what I was referring to earlier. There are going to be reviews and reviewers that can and will focus more specifically on the technical aspect of music and then those that do not. There isn't anything wrong with either way of reviewing in my opinion. It's an apples vs. oranges type of argument. I think it's far better to write how you are comfortable and about subjects you are well versed in enough to cover adequately.
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. I definitely agree that if you have the knowledge to thoroughly discuss the technical aspect of some musical piece or song and it is actually relevant to the listener's enjoyment or perception of the thing, then by all means do it. If not, continue writing what you know to the best of your ability and always strive to be a better writer. To put it simply, as a reviewer I find that I'm always learning and trying to educate myself on everything music-related. I don't necessarily find all of it helpful or applicable to everything I write about and as such choose to do things "my way" as I think most reviewers do, speaking simultaneously about what they know from knowledge or experience while applying technical speak where applicable on the subjects I feel most qualified.
I think this thread has pretty much broken down the differences between a critic and a reviewer. Another thing which might be interesting is to decide if context and theme are proper topics for both critic and reviewer, or if they're relegated to one more than the other.
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Posts: 12874 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004
Metacritic Forums 