Heard this on NPR (National Public Radio in the US) today. In an interview with UK comedian Billy Connolly...
"It's the same as my theory about critics... they're all looking the wrong way. They shouldn't be looking at the performer, they should be looking at the audience to see the effect the performer has on them. The critic is not there to tell you whether he (performer) is any good or not. He is supposed to look at the effect the performer is having on the audience, not his own sensitivities and wasted life... the overweight drunken bores..."
Never thought of if this way. Come to think of it, 99% of all music reviews I read are written subjectively. Is there room for the objective critic? One who examines the artist's effect?
Sorry if this is obvious, I'm trying to get my head around it...
Any opinions???
"It's the same as my theory about critics... they're all looking the wrong way. They shouldn't be looking at the performer, they should be looking at the audience to see the effect the performer has on them. The critic is not there to tell you whether he (performer) is any good or not. He is supposed to look at the effect the performer is having on the audience, not his own sensitivities and wasted life... the overweight drunken bores..."
Never thought of if this way. Come to think of it, 99% of all music reviews I read are written subjectively. Is there room for the objective critic? One who examines the artist's effect?
Sorry if this is obvious, I'm trying to get my head around it...
Any opinions???