Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
I guess it happens to everyone once in a while. It's just a shame that music journalists have come to be like this. Note, however, there are some very good music critics out there who sincerely care about giving potential listeners an accurate assessment of an artist or work, who actually do their homework and are able to compare and contrast, make factual, yet interesting statements about a work that may interest readers, etc. For example, I always thought Phil Elwood of the San Francisco Examiner was a great jazz music critic, and I saw him speak at the Lionel Hampton Jazz festival here in Northern Idaho...brilliant man, new his stuff, spoke with the authority of facts, and new how to separate his opinion from objective accounts, etc. Unfortunately, many critics let their job (typically thankless and low paying, which could contribute to their recalcitrant, coping mechanism behavior) and the sensationalist power to trash or exalt an artist or work go to their head; and their egos compel them to make gross generalizations, irrelevant comments that have nothing to do with the music (like your example below, Per), or attempt to get cute or snide with sarcasm or holier than though snootiness. And it's not just music journalists. I've seen articles in local newspapers that contained claims that were blatantly false because the journalists' were either too lazy to gather the real facts or they were projecting their own wishes or predictions as alleged fact. One of my local music peers suggested something interesting, which was to get musicians together in my town to critique the music critics, forwarding an article for publication. Apparently, there are enough artists here (and no doubt everyone around the world) that can dredge up enough distain and refutations of local critics' work to actually prepare a formidable article. It is tempting, but I don't have the time. For now, I'll play the Taoism role and take the path of least resistance, let the critics be the jackasses that can be are and just ignore them like a rainy day. ;) And my final closing philosophical questions are: Are there musical facts, and what is their nature? What constitutes a musical fact about an artist or piece of work? If a critique says that an piece of musical work is horrible, is that a fact, or his own emotive response disguised in factual attire? Let's see what sort of Socratic reasoning we can get out of this topic. Kris -----Original Message----- From: Per Boysen [mailto:per@boysen.se] Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 4:54 AM To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com Subject: Re: Why I'm starting to loath news paper music critics I once worked as a studio musician on a Swedish album by a "locally major" artist. I joined a week of day and all-nighter sessions on mainly electric guitar and I was strictly ordered by the producer to "not getting to know the tunes too well" because my role was to create "musical ornamentation" by improvising along the vocal lines. All musicians recorded at once and not much were overdubbed afterwards. My input came out quite well and everybody was pleased with the playful and somewhat impressionistic guitar fills. When the record was released one song became a hit and the album sold gold right away. One of the major magazines reviewed it and said that "hardly any guitar was used on the album - just a little acoustic strumming here and there". Very strange ;-) Maybe the guy took the Strat tone for a digital synth? Another time I did a gig with a band, playing our own collectively written music, and we got bashed in the press for "being dressed in black". Not a word about the music or the performance!!!! Stuff that like that has to happen, you just have to put up with it. Maybe take notes on "bad" writers and try to avoid them in the future. Greetings from Sweden Per Boysen www.looproom.com (international) www.boysen.se (Swedish) ---> iTunes Music Store (digital) www.cdbaby.com/perboysen