Critiquing the critics (was: Re: Responding to "gig spam")

[Andre LaFosse <altruist@altruistmusic.com>]

A critic o mine say:

> > "In other words, the artist's musical objectives don't enter into my
> > opinion as to whether or not the CD is a good listen."

To which Dave E say:
 
> wow, thats a great quote, and i certainly agree. i don't need to know > 
>the
> history or intentions of an artist to know if i like what i hear. 

and Steuart "Man of the hour" say:

> so it was all about HIM? that is damn bizarre. 

Here's the thing:

I agree that music ideally shouldn't need an instruction manual to
validate its existence.  It should hold up on its own merits, and a
listener is free to like it or not, regardless of any extra-musical
baggage.

But there are a couple of things to consider.  First of all, not all
music is meant to be listened to in the same sort of way.  Different
styles and approaches have their own different internal logic, and if
someone isn't well versed in a certain approach, then they might not be
hearing everything there is to hear.  

When a listener is exploring a new style of music, there's usually an
initial "breaking in" period, during which time they get used to the way
that particular style tends to operate.  To listeners who aren't
familiar with a genre, it does often "all sound the same" on first
glance.

So, for instance, if someone doesn't understand North Indian Classical
music, they might think that the sitar player is running up and down a
bunch of scales while the tabla player does some random patterns.  They
can certainly express these opinions if they like.  But someone who
knows what ragas and teehai's (sp?) are will have a different take on
it.  

Or, someone who's new to jazz might hear the drummer placing hits is
wierd places and solo sections beginning and ending seemingly at random,
whereas a more seasoned ear can detect the form of the head being
carried through the solos.  And so forth.

The second point is that this is the sort of thing that critics,
ideally, are good for.  If they understand a certain realm of music, and
have some sense of the basis behind it, then they can offer an informed
and authoritative opinion.  If they don't understand it so well, then
they're just saying if they like it or not.

Nothing wrong with that, of course.  But everybody and their dog has an
opinion, and plenty of them are all too happy to share them.  Ideally, a
critic has more than just a "liked it/didn't like it" opinion: they have
a background in the realm they're addressing, and a knowledge that gives
their opinions some authority.  

Ideally, that is.

Anyway.  Enough from me for one day.

--Andre LaFosse
http://www.altruistmusic.com