music critics,do we need them?

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Vic Smith
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 04:53 PM

Matt Milton wrote - near the top of this thread
But don't let me hog it all - you too can rejoice in parading Luddite and unreflecting opinions in further posts in this wilfully ignorant and ghettoising thread...

Matt,
I'm afraid that you are falling into the same trap as I did a while back. It led to me receiving the following piece of advice in a PM:-

Vic
I think you've forgotten the First Commandment of Mudcat
"Do not try to argue with Captain Birdseye*, for it will end in much wailing and gnashing of teeth"
It is easy to get tempted, but better to resist!

*AKA Good Soldier Schweik. AKA Dick Miles.

I now follow this advice carefully and would suggest that you do the same.
(I think we are to meet on Sept 17th.)

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Gervase
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 04:54 PM

And I do hope the musician who started off this thread isn't thinking of moonlighting as a critic. He might well be a competent musician, but his writing style is so laughably dire that he's unwittingly provided the best riposte to his own posts.
Give me Rod Stradling, Colin Randall or Robin Denselow any day.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 05:01 PM

Having re-read the OP, I thought again about my comments. I think reviews are probably quite useful for a buying public who want and use them.

I don't want, or use use them personally, but I assume that others do so, and no doubt I in some way receive a drip feed of useful information about music I might like.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 05:36 PM

the usual garbage from Vic Smith,and Gervase Webb,who seem to have personal axes to grind.
look if you have nothing of any value,apart from attempts to score points,and make personal attacks ,then do not do it here.
Mudcat ,is about discussion of music,not cheap point scoring.
let others who wish to discuss,do so.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 06:00 PM

I notice that no-one has picked up on an assumption at the start of this thread:

"do we need anyone to tell us what we should like or not like [?]."

The assumption here seems to be that the function of a critic is to issue instructions and to dictate preferences. That's certainly not how I see the critic's role!

This idea that criticism, or even disagreement, is always hostile, punitive in intent, and dictatorial is very tiresome and more than a little immature. It's the sort of response that I would expect to come from an insecure, adolescent fashion-victim.

Surely, the role of a critic is to provide as objective an assessment of an artist's work as possible. A good critic should be able to convey to a potential audience a feeling for the quality of a piece of work and an assessment of how well, or badly, that artist has suceeded in meeting his or her objectives. A desirable secondary outcome of an effective piece of criticism may also be to provide useful feedback to the artist.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 06:19 PM

I can only speak for myself.

As a listener, I need critics now more than ever. Where there used to be 100 LPs released in the 70s in a given period, there have been 1000 CDs released in the 90s, and 100,000 MP3s and videos on the internet. Here's the thing: the percentage of good music in what is released has not changed, so what chance do I have now of finding the ones I like? Using critics I have learned to trust and whose opinions I value, helps me navigate through the dross.

As a performer, I need critics. They help me improve my deliver, focus on what is important, keep my patter pertinent, construct my setlists appropriately.

As a songwriter too, I need critics. They help save me from self-delusion, the comfort of the fan's praise. They also help me identify what works, and ways I can improve. I regularly use a critic who happens to also be a friend, to help me improve my material.

And all the while I learn.

Sure, not all critics are of equal value to me. Snide and smarmy or fawning comments soon enough point out the ones I should discard. Serious constructive criticism has never hurt me, even when it hurts, if you know what I mean - because it is fair.

And all the while I learn.

I found that the best (IMHO) critics are so irrespective of whether they are themselves performers and/or songwriters. Their talent is the ability to dissect and explain why something works or doesn't, to stand back and observe one's development and direction. They are a mirror, and the clearer and starker, the better.

And all the while I learn.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Smokey.
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 10:16 PM

Well put, Mr P., and may we never stop learning.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 11:18 PM

right,
so why should Music Critics not learn to improve,why should they be above criticism.
we expect professionalism from folk performers,we expect them to have their material rehearsed,we expect them to not get drunk and forget what they are doing,professional folk musicans spend many many hours rehearsing material.
Yet an attitude persists exemplified by Matt Milton,that anyone who wishes to write about music should be allowed to do so.
So its ok ,for anyone regardless of their knowledge ,to slag off or praise somebody elses work.,sorry that makes the criticism of little value.
so how can the situation be improved

1 .those who have been reviewed should be allowed the right of reply,this exists in theory,but is rarely put into practice,often the EDITOR has handed out a review to a friend,so independence has been compromised,and the artists reply is not published.
2.Editors,try and find an independent person who has does not have a personal dislike of the artist.
[lets be honest, I would not get an unbiased review from Vic Smith or Gervase Webb]
or has some alternative reason for producing an unbiased critique.
the present situation is that folk artists are expected to be professional,yet there is an attitude that anyone can write music reviews.
peoples careers are jeopardised or boosted by anybody who chooses to put pen to paper,that doesnt mean that there are not good music critics, there are.
it means more care needs to be taken in choosing reviewers,and reviewers and their reviews should not be above criticism.
a right to reply should exist,in much the same way that professional football teams can criticse referees decisions.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 11:40 PM

'The editor of a large New York publishing house returned one weighty manuscript with the comment: "I am returning this paper. Someone wrote on it."

A critic once reviewed a concert by an amateur group this way: "Last night a Massey Hall Auditorium, the Viceroy played Beethoven. Beethoven lost." '

Two 'reviews' from somewhere on Mr Google.

1) They help the critics ego but they are base and beneath contempt.

2) Few critics are like that these days.

3) If you get one like that, chalk it up to experience, because the reviewers are clever but they have no heart, and they would NOT give a damn what you say to them.

4) I gave up reading reviews anyway. Had one performance way back and two papers in the same town did reviews. One was a rave and the other was not at all good. I figured even back then that if they couldn't agree with each other then what was the point. They are the last reviews I read about me.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Gervase
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 03:19 AM

Dick, read George's post. Sit down, have a cup of tea, and then read it again. He has explained (rather more eloquently than my 'garbage') why critics are useful.
You might have the time to sit down and listen to every possible version of every song and tune as it appears online - I don't, and neither do I have the money simply to buy them all just in case there's one that takes my fancy. I need some form of filter, and that's why critics are important to me.
And I'd rather have a critic who knows what s/he's writing about and who can express it well than a semi-literate musician or rely on what Google might throw up. There's a hell of a difference, and if you can't see that then you clearly haven't read much music criticism - or criticism of any form, come to that.
Caruso's voice teacher couldn't sing a note, but I'm sure Caruso didn't take your view and get rid of him because he 'wasn't up to the job'.
That's just my opinion, of course. It does have the merit of being a considered opinion, however, rather than one simply flung down yet again on an internet forum as an ill-thought piece of trolling.
Now go and read George's post again before your tea gets cold.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Gervase
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 03:26 AM

(and, BTW, a good critic can easily have a personal dislike of the artist but find his or her work superb. Van Morrison can be an arsehole at times, but I hugely respect some of his earlier stuff. Ditto many others. There have been many threads on this forum over the years expressing astonishment at the personal problems of some musicians compared to the sublime stuff they produce. It's what objective criticism involves - the separation of the performer from the performed. Of course, it can put one in a tricky position; I've not yet heard any of David Hannam's work or Nick Griffin's...)

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 04:46 AM

It's very rare that I encounter much 'negative' criticism in the folk media these days. Most of it seems to be of the facile 'this is really great you should give it a spin' variety or 'this reminds me of early/late X' - nothing gritty or analytical at all.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 04:57 AM

I had not intended to contribute to this thread, as I remarked previously on another one, because I happen to have been a critic, folk [records books concerts festivals columns interviews features obits] and theatre, for many years, for Times, Guardian, Folk Review &c &c; and so would obviously not appear objective. But there is one point whose hash needs settling by someone within the trade: and that is the idea that a critic tends to be nothing but a 'failed whatever-it-may-be' — as if one had an ill-received gig, and said to oneself, 'darn it then, if they don't like me I'll go and be a critic & that'll show 'em!'; whereupon one walks into the office of a national paper & says, 'Hi, I've come to be your folk critic'.

Believe me, it just ain't that easy to convince an Arts or Literary Editor that you are the man he wants for the job, build up connections, gain membership of NUJ or Inst of Journalists... If you don't believe me, just try setting up as a critic for a reputable journal or programme, just like that, and see where it gets you. Of course, there are blogs and chatrooms and all sorts of outlets to express one's opinions, just as there were always newsletters; but that's not quite the same, is it? Becoming an actual, recognised·in·the·fields of both press & of medium·reviewed, Critic·with·a·cap·C isn't quite as simple as that.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 05:01 AM

GSS (by the way, it's one of my favourite books of all time, Yaroslav Hasek was a great writer),

You say:"...why should Music Critics not learn to improve,why should they be above criticism". I say "Who says? of course they should learn to improve, and of course they can be, and are, criticised".

You also say "...an attitude persists exemplified by Matt Milton,that anyone who wishes to write about music should be allowed to do so. So its ok ,for anyone regardless of their knowledge ,to slag off or praise somebody elses work.,sorry that makes the criticism of little value". I say:" Anyone can open their mouth and make noises, it doesn't mean they are making music. Anyone can offer opinions, freedom of speech and all that, but it doesn't mean that their opinion is valid. The responsibility is with us to be discerning and select the opinions, (the music, the writing, etc etc) that we will value. If we just sit goggle-eyed and accept anyone's view as wisdom simply because they are famous / a celebrity / loud / opinionated / have a great haircut, then we deserve all we get.

"So how can the situation be improved?"

Well, you see I don't think it is broken in the first place; we just need to be more critical readers of criticism, as I said above. We all do have the right to reply, and when we do so we should do it eruditely, explaining why a particular criticism is mistaken or misses the point, rather than simply rant back at the critic's rantings (if rantings they be).

I had my share of negative critiques, some of them unfair, I believe. For example, there was a case where a critic slagged off dismissively and without proper argumentation a song about the turbulent life of a transsexual (a song which many others have praised and which has received recognition from those who know, i.e. transsexuals themselves). To me the critic was simply exposing his own prejudices. Yet I chose not to respond - why? Because a) I am not his psychoanalyst, b) I believe that others reading his critique would have arrived at the correct conclusion, and c) life is too short.

Choices. We all have them.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: JeremyRS
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 05:51 AM

This is a bizarre thread, made worse by Dick's refusal (inability) to name names, other than those whom he personally dislikes, or give examples.

Some thoughts:

"Reviewers who can't sing and can't play." I imagine you drive a car Dick and have an opinion on it's good and bad points, and how it compares to other cars, but can you build one?

Editors may well be friends with their writers, are you seriously suggesting that they shouldn't be? It doesn't affect their assessment of their writing, trust me, I know.

As for right of reply, when a magazine doubles in size and consequently cost because of the publication of artists objections to a review (which may or may not be valid) and the subsequent dialogue, will anyone want to pay for and read it? I think not. Lots of magazines (and pretty much all review websites) have forums where objections can be made to your hearts content. If they don't, there's Mudcat and others.

Lastly, every reviewer/critic I know, and I know quite a few, is a music fan first, last and always. They don't write for money, they don't write because it gives them a sense of power or importance, they don't have axes to grind, they don't pursue vendettas and they don't write bad reviews of an album because they don't like the artist. All of them want to improve their writing and constantly try to do so because none of them think they're perfect. Those are really no good get weeded out by editors, as you can easily see by looking at a couple of issues of a magazine printed two years apart say.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 06:37 AM

I have already read Georges posts and he makes some excellent points as always.
I have never known George indulge in personal attacks.
Gervase, you would do well to take a leaf out of his book.

why should I drink a cup of tea? I hate the stuff.
I find that remark patronising.
Jeremy RS quote.
This is a bizarre thread, made worse by Dick's refusal (inability) to name names, other than those whom he personally dislikes, or give examples.
I havent named any names of bad reviewers[so whats this rubbish about ones he personally dislikes].
I am afraid [imo] yor post is not convincing.
why should I trust you[who are you, God?.]
I disagree with the rest of your post,so lets leave it at that.
I think it is a case of professionalism is expected of musicans,but any uncle tom cobbley amateur,can be allowed to do a review.
standards need to be improved [imo],peoples livelihoods can be affected by any literate but musically ignorant reviewer.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Gervase
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 06:48 AM

I think it is a case of professionalism is expected of musicans,but any uncle tom cobbley amateur,can be allowed to do a review.
standards need to be improved [imo],peoples livelihoods can be affected by any literate but musically ignorant reviewer.
Er, no.
Read what has been posted about reviewing. Or provide a link to a review which makes your point.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Smedley
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 06:51 AM

The term 'musically ignorant' is the problem here. It presumes that technical skill guarantees an insightful critical mind. Why should it ?

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Gervase
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 06:53 AM

I am afraid [imo] yor post is not convincing.
why should I trust you[who are you, God?.]
I disagree with the rest of your post,so lets leave it at that.
Having worked for several decades in newspapers and publishing, I find that post very convincing. That's the way it works.
I could argue that because you haven't worked in newspapers and publishing, your opinions on the nature of criticism should carry no weight at all. All I'm saying, however, is that you seem to be labouring under a misapprehension.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: JeremyRS
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 07:18 AM

Dick, you said:

2.Editors,try and find an independent person who has does not have a personal dislike of the artist.
[lets be honest, I would not get an unbiased review from Vic Smith or Gervase Webb]

The implication here is clearly that you wouldn't get an unbiased review because Vic and Gervase don't like you, so what I wrote was not "rubbish", unless of course I misunderstood you and you mean something completely different?

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 08:56 AM

an insightful critical mind is necessary to become a good musician.
it is necessary to listen to oneself and criticise,it is necessary to listen to others,have an insight into what they are doing, and learn.
to be a good musician requires discipline,insight,and a critical mind.
Smedley,are you a musician,if you are I am surprised you ask the question.
Practising, requires analysis,it requires criticism,and it requires insight,to become a good musican practice is essential.so musicians are [imo]well qualified to be music critics.
if we accept that everything in the garden is rosy as regards musical criticism,and that amatueruism is acceptable,logically it becomes acceptable that amateurism is acceptable in the performance of song,if that is the case ,god help the folk revival and folk song.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 08:58 AM

,'but any uncle tom cobbley amateur,can be allowed to do a review.'

you write Dick. But where? & 'allowed' by whom? What weight does a review in the sort of publication Uncle Tom C would be writing for [probably a self-started blog or some such] have? But as for proper, professional reviewing in a properly run and reputable publication, Uncle Tom C wouldn't have a snowball's chance of getting a review into it. I beg you, reread my post 8 back on what it takes to become a professional critic, and then tell me where you think your 'uncle tom c amateur' would fit within the parameters I postulate.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Smedley
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 09:35 AM

No, I'm not a musician (well, not since school & that was a loooooong time ago), but I still dispute some of the assumptions underlying the anti-critic arguments. Let me come at it a different way to see if that clarifies. I can think of some successful musicians who are very technically accomplished but who play music that I regard as soul-less, banal and lacking in worth. I would not be impressed or swayed by what such musicians had to say about music. You have have skill, but no soul. You can have talent, but no taste.

Taste, of course, is a subjective criterion. And criticism relies on subjectivity. That is what makes it interesting.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 12:09 PM

it is perfectly possible to have technique as well as soul,having technique does not prevent you playing with feeling,many musicians have both.
so there is no logical reason why musicians can not make good critics,I also accept that someone with a good knowledge of their subject can also make a good critic,what I do not accept is that anyone should be allowed to be a music critic [just because they have the desire].
in my opinion good music critics are in a minority on the english folk scene ,and there is room for improvement.
I believe those who have been reviewed should be allowed to reply,and that reviewers should not be above criticism.
reviewers,have the power to affect peoples careers,therefore they should be answerable.
to say there is not room to print it ,or people wouldnt want to read a reply,is arguable,and sounds to me like a convenient excuse by the editor to fob people off.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: M.Ted
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: The Sandman
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 01:02 PM

yes, true,
also one or two of musical traditions reviews are not very good,plus many of the local folk magazines,the standard there is very poor[in my opinion].
it is a problem ,many of the local folk magazines have very little money,and reviewers do not get renumerated.[you pay peanuts you get monkeys].
but it doesnt alter the fact that amateurs,have the power to castigate ,professional musicians,result the reputation of reviewing is lowered.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 03:22 PM

I have read some bad reviews - that doesn't mean they were wrong. I have read some badly-written reviews - that doesn't mean they were wrong.

Most of the reviews I have read appear to give an honest opinion of the event or album. They usually give me an idea of what to expect from the performer, perhaps by comparison to someone else. If they're critical, in most cases they explain why.

If a review makes me interested in a performer, I'll try to find out more about them. Perhaps I'll buy the album - if I'm disappointed, that tells me something about the reviewer as well as the artist, and will help me to judge their reviews in future.

I doubt if there is any one critic who has the power to make or break a performer or an album. If anything, the internet makes it easier to find other opinions.

Should an artist have a right of reply? In general, no - a review is one person's opinion, and who is to say if they're right or wrong? The whole point of reviews is that they are an opinion, and one learns whose opinion one can trust. It is usually obvious if there is some personal vendetta.

If the reviewer makes a factual error, then of course the artist should be able to get that corrected, and in most cases the editor will agree, if it is indeed incorrect and material.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: M.Ted
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 03:29 PM

Critical commentary tends to define an art form. When there is comprehensive study, review, and commentary, the the art form tends to become widely understood and respected. Most of what we consider "classical" music was really originally music for entertainment--it became "serious" music only when it received critical review.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Dave Sutherland
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 04:20 PM

'but any uncle tom cobbley amateur,can be allowed to do a review.'
You rightly cite Roy Harris as one of the most trustworthy reviewers around. When Roy was moving to Cardiff he recommended me to The Nottingham Evening Post to take on his role as folk music correspondent on account of my involvement in the music and past experince in a similar capacity. However it wasn't as easy as that; a seaching interview with the Features Editor allowed me a few weeks trial. This few weeks is now sixteen years of following Roy, so presumably I'm doing something right.
I also contribute to a local, on-line magazine where none of my fellow contributers receive a brass farthing yet they take an immense pride in their work; ask the many professional singers and musicians who have had their work reviewed in "Tatters"
Finally I might suggest that there are a Hell of a lot more "Uncle Tom Cobbley amateurs" who have the wherewithal (but not the talent) producing their own albums for critics/reviewers to worry about.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 04:26 PM

Does anyone really think he has the time to sift through the thousands of CDs that are released each week? And if he did, would he ever find something worthwhile that he hadn't been looking for? Critics and reviewers are simply filters--and their value depends on how they tend to agree with your tastes.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 06:19 AM

here are two reviews that illustrate,the difference between professional and amaturish reviewing.
Southern Rag Dec 1984 Dick Miles Cheating The Tide.
Cheating The Tide is a beautifully balanced selection of material including almost everything from American Music Hall[or should that be Vaudeville] through to a magic version of Lady Diamond throughout the record the standard never falters,thanks in no small part to one of those supergroups that only ever seem to materialise in recording studios,in this case imncluding Martin Carthy, Sam Richards.SueMiles ,Tish Stubbs.
All the vocal tracks are delivered with that unassuming sincerity that Dick almost unconsciously projects on a gig.Contrast for instance his lugubrious delivery on the poignant Tommys Lot a strangely dispassionate comment on the First world war,with the deliciously understated jauntiness of The Man Who Sells insurance.Wonderfully subtle stuff.
But it is on the instrumental numbers that Dicks talent comes to the fore.His playing style is rooted in that of the old time concertina greats such as the late Tommy Williams,but has evolved over the past few years into an instantly recognisable Dick MilesSignature.
Dill Pickle Rag will turn any inspiring concertinist a delicate shade of chartreuse,The Cott is a richly melliflous slow piece.
Bill Charltons Fancy a dazzling compilation of triplets and quadruplets all classic examples of virtuoso level musicianship to be enjoyed simply for its own sake.
Alan Harlow Maggy StGeorge
that is a professional review in a professional magazine.
I will post the amateurish review shortly Dick Miles

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 06:40 AM

Singabout August 1987.
playing for time gvr 2382[they cant even print the serial number correctly]its 238.
the reviewer spends a whole paragraph[ten lines] pontificating on why do musicians change direction.
then he shows his ignorance of the subject in the next quote
[theres even would you credit,an attempt at a Lennon MCcartney medley Yesterday/All My Lovingwhich is[ he searches for a charitable word]incongruous on a concertina.
,historically the concertina has been used to play the popular music of the day,so it is not incongruous to play it on a concertina.
this reviewer was amateurish because he displayed his ignorance of the subject matter [the history of concertina playing],further amateurishness, the /magazine/ reviewer printed the incorrect serial number.
printing the correct record number is pretty damn important,if you want to sell any.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Gervase
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 07:06 AM

Hmm, so ten lines of praise is a good review, but a one liner that isn't gushing is a bad review?
I think I see where you're coming from!
As for incongruity, it depends on the context. On a trad recording I'd find a Lennon/McCartney track incongruous, but on a recording showing the virtuosity of a particular instrument or a 'pop goes the folkie' offering, maybe not.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Dave Sutherland
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 07:48 AM

Singabout August 1987.

If that date is correct it might be worth checking out who was editor of that publication at the time and why he would permit such an amaturish (sic) review to be included.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Gene Burton
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 07:55 AM

No.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 08:19 AM

Dick, if you're going to quote a favourable review in full then you should also quote the other in full, rather than just pick on one line which you disagree with, so that we can judge both.

You may disagree that Lennon/McCartney on concertina is incongruous, but that's a matter of opinion, and one which was probably held more strongly back in 1987 when the concertina was still regarded by many as primarily a folk instrument. You are of course correct about the history, but the "popular music of the day" was somewhat different. I suspect you were aware when you recorded it that you were stepping outside the normal expectations for the instrument, especially at that date - perhaps that's even why you did it (and why not?)

It is still open to the reader to form their own opinion on whether or not it is incongruous - there are probably many who would think, "Actually, I'd rather like to hear that".

I agree it might have been better if the reviewer had concentrated on whether he felt that the arrangement actually worked, but even if he didn't like it, that is still his valid opinion. As long as he explains why he doesn't like it, that is what I would expect to see in a review.

Getting the serial number wrong is unfortunate, but typos happen in the most professional publications, and this is the sort of thing which the artist is entitled to ask to be corrected.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 08:35 AM

No, Gervase,it has nothing to do with whether someone likes the recording.
A Good review,should tell the potential customer what sort of music is on the recording,give examples of some of the tracks and should be factually accurate.
more latterly I received another good review in Folk roots,although the reviewer was critical of my blues singing,I have no problem with that ,he was right.
firstly. get the serial number of the recording right,
secondly .dont waste space, by making historically inaccurate comments about popular music being incongruous on the concertina.
thirdly. try and be objective as possible,I agree ,its impossible to be totally objective.
for the record[excuse the pun]that recording only had one traditional track,but that was not the reviewers point,
he said that Lennon Mcartneys music was incongruous on the concertina the potential customer does not need this subjective piece of nonsense,and it is nonsense ,the concertina[ever since its invention in the 1840s] historically has been used to play the popular music of the time,check out the Repertoire of the Concertina Bands,and of players like Tommy Williams,Gordon Cutty, music hall artists Pierre Honri , Percy Honri and more   latterly IN the folk world Lea Nicholson.
The reviewer was factually incorrect.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Peace
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 08:40 AM

"A Good review,should tell the potential customer what sort of music is on the recording,give examples of some of the tracks and should be factually accurate."

That's a blurb. A review is the writer's considered personal opinion, imo.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 08:41 AM

Howard
Lea Nicholson was playing Beatles compositions in the early seventies,some 13 years before that recording.
I have a gig tonight sorry ,I do not have any more time to waste on this.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Peace
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 08:58 AM

Break a leg, Dick.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 11:30 AM

Ultimately, the purpose of criticism in music is to educate. Sometimes music critics
can be full of it. I have learned to appreciate certain musics by being exposed to criticism in which I have agreed or disagreed with the critic.

Everyone purports to be a critic. "opinions are like........... everyone has one"
but the role of the critic is to extend to the reader their knowledge of the subject.
"I don't know anything about art but I know what I like" is an intellectual prison which may give comfort to the inmate but does nothing for the art.

I think that the best critic is a practitioner of the art. Not always because there is that
peculiar line of subjectivity and objectivity. Still, I'd rather hear criticism by an artist that I admire than someone who has not had acquaintance with the artistic practice.

I'll listen, for example, to what Louis Armstrong or Charlie Parker have to say about
jazz. (Not Leonard Feather unless I care to learn by disagreeing with him).

When Pete Seeger says something about music I listen. Sometimes he is wrong but
invariably knowledgeable.

When a great conductor such as Leonard Bernstein talks about music, I would have to be a pompous fool to dismiss his ideas.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 02:49 PM

Dick, in the context of the review I believe most readers would interpret "popular music" to mean contemporary pop music, not the popular music of earlier times. Lea Nicholson not withstanding (and Mike Hibbert for that matter), it would have been far less common in the folk world at that time for whom the reviewer was writing) to hear anything other than folk or music hall, and perhaps occasionally classical, played on a concertina. As I recall, attitudes could be still quite entrenched in 1987.

The reviewer was not writing an essay about the historical use of the concertina. He was saying he found your use of it for this piece incongruous. You may not agree, but that was his opinion, and the purpose of a review is to give an opinion. What he was in effect saying was that for him the arrangement didn't work. That is the job of a reviewer.

Whilst criticism in the academic sense should be objective, I see no reason why criticism in the music press should be. A subjective opinion is just as valid, and probably more informative, provided the reviewer gives reasons for his opinions. If a critic says, "This is crap", that's not a review; if he says, "This is crap because..." then that's valid criticism, whether or not you share it. The same applies equally in reverse - gushing praise is valueless unless it is explained.

A reviewer should know something about the music he is reviewing, and should have an affinity for it. The more knowledgeable, the better (although not when a critic uses it as an opportunity to flaunt his own knowledge rather than comment on the subject). If they are musicians themselves, fine, but being a musician is no guarantee of being able to critically review someone else's work, let alone write about it in a fluent and interesting way.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 06:43 AM

I have to disagree, it is in my opinion ignorance of the subject,as I said Lea Nicholson,was playing Beatles Music the Dam Busters march and doing it well[and getting paid for it] etc etc in folk clubs all over the country way back in 1973.
If the reviewer has led asuch a sheltered life that he hadnt encountered other music than trad folk on a concertina he should not be reviewing
this reviewer lived in Nottingham,at that time I used to see Reuben Shaw,playing his concertina in the co op folk club in Nottingham[his repertoire was the popular music of the twenties]he was incidentally complimentary about my playing of non folk stuff such as Woodland Flowers ,Yesterday,Washington Post etc
this reviewer had people right under his nose in Nottingham,playing non folk music.
he is supposed to be reviewing , why? i is it not a good review,because the reviewer tells us more about himself than the music
what the reviewers job is,is to tell us whether the playing is good or not,not to give his opinion about whether it is incongruous on a concertina.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 07:38 AM

if a reviewer makes a statement such as Beatles music is incongruous on the concertina ,he should qualify or explain why.
it mught be acceptable for a reviewer,to make the following statement,this piece of music was witten to be played by the composer in a legato style,Joe Soaps attempt to play it on the Bowed Psaltery,is incongruous,because he cannot achieve the composers desired effect with ease on the instrument,that is good reviewing.
it is not acceptable to say Jim Couza should not play Bach on the hammerd dulcimer[because it is incongruous].
it might be acceptable to say Harpsichord music should not be played on the concertina,Ithink it is incongruous because,this particular piece requires the right hand to be louder than the left hand,and that is not possible on the concertina unless double tracking is used,and on this recording it isnt.
reviewers should try and tell us as much about the playing of the music,as well as what is on the recording,this reviewer told us nothing about the playing of the BEATLES MEDLEY,AND DID NOT QUALIFY HIS REMARKS,that is why it was bad reviewing.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 07:41 AM

for the record,I do not find Jims playing of anything incongruous.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Smedley
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 08:18 AM

Twenty-two years on & that review still wrankles ?? Maybe time to let it go.......

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Morris-ey
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 08:43 AM

Had a "bad" review recently, Dick?

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 09:01 AM

Dick obviously isn't going to give us the complete review of that old performance of the Beatles number any more than he's going to name names about anything else, so here goes with an attempt to see where the reviewer might have been coming from.

About ten years ago I was at the annual Collogue of the Lowland and Border Pipers' Society, and Dick Hensold announced a tune as "An Americn Air" - it turned out to be "Somewhere Over the Rainbow", which was no problem for his hyper-extended chanter. I heard that some of the pipers in the audience really didn't like that, despite it being a beautifully expressive performance. I think the rationale might have gone like this:

1. we have a repertoire for this sort of instrument which isn't being played much and deserves a wider audience
   
2. it's not going to get it if the instrument becomes seen as simply an exotic colour
   
3. so let's keep the instrument associated exclusively with its traditional repertoire until such time as both get wider recognition.

Personally I'd say none of that really applies to the concertina, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a fundamentalist fraction of the concertina world that thinks that way.a

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

Smedley,no It does not rankle,I am using it to illustrate the difference between good and bad reviewing.
now these two reviews will illuminate this further.
Dick Miles playing for time gvr 2382
its difficult to guess why an artist decides on a charge of direction:DickMiles has always been associated with traditional English material but his new album has only one English folk,on One April Morning among nine other items.was itboredom with his usual repertoire,or an urgeto please some imagined shift in taste among live audiences?Maybe the lure of royaltiesfor several tracksare self penned or co written?Whatever the reason Dick Milesis making a stab at being relevantto these straitened and Thatcherite times-theres even a lament for a YOPS cast off,a callow youthof eighteen summers,who gives his call for Queen and country in Eighteen Year Jack.
the mood of the lp is decidely down beat with only a couple of polkas to end each side on an up.Sadly the effect is monochrome,where he tries for a languid effect,he ends up torpid where he should be plaintive hes mournful,and the wide variety of material ends up photographic grey.Theres even would you credit,an attempt at a Lennon/McCartney medley[Yesterday Allmy loving]which is [he searches for a charitable word]Incongruous on a concertina.
   The single trad track mentioned earlier is handled with grace and ease-why oh why doesnt Dick Miles go back to doing what he does bestan album of such material would have been a worthwhile project.the only modern song to pass muster is The Soldiers Prayer which is a Miles tune with a lyric that started out on a scrap of paper tucked into a book,but the notes do not know explain whether he was some long dead soldier odr whether Dick knew the man.
Strongly anti war the lyrictells of a soldier afraid to sleep,knowing what dreams will come to him.Iwould like to see Dick handle the song in a live performance because I guess an audience would feed him and improve the impact.
Guest musicians are Sam Richards on piano and synths,and SteveVerge
who contributes some strum along Bert accompaniment on the two polkas at the end of side one.
On the principle that one should always say something positive,Ican tell youthat my pressinghad clean surfaces,and sweet little oil painting o f Dick Miles aged 13 by[wait for it]Letitia Hicks Beach graces the front cover.would that the contents of the sleeve had soaked up a little of the Multi coloured palette.
contrast:
Dick Miles Playing For Time gvr238.
This latest album by Dick Miles oozes gentilty and expression.he doesnt so much sing a song as caress it with loving care and delicate concertina playing.even the more up tempo tunesare played with finesse and technical excellence that they need careful listening to rather than as background music
the tracks are a mixture of tunes traditional and Dicks own songs like Sweetheart of the East which is about Bury St Edmunds,the ethereal `¬The Singer and the Song¬ and the topically pertinent Eighteen Year Jack.
if you are in the mood for music thatis softly performedand pleasnt on the earthen this album will not disappoint you and if not ,buy it anywayand save it until you are. Derek Gifford

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 09:31 AM

now.
here is why the first review is poor.
the reveiwer makes a remark which he does not qualify[concertina incongrous]etc.
2.he insults my motives for song writing.
3.He finds it necessary to comment[wait for it]on the cover artists name
4.he contradicts himself.
the single trad track is is handled with grace and ease,then states as a put down,on the principle that one should always end by saying something positive,I can tell you that my pressing had clean surfaces.[implying it was the only positive]
what this reviewer does is get caried away with the importance of his own pen,and wanders away [for at least half of the review on matters that are not to do with the recording, why do people change direction ,what are my motives for song writing.,he witters on about the fact I did not mention whether I knew the man in the Soldiers Prayer,What relevance does that have
if he didnt like the modern songs,fine ,but that can be said in one line.that review should be used an example how not to review.
a good reviewer.
should use the following rules
1.donot make unqualified statements.
2.try to be as objective as possible,Iagree it is impossible to be completely unsubjective,but use objectivity as a goal.
3.avoid verbosity,try and use one word not three.
4,tell the potential customer,about the music,not your musical prejudices.
5.do not waste readers time with drivel about artists motives,that is supposition,the customers wantsdetails about the recording nothing else.