Music Criticism

Objective Criticism

Totally there's room! And why shouldn't there be? I think he has a point. I'm not a critic but I do realize that when I go to a show, I get off more on how the crowd is reacting to a performance.

If the artist isn't feeling it and looks bored on stage, then there's the chance that the crowd may not feel as much. But again, it's a matter of personal opinions and attitudes. I remember once reading a review in URB magazine where this cat gave Alpha's "Impossible Thrill" a shitty review. He kept going back to how their first album was and all I could think was.. "is he crazy? this is a classic album!!". Classic to me b/c I felt something a deeper with the musical arrangements, the vocals, the sounds.. I could go on an on. At the end of the day, it's music and if it makes you feel good, who cares about the critic's subjective or objective criticism.

reality. i don't know if such a thing as an 'objective critic' could exist.

Aren't audiences the ultimate critics anyway?

What I hate about music reviewers is when they write as if the band has said 'Look, we know we didn't do very well on this album. Obviously, as a music critic, you know far more than us about what makes great music. Please, tell us in detail how to be better!' and the review is the critic's report to the band. As a potential buyer, I don't care about specific flaws in the music, I just want to know whether, on balance, I'm going to like it.

isn't there

1. music criticism, which is a theoretical engagement with music or the aesthetic theory of music

and

2. music reviewing, a process of producing a "buyers guide to music", or, informing the potential listener whether they'd be interested in purchasing the music under review.

the former (criticism) in at least areas like film and tv, do indeed have areas where they examine audience reaction (theories of spectatorship, reception studies, and the like from film theory).

but 2 is orthogonal to the idea of the audience, in some ways. unless you reduce it to demographics, i.e. demographic X likes this music, if you are demographic X, you will like it too. but generally in cases of (2) I typically look for reviewers whose opinions I can trust over a longish period to be stable (ie predictable) in relation to my own tastes.

Troy said:

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???

Click to expand...

I think Connolly's wrong on this - I see plenty of live reviews that mention audiences, even if only briefly. I think live reviewing is slightly different from record reviewing because there's an element of reporting involved. Most of the time what you've reviewed is pretty ephemeral (it happened last night and isn't going to happen again) so a live review isn't so much a guide to purchases (unless you happen to know a good tout with a time machine) as a report on an event.

Also an aside - by definition, a critic who is concerned with audience reaction/reception (ie, the listening subject) is subjective critic not objective.