Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
It's funny how our response to a critique of our own work often has more to do with how we'd *like* the piece to be interpreted/understood than with whether or not the reviewer is actually panning or praising it. For example (and of particular relevance to this thread when you see who the reviewer was!), last October Krispen Hartung wrote the following brief review of a piece I recorded several years ago: "The backdrop in the beginning of the song is beautiful....and the bass groove that eventually comes in is very tasteful and catchy, almost old Terje Rypdal sound in nature. Nice! Give me more of this and some "outside" melodic work on the top and I'll be in ecstasy. Nice job." Now, eight months later, when I re-read that I see it as a decidedly positive review, much better than the tune deserved. All the adjectives are glowing: 'beautiful', 'tasteful', 'catchy' and not one, but TWO instances of 'nice'. The Rypdal mention is right on target, for I enjoy and respect his music very much. Moreover (and most importantly) the listener enjoyed listening; mission accomplished. I guess... Then why was I somewhat irked when I first read Krispen's review? Context. You see, prior to recording the tune to which Krispen was referring, the majority of my press reviews had resulted from a period when I'd been the lead guitarist for a much more commercially-oriented group, a band in which I was usually seen by critics to be the 'outside' one. While there was a fair amount of praise for the originality of my approach and the off-kilter edge my parts gave to what in their eyes would have been just another early 90's 'alternative power pop' act, there were just as many critics who slammed me for coloring outside the lines, using such nice words as 'gratuitous' and 'pretentious'. When I recorded the piece that Krispen heard, my head was miles away from wanting to put on a lot of guitar solos; at the time I was more interested in texture and atmosphere, doing things that I wasn't already known for. So when I read his review, replete with the conditions to which I should comply in order that he "be in ecstasy", it was easy for me to overlook all the nice things he'd written and feel that he hadn't "gotten it" because he would have preferred more " 'outside' melodic work on the top'... At the time, I felt "Well, gee, if I'd wanted to do that, I WOULD have!", feeling that I was certainly capable of doing so had I chosen to, and that I was a misunderstood artíste. It reminded me of some comments Brian Eno had made re: critics and the influence of his well-meaning audience on his music's content which may be found at <http://music.hyperreal.org/artists/brian_eno/index.center.html> As far as good/bad critical response, I used to get a kick out of juxtaposing completely contradictory reviews in my press kit. :P -t- __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail