music critics,do we need them?

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 09:40 AM

smedley and Morissey,You keep missing the point.
Iam trying to illusrate the difference between good and bad reviewing,I am using my own examples because I do not wish to involve other professionals,your attiude sums up what is wrong SUBJECTIVITY.you cant seem to comprehend that somebody might be trying to point out how reviewing could be improve without assuming I am doing it because I have had a RECENT bad review
no,I dont send out review copies havent for years,I send them to radio stations only.
people can sample my music at my website or on dickmilesmusichttp //www.dickmiles.com youtube,

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 10:02 AM

Good criticism can enhance the understanding of a performer. Sometimes the flaws
are as important as the good stuff.   For example, many songs about topical subjects have been written as well-meaning attempts to stir public consciousness. They have been performed by great singers and players. Many of these songs, however, are
hastily written, patched together in the heat of the moment and do not reflect some of the elements of great songwriting such as consistency in focus, revelation about human character, specificity where you "show rather than tell", rhyme schemes, stanzaic consistency and other factors.

When you bring these things to light, you improve the art of songwriting and you show
the separation between artist and the art. This is good criticism to me.

Sometimes a great performer will miss the context of a song. They get it wrong from the standpoint of meaning or historical background or just inappropriate phrasing and emphasis on the wrong words. Pointing this out to me in no way invalidates the
performer's essentially good qualities but sheds light on the performance in a constructive way.

One characteristic of this albeit kinda' crude is the nice singer-performer Stan Rogers
doing "Waltzing Matilda" as a waltz. He sang well, played well and missed the boat
on this song.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Morris-ey
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 10:13 AM

Dick

To answer your original question, no we don't need music critics any more than we need any other sort of critic.

However, they exist and are good or bad depending on what you expect from them and what they actually deliver.

People must decide for themselves what value to put on their views.

Your plea for objectivity is no doubt heartfelt, but in the absence of both objective criteria for reviewers and, more problematically, objective criteria for musical worth it seems a vain hope.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 10:24 AM

Dick, of the two reviews of Playing For Time that you quoted, the longer one that you found more negative was the one that would have got me a lot more interested in hearing you - the reviewer was actually involved in what you were trying to communicate, to the point that he wanted more information on the background of the song that he found most significant. The second one depicted you as a free-reed James Blunt.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 10:26 AM

Before I hear howls of protest, I meant to Stan corrected.

It was Stan Wilson, not Stan Rogers, the latter would never be
guilty of such a misdemeanor.

Frank

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 11:28 AM

who is James Blunt?I know of a John Blunt[get up and bar the door],was James Blunt,his understudy.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 11:32 AM

James Blunt ,poor fellow still waiting after 200 years for his chance to get up and bar the door,he must be very frustrated.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 12:16 PM

Jack,the point is this the reviewer clearly prefers traditional songs,perhaps he should not have been given the review,he doesnt like the Modern songs,but does he explain why? is the rhyming poor,are the tunes uninspiring?is the subject matter of no interest to him,it is a further example of a reviewer illustrating his musical prejudices,but not qualifing his criticism,in other words not explaining why he thinks the songs are poor.
perhaps if the album had been sent to a song writer,we might have got some constructive criticism.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Gervase
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 01:28 PM

To be honest, I can't see much wrong with the first review. The critic clearly knows Dick Miles's stuff and has decided that this particular recording isn't his best - and has given his reasons for not liking it.
Still, 22 years on, it clearly still rankles. Maybe it is time to let go now!

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 01:43 PM

your missing the point, Gervase,
as I have explained ,I have used this review,one because it is so old,
two because it doesnt involve any other professional artist ,I could have found examples of other bad reviewing involving different people.
three, because I no longer care a f###,the record is out of print,I AM NOT GOING TO LOSE ANY RECORD SALES ETC ETC,it does not rankle.
it illustrates the fundamental tenet of bad reviewing,do not make statements without explaining ones reasons,why is it incongruous to play those tunes on the concertina,it is never explained.fundamental poor reviewing.
by the way, please dont send another unpleasant personal message.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Tim Leaning
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 02:31 PM

I need my music critics.
They stop me hat falling over me ears.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Gervase
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 05:15 PM

Eh? I've had several PMs from yourself which haven't been entirely friendly, but I've sent nothing to you since the one and only message on August 16 upbraiding you for yet another attack on poor old Ian Anderson and on the spelling of your new pseudonym (advice which, I'm glad to see, you've taken).
Anyway, enough of that. There's nothing wrong with the first review. The writer says that your Lennon/McCartney setting seems incongruous set against your usual oeuvre. That's fair enough and clearly explained.
Out of print or not, it clearly still rankles after all this time. But it really doesn't matter. Get over it; it's a fair review, now move on.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 07:35 PM

what attack on Ian Anderson.
I have checked my posted messages,for that period I do not know what the f### you are on about
you clearly have an over active imagination,not only are you imagining that the review rankles [it does not],but you are imagining I have attacked Ian Anderson.
you sent me a very unpleasant personal message,[some shite about drugs,and theres a luvvy and other obnoxious crap] to which I responded,
now get off my back and go and play with your land rover,or whatever turns you on.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Peace
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 07:38 PM

Who's Ian Anderson?

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Betsy
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 07:59 PM

I value the opinions of you all , and George P., is even more courageous in his willingness to put his his head on the block.
Sometimes you can be 110 % but sometimes you fall well-short because of other reasons - mostly due to "travelling" and tiredness.
Anyway a good friend of mine - highly regarded in the Scottish Scene by D

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Betsy
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 08:35 PM

My machine is "playing up " will get back to this ....

Betsy

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 09:12 PM

Ian Anderson is is the editor of fRoots, the world music magazine. Plays in a competent but less-than-major-league blues band, has a Madagascan wife and knows a lot about Madagascan music. Has rather a high opinion of himself but not to the point of crankdom. Dick managed to get into a completely pointless and protracted misunderstanding with him once, which is why I alluded to him.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: My Consistent ID
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 10:55 PM

most critics are wankers
and most new music is shite..

there.. everbody agreed and happy..

so now lets all move on and make some better tunes and write about them positively

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: My Consistent ID
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 11:27 PM

ok, I think I got the gist of this

those who can do

those who can't teach

those who can't do either criticise

and those who could never do anything of any creative value at all ever
waste their remaining retirement life pointlessly bitchin at mudcat

..hmmm ???

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Aug 09 - 06:26 AM

my consistent id,you know nothing about the members contributing to this thread,or their musical creativity.
if through discussion ,the standard of musical criticism can be raised ,that has to be good.if the standard of musical criticism is low,no one takes it seriously.
seethe thread, music critics how can they improve.now I am off to play some music.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 29 Aug 09 - 07:20 AM

MCI, you missed out two: The one about confusing aphorisms for the truth and the one about witticisms and wit.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Aug 09 - 07:35 AM

Dick managed to get into a completely pointless and protracted misunderstanding with him once, which is why I alluded to him.
it was not pointless,it was pertinent to this debate,it was about a music review that purported to be in Folk Roots,but in fact was not,hence the misunderstanding,if the reviewer had not stated that it had appeared in Folk Roots,and If I had worked on the principle,of not believing everything one sees on the internet, and had checked with Folk Roots, first, the misunderstanding would not have occurred.
I subsequently apologised to Ian Anderson,and received an apology from the reviewer for his misleading information.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 07:45 AM

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: M.Ted - PM
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 12:12 PM

As per the original post, the internet actually opens the door to more of the "Tom Cobbley" sorts of reviews, because, though every editor chooses his/her writers with care, internet critics, on blogs, discussion forums and in the ubiquitous "comments" postings, are self-selected.
ok, from a blog called Folk Yourself,this blogger has illegally,ripped off a recording of a vinyl copy of Cheating the Tide,
Some person purporting to be Captain Birdseye[which used to be my old pseudonym on this thread,before Gervase Webb and Geoff Wallis referred to me as Captain Birdbrain],posted this comment.
I hardly think this comment is self selected,and certainly was not posted by me.
Captain Birdseye said...

    Dick Miles is not 'a good English folksinger' - he's fecking terrible and he's naff on the concertina too!

    March 15, 2009 5:02 PM
It is my personal opinion,that whoever it is that goes around writing remarks like that about other performers,is an obsessive with a massive grudge,and needs psychiatric help.
to continue it shows that all blogs are not just sycophantic,self selected platitudes,but actually provide the opportunity,for deranged obsessive people to make unpleasant comments.
one thing that can be said in favour of music reviews,is that no Editor,would allow such unpleasantness to be passed off in a folk review without some qualification.
e g.he cant sing in tune,he constantly changes key in mid song,he cant play the notes in of a tune in the correct order.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 07:49 AM

i should make clear that M T teds post only contained the following
Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: M.Ted - PM
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 12:12 PM

As per the original post, the internet actually opens the door to more of the "Tom Cobbley" sorts of reviews, because, though every editor chooses his/her writers with care, internet critics, on blogs, discussion forums and in the ubiquitous "comments" postings, are self-selected.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Gervase
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 01:49 PM

I dunno about 'music critics do we need 'them' - I think it's more a case of 'proof readers or editors, do we need them?' I can't be alone in finding Dick Miles's posts increasingly difficult to follow!
It's not just blogs that provide an opportunity for the deranged and obsessive to make comments - the Mudcat has been performing that function for over a decade.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 02:38 PM

Gervase,do we need posters who call other members Captain Birdbrain.
one of the rules of the forum,is no personal attacks.
Most members would understand the word Pillock,as abusive,and yet you have sent me another personal message,in which you call me a Pillock,please give it a rest.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Gervase
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 04:22 PM

Sticks and stones, Dick. I'll trade you the 'pillock' in my PM for the 'prat' in yours! Anyway, this thread is degenerating into a childish and rather incomprehensible dribble now. I stand by what I said earlier - critics are useful beasts, and I'd be much more in the dark without them. And I'd rather read a piece by an articulate critic who was not a musician than by an inarticulate musician. So, Captain Swing, I think we should agree to disagree.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Vulgar Boatman
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 04:44 PM

Švejk. Did you know that Jaroslav Hašek took it as a compliment when he heard someone say "You're about as big an idiot as Švejk"?

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 04:59 PM

critics can be useful,but they should not be above criticism themselves,,but very often they get caq rried away with the importance of their own pen which is exactly why I started the other thread,howcam music critics improve.
GERVASE.I did not call you a prat.
I said this,Gervase Webb,stop being a p#####,
that could mean anything,but it aint prat.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: mandotim
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 05:11 PM

Given that the appreciation of music is above all a subjective activity, and that each person perceives a given piece of music in a wholly personal way, developed from their experiences and education (even genetics maybe), is it possible for a critic to express in writing a judgement which will be entirely appropriate for another to take on board? For me this whole thread opens up the idea of synaesthesia, perhaps best summed up in the quote (can't remember who said it) 'Writing about music is rather like dancing about architecture'.
Tim

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 06:05 PM

Mr Webb your attacks remind me of being lampooned by a limp lettuce.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Peace
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 09:12 PM

Thanks, Jack.

I just stopped in to see that everyone's getting along.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Jeri
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 09:19 PM

I'm picturing Jay Leno as a limp lettuce. It's just a little bit terrifying.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Peace
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 09:21 PM

I think that music critics are needed, otherwise we'd just end up arguing with each other . . . .

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Gervase
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 04:18 AM

Limp lettuce?! The outrage!
I see myself more as a dead sheep.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 07:09 AM

ok, so the general majority agree,we do need music critics,so if musical criticism is to be taken seriously,the standard of criticism needs to be high.
so how do music critics improve their reviews,and is there any reason why reviewers should not have their reviews reviewed.
my other thread only has 32 posts,and yet it is a more positive thread,which is disa ppointing.
Mr Webb,if you dont understand the above post,I would suggest a visit to the opticians.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: John P
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 01:31 PM

I like music critics because they have been vetted by a professional editor as being worthy of being given space in a publication. Going to internet discussion sites for honest opinion, competent writing, or rational thought is a waste of time. Why should I believe anything that any old boob says on an unedited website? Not that I necessarily believe what reviewers say, but it is very easy to quickly tell whether or not I'm reading something of worth.

As a musician, I've had extremely positive reviews and they have helped me in getting gigs and in getting newspapers to write articles about me. I've also had reviews written by people who don't know anything about the type of music I play (the hudy-gurdy was once described as a type of bagpipe!), and these reviews just get ignored. I've never had a purely negative review, but if I did I'd just ignore it, too. For the most part, they disappear in fairly short order. If I don't keep a review in circulation, it doesn't generally stay there. Anyone who makes a decision about music based on one negative review deserves what they get, anyway.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 01:54 PM

ha ha,I could find a review for you published by Musical Traditions,that myself and others thought should not have been published.
I will pm it to you,it was disgraceful.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: GUEST,Tootles
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 01:59 PM

'ha ha,I could find a review for you published by Musical Traditions,that myself and others thought should not have been published. I will pm it to you,it was disgraceful.'

Why not name that review here? Don't be coy.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: John P
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 02:12 PM

Censorship, GSS? If you don't like a publication, stop reading it. If you like the publication, but just didn't like the one review, tell the editor about it an move on. Who are you to decide that something shouldn't have been published? Reviews are OPINIONS! Factual errors should be corrected, but you don't have authority over other peoples' opinions.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 04:02 PM

John P,I did not say like Musical traditions,I do like it, 99 percent of its reviews are very good.
however I made a mistake it is not a professional magazine,as far as I know ,the Editor and the reviewers are not paid,it purports to have a professional standard,and generally speaking is professional in its outlook.
no,I have been ordered by Joe Offer,to neither publish the review on this forum or name it.
John P,
I am not in charge of this forum ,neither am I in charge of what is permissible to be printed on this forum,this forum has an adminstrator he is called Joe Offer,I abide by his wishes.
finally, John,I am entitled to an opinion,which all was my previous post was,I am not preventing anything from being published,I am entitled to have an opinion as to whether the Editor should have published it.
you seem to be telling me what to do,[quote]
[Censorship, GSS? If you don't like a publication, stop reading it. If you like the publication, but just didn't like the one review, tell the editor about it an move on.[end of quote]
and yet at the same time accusing me of trying to have authority over other peoples opinions.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: John P
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 06:53 PM

GSS,
Why are you talking to me about Joe Offer and his desires? I'm uninterested and haven't encouraged you to put anything on this forum.

When you say the review "should not have been published" it sounds a lot like a desire for censorship. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. But when that opinion is that someone else shouldn't be entitled to their opinion and shouldn't be published, I'm going to tell you that I think you should get over it.

If you don't want people to offer solutions to your problems, don't air them publicly. AND THAT'S AN ORDER!! (hee hee hee)

Get over it.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 06:09 AM

no guest, tootles did,I was responding to that post.
the subject under discussion is music critics do we need them.
whether reviews can be improved and whether sub standard reviews should be published relate directly to the thread.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 08:09 AM

I have a vast shelf full of books about music. Some of them are outstandingly well written and an absolute joy to read, often because they are not reduced to a dull list of facts, but riddled with debate, opinion, comment, hyperbole, contention and so on. I regularly read fRoots, The Wire, EDS and occasionally read Mojo - as much for the reviews as for anything else. A well written review by a good writer who loves music is a wonderful thing. The anti-reviewer sentiments on this thread smack of arrogance: "I'm going to put my music in a public arena but woe betide you if you dare to express an opinion about it"... though you don't hear too many complaints about positive reviews, do you?

I also refuse to trust any publication that fails to give bad reviews. To me it shows they have no notion that they are there to provide a service to consumers rather than pander to musicians' needs. One magazine I used to read consistently found something good about virtually everything they reviewed. As a result I wasted good money that I couldn't afford to squander on absolute shite and dreck before I realised they were in the business of sycophancy and not criticism.

I wonder if musicians in other genres, sculptors, painters, playwrights, novelists etc have the same attitude? Most I know are eager to get whatever column inches they can. At least it means someone has noticed them.

Finally, some musicians might believe they don't need reviewers but those of us who put our hands in our pockets - your victims as it were, definitely do.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 08:35 AM

spleen cringe,
I have given this some thought and changed my mind
I believe we do need music critics,but if they are to be taken seriously,the standard of reviewing must be high.
I also feel that a site where reviewers reviews could be reviewed would be a good thing ,is there one in existence?
I thought I read about such a site a while back,perhaps if it exists someone could post its details here.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 11:01 AM

I have given this some thought and changed my mind

Good man! Good on you!

I believe we do need music critics,but if they are to be taken seriously,the standard of reviewing must be high

Absolutely. Like any other endeavour that is placed into a public arena, reviewing needs to be of good quality with no room for sloppiness or laziness.

I also feel that a site where reviewers reviews could be reviewed would be a good thing

Ah... who watches the watchmen? Might be a bit boring though!

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: quokka
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 01:03 AM

I stumbled on this thread by accident while looking up Verandah Music, a review of which was posted up by Jack Campin (11.25 am, Aug 25 2009),btw I have the book - brilliant - but then I started reading the whole thread, and was so entertained that I thought I'd refresh! I particularly like Peace's posts ;-)

Cheers,

Quokka

PS: Seriously, check out Verandah Music!

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: seligmanson
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 09:21 PM

Well, I think what we have here is a clear demonstration of why the folk-clubs are full of the kind of rubbish that jazz-clubs and concert-halls simply do not tolerate. First, we on the folk-scene have the idea that all criticism is negative and self-serving - which sadly it very largely has been - and secondly, we have the idea that criticism, in any case, has no place in folk- and traditional-music - which is a very sad misreading of how traditions work. To take the first point: criticism, if it is designed to encourage performers to use their talents to the full, is immensely valuable. Sometimes, that means pointing out areas where improvement might be made as well as crediting the qualities which work. Of course, that's all personal judgment, but if performers aren't willing to make themselves aware of how they are being judged by their audiences, they cannot improve as performers. However, I make that point in the full awareness that criticism in the folk-scene is frequently highly-negative,invoking a mean-spirited, often cruel, kind of judgmentalism:I don't mean professional criticism, I mean, very simply, the vicious way people talk about each other, and each other's work, such as we witness too often on this site. Of course,such criticism should be ignored: it's worse than useless, it poisons people's perception of what the folk-scene is, or rather, set out to be once upon a time. That movement has become haven for self-seekers and self-promoters, many of whom reveal themselves in these postings. When we can learn to elicit other people's opinions with the intention of taking them seriously and using them, and when we can express our opinions respectfully with the intention of being useful, then we may see a raising of standards among performers, and thus provide a rather obvious way of increasing the size of their audiences, which, let's face it, are often pretty paltry. As to my second point: no tradition of music, or any art,exists unless the people who maintain that tradition have a very clear idea of its underlying rules and its practices. That implies a willingness to learn on their part, which implies a willingness to be taught, which in its turn implies a willingness to listen to criticism, and give it proper consideration before deciding whether to accept or reject it. Too many performers - and I dignify them with that word - think they can do whatever they like however they like and to hell with any-one who doesn't like, and do it in front of an audience. They are essentially masturbating in public, and while that may give them pleasure it certainly gives none to the people who have to witness it. The best performers, the ones we pay good money to go and see, work hard to get their performances right: they study, they rehearse, they think it through. They know that criticism,if it is contructive, if it is rooted in a knowledge and understanding of the music, is not just useful, but necessary. So I will respect those performers, and those who are willing to discuss their work with some degree of rationality, before I give even the slightest credence to those of you who use this site to nag and whinge about other people who nag and whinge.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Peace
Date: 08 Oct 09 - 09:44 PM

Good for you.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Oct 09 - 05:57 AM

They are essentially masturbating in public, and while that may give them pleasure it certainly gives none to the people who have to witness it. The best performers, the ones we pay good money to go and see, work hard to get their performances right: they study, they rehearse, they think it through. They know that criticism,if it is contructive, if it is rooted in a knowledge and understanding of the music, is not just useful, but necessary. So I will respect those performers, and those who are willing to discuss their work with some degree of rationality, before I give even the slightest credence to those of you who use this site to nag and whinge about other people who nag and whinge.[QUOTE]

I have been a professional performer for 35 years,I rehearse and practise my material,what I expect in return from a critic,is a professional review,so I expect statements to be qualified,I think it reasonable that critics ,should not be above criticism.http://www.dickmiles.com