music critics,do we need them?

Subject: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 06:55 AM

Now that we have the internet,and musicians have the facility to put tracks up on the net for people to listen to,have music critics become redundant.
do we need anyone to tell us what we should like or not like.
some of these critics who take delight in rubbishing others efforts,are failed singers /musicians themselves,of course that does not mean they are not entitled to an opinion,but is their opinion of any value.
Personally I value criticism,from musicians I respect,but too many of the folk music critics[imo]are people whose main abilty seems to be with the pen.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 07:03 AM

We need music critics like a fish needs a bycicle.

Dave H

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 07:12 AM

There are more than enough critics on this site any way

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Bernard
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 07:16 AM

Of course we need parasites... erm, critics!!

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: matt milton
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 08:11 AM

You've already done this thread, Dick. It was very long, and there were a lot of salient points made in it. I'd appreciate it if somebody more savvy than me at digging up old threads could do so and link to it.


Yeah, of course nobody needs music critics. Of course they are just parasites. Of course nobody should think about music. Of course nobody should talk about music.

Of course music critics only exist in order to provide a service that facilitates the selling of compact discs by musicians. Of course people read the writings of music critics and take every single utterance as gospel.

Of course the act of a musician making music is in no way ITSELF act of music criticism. Of course music exists entirely in its own vacuum.

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...

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 08:42 AM

you call it ignorant,without explaining why it is unknowing or ignorant.
one of my points is that with the availabilty for people to sample and hear tracks,they can listen and make up their own minds ,therefore music critics are not needed,what is ignorant about that?

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Betsy
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 08:45 AM

Our opinions amongst ourselves are important,stimulating and naturally subjective so we will probably agree and disagree from time to time on the nuances of songs ,singers , versions which suit us individually. All very healthy stuff I hope a matter of personal taste.
I have just contacted Joe Offer on how to post the words on to Mudcat of a song I wrote - the Critic - which has been recorded by a few people and a lovely version was done on vinyl by Gary and Vera Aspey on their LP Night-shift Army.
Let's see what Joe advises ,as I may need to cut and paste into a message here.
As to the Subject Question - No - we don't need people form our opinions or show us in which direction to think - hopefully we're all big girls and boys now, and quite capable of doing our own thinking !.

Cheers

Betsy

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 08:48 AM

How is listening to a track going to tell you if there is (or could be) a better version of the same piece? It's the critic's role to know that.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Smedley
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 09:06 AM

Without reading reviews in assorted magazines, I would never have heard some of the music that means the most to me. And (very occasionally) music critics are also worth reading for the passion, style and wit of their writing.

As for the Internet, it's great if you know where to go, but some guidance on where to find certain things is always helpful. If you just visit sites that cover the music you already like, how are you ever going to be surprised by something from outside your comfort zone ?

As for critics being 'failed musicians', that's a tired old jibe. You might as well say that you can't trust musicians to comment on music because they see everything through their own self-interest.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: matt milton
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 09:06 AM

When will those parasites at fRoots, Songlines, Roots World, Global Rhythm, Living Tradition, Bright Young Folk, Folk Journal, Mondomix, penguineggs, folkworld and all those other parasitical wastes of space wake up and smell the coffee and pack it in?

When will they stumble on that thing called "The Internet" and comprehend that they are utterly redundant? When will they notice that the people who read, buy and subscribe to them are simply figments of their imagination?

What's ignorant about your thread, Dick, is that it refuses to accept that music is not just about whether you like something enough to spend money on an album of it. I think you know this; I think there's a big element of disingenuousness to this thread. Why are you bringing this up again when you instigated this exact same topic, which was discussed pretty exhaustively, a couple of months ago?

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 09:20 AM

Here's some 'info' on this topic:
http://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=119270

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 09:21 AM

Folk song is, as far as I can make out, the only creative pursuit in which the participants consider themselves above criticism. I suppose the next logical step is to formalise that position.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: mrmoe
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 09:28 AM

I need them.....but only briefly....trying to "fill up" a myspace page and would love some "critic text" to add.....feel like giving a few songs a listen and forwarding your critique?.... http://www.myspace.com/michaelorlen

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 09:38 AM

Sure. Find somewhere else to put them instead of being Rupert Murdoch's arsehole buddy. Criticism enough for you?

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: GUEST,guest_olddude
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 09:45 AM

How else will we know what rap CD to run out an purchase without them

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 10:01 AM

Them that can, do, them that can't either criticise or teach.

Dave H

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Smedley
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 10:03 AM

So now you want to get rid of teachers too ????

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: matt milton
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 10:05 AM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

how'd you learn to read, as a matter of interest? I'm assuming you can.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: matt milton
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 10:11 AM

Keep em comin'! This thread might just be the best advertisement for informed, considered music criticism there's ever been!

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 10:13 AM

Jim,I am all for informed criticism ,when I want it, I generally go to a musician who I respect and ask for it[was not that the purpose of the Critics group]
in fact I did this only yesterday,about certain tracks on you tube.
Matt Milton implies that I am some sort of Luddite[this is bizarre]because I am suggesting that through the advent of new technology[the computer],music reviews are redundant.
Jack Campin,all you need to do is google the name of a song, Adieu Sweet Lovely Nancy]hey presto,different versions appear, the copper family, tim hart, show of hands.,and many more.
we can listen to these and then make up our own minds.
Finally Matt Milton,I started the thread because I wanted to talk about it and hear other peoples opinions,nothing more nothing less,is that clear.
as I understand it that is the purpose of Mudcat ,if you dont like it you can ignore the thread .

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: matt milton
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 10:23 AM

Answer the question I asked you please. I asked you why you were bringing this up AGAIN so soon after the last time you brought it up. What were you expecting to read this time that you didn't read last time?

See, some people might think that if somebody had already canvassed other people's opinions on something in a pretty damn exhaustive recent thread, to do so AGAIN might imply the person in question had some bee in their bonnet about something? Hmmmm?

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 11:04 AM

Finally Matt Milton,I started the thread because I wanted to talk about it and hear other peoples opinions,nothing more, nothing less,is that clear.
the other thread was started nearly six months ago.
you are free to think what you like,if you dont like the thread ignore it,and let others make contributions,its called freedom of speech.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: doc.tom
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 11:10 AM

I've always thought the biggest problem is that 'critics'(almost invariably self-appointed, even when 'invited') mis-understand their function and criticise rather than offering a critique - big difference!

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 11:11 AM

Maybe a clone could merge this thread with the old one? We certainly don't need two.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 11:25 AM

all you need to do is google the name of a song, Adieu Sweet Lovely Nancy]hey presto,different versions appear, the copper family, tim hart, show of hands.,and many more.

I preferred to google the name of the song along with "mustrad" to see what Rod Stradling's reviewers might have had to say about versions of that song. (You do know who Rod Stradling is? You regard him as a musical failure retreating into criticism to vent his spleen? You regard the whole Mustrad enterprise as pointless?)

Can you find this one on the web?

Jeff Davis

and if you did, would it tell you as much as that short review about what the CD is like?

And how about this one?

Verandah Music

How many YouTube clips would you have to watch to learn as much as that review tells you about Australian folk music?

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: GUEST,TJ in San Diego
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 11:28 AM

For some reason, I am reminded of an old saying regarding business professors when I was in college: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."

Many critics will profess a love of their subject areas, but have not been lucky enough or good enough to have enjoyed personal success in performing or creating. Others have simply been assigned a critic's duties by their broadcasters or publishers. They rarely gain notice by being simply agreeable. Sarcasm is often a huge part of their kit.

They all represent "one person's opinion." I can get that for free on the street any day.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 11:47 AM

They all represent "one person's opinion." I can get that for free on the street any day..

You can get this for free on the street?

Mustrad review of the new Greig-Duncan book

(I don't have any connection with Mustrad, I'm just using them as one of many examples of consistently good and insightful folk music criticism by people who really do know what they're talking about).

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: matt milton
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 11:50 AM

you conveniently ignore all the critics who are also musicians, often quite successful ones. this is the case a hell of a lot more often in "niche" musics (folk, jazz) than it is in rock. That generalisation about sarcasm is nothing more than a generalisation.

Dick Miles' original question – is music criticism redundant now that the Internet allows us to easily hear (the majority) of the sort of music covered by music criticism - is a very bad one.

It's inherent absurdity is revealed by the kind of knots you have to tie yourself in just to phrase it - what is the sort of music generally covered by music criticism? Two immense bloody elephants in the room immediately trumpet:

1. The huge preponderence of ONLINE REVIEWS – the Internet has seen an explosion in the popularity of music blogs, online magazines etc
2. the fact that youtube and myspace have, built-in, the facility of commenting upon (or, to use a different word REVIEWING) the content. (Note: the quality of comment is almost always superficial: generally either "AWESOME" or "YOU SUCK" variety)

But there's a million bloody obvious other reasons why it was a lame proposition. Like the fact that criticism doesn't just discuss CDs, for one thing - it covers gigs too, which as independant events, someone online most definitely cannot 'make up their own mind about'. (The idea that music criticism inhibits anyone from making up their own mind is laughable to anyone who doesn't have jelly instead of a brain).

The main reason, that I and others have stated and restated, is that people who LOVE MUSIC like to TALK about it. Christ, this is like wading through treacle.

To anyone reading this who is new to folk music: please don't be put off. We're not all self-patronizing dunces who can't read.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Steve Hunt
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 12:00 PM

The writings of the very best music journalists/critics (Jon Savage, Charles Shaar Murray, Colin Harper, Wil Hodgkinson) are sometimes far better than the records that they review!

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 12:44 PM

I am of the opinion that lot of reviewers tell us more about themselves than what they are reviewing.
why should not the reviewers be reviewed,who are these people who have the power to make and break peoples careers,who often have no qualification ,other than the ability,to write good prose.
Roy Harris is an example of someone who does have the Qualification to review others work,why /,because he has been and done it successfully.
if Martin Carthy were to review,most of us would treat his reviews with respect,why ,because he has done the business.
if I ,I want constructive criticism I ask a fellow musician who I respect,I do not ask a roadsweeper,or a tone deaf journalist.
if I want to know about decorative pargetting,I ask a master plasterer.
yet in the folk world we have to put up with reviewers who cant play, cant sing,and whose only qualification often is the abilty to write.
well, its just amateurish,yet these amateurs are given unlimited power,to affect professional musicians careers.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 12:57 PM

If I put music out for public consumption, critics will have their say. Them's the breaks.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 12:59 PM

Name names, then.

And I suggest you don't name your favourite bugbear because for some topics (blues, Madagascan music) he is immensely knowledgeable.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 01:14 PM

no,I wont name names,there are too many of them.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 01:24 PM

Reviewers and critics (and there is a great difference between the two) are essential to the performing arts, for one simple reason--they create "awareness" and build "familiarity", and without those, people don't attend concerts or buy cds.

It often doesn't even matter what is said--there are many artists who have climbed to the top because their names have been dragged through the mud. What does matter is that critics and reviewers get people talking, and that is what keeps the seats filled.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: M.Ted
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 01:25 PM

That last was me. Sorry--lost my cookie--

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 01:37 PM

no, I did not mean Ian Anderson,I have never criticised Ian as a reviewer.
I repeat, I have never criticised Ian Anderson as a reviewer.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 01:48 PM

Who's Ian Anderson?

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Smokey.
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 01:48 PM

Professional critics are a necessity of the music business. Fact of life. They help people make their minds up - their actual opinions are not of primary importance. It's free publicity. Whatever the critic might write, the readers will either agree with it or disagree, but the point is that they've been made aware of the product.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: M.Ted
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 01:53 PM

And if there were more reviewers and critics who wrote about folk/traditional music in the mainstream press, there would be a lot more people at the folk clubs, and the concerts, and more cds would be sold.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: matt milton
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 01:55 PM

Blimey, we're getting every single hackneyed, done-to-death argument on this thread.

Yeah right, so we'll get Martin Carthy to write all reviews of English folk music from now on, shall we? I've read enough terrible reviews by extraordinarily talented musicians in my time to know that it's a long way from a guarantee of a well-written review.

Just as a lot of good writers are also good musicians, there are a lot of great musicians who can't string an intelligible sentence together. There are acknowledged experts in their fields who have appalling taste in music. Then there are writerly amateurish enthusiasts who give banal thumbs-up reviews to everything. In other words, you can't generalise AT ALL.

I enjoyed reading Eliza Carthy's review of Mary Hampton's album in fRoots. It was a fun, enthusiastic read. But it wasn't iconoclastic, thought-provoking stuff the way writing by, say, Ben Watson, or Ian Penman is. What I mean is, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that criticism by renowned musicians is any more incisive than that by non-musicians. If anything they're probably a bit more reticent.

I can't make biscuits, but I will defend my write to praise the custard cream and damn the digestive whenever I see fit. Ultimately the only real qualification a music writer should have is that they want to write about music. The ones who only think they do, who just like the idea, generally fall by the wayside. The ones that stick to it, surprise surprise, tend to be the ones who LIVE for music. They certainly don't do it for the money.

I note that the author of this thread has suddenly gone very quiet about his incorrect - in every objective sense - assertion that technology has rendered the music critic redundant.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 02:32 PM

Codswallop.
If you want an opinion on how to make a musical instrument,you ask an instrument maker,you dont ask a tightrope walker.
   
[ Ultimately the only real qualification a music writer should have is that they want to write about music.]end of quote.
more rubbish,would you allow somebody whose only desire was to write about literature or art,to do so because they wanted to,regardless of whether they had any knowledge of the subject,of course not.
not only do you talk shite ,but you have a massive spirtle stick which you have been stirring the shite with.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 02:36 PM

Uh, gents, are either of you critics? If so, I hope you're not doing a review today . . . .

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Smokey.
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 02:45 PM

It's possible to be over-sensitive to criticism, in which case it's best to avoid reading them..

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Bernard
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 03:12 PM

'assertion that technology has rendered the music critic redundant'

Not quite accurate... there was no such 'assertion', simply a question.

As you've chosen to regard it as an assertion, it explains your rather melodramatic histrionics.

Didn't like that? Sorry, I was just being a critic.

Touché...

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 03:33 PM

"If you want an opinion on how to make a musical instrument,you ask an instrument maker". True, but if you want an opinion on how well the instrument plays, you ask someone who can play it. Instrument makers are not always proficient players.

The internet hasn't made critics redundant. Firstly, not everything is on the net (although it may sometimes seem like it). Secondly, unless you rely on serendipity, how do you know who to listen to in the first place? Critics can help to point you towards interesting music - it's then up to you to make up your own mind.

There are good critics and bad critics. Some are musicians (failed or otherwise) some are not. The two are not related. What is important in a critic is that they understand what they are listening to and can give a well-written, honest opinion. You soon learn whose opinions you can trust and whose tastes you share.

Dick, if you as a musician want a critique of your performance to help to polish it, then you're probably right to ask another musician whose judgement you trust. For the general listener to find out what to listen to out of all the new performers coming forward, critics are still useful.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 03:44 PM

Must say, I ceased reading any form of musical press or music criticism after I stopped reading Smash Hits at around eleven. Not that I object to reasoned critique, but I simply cannot abide the usual style of loathesomely onanistic journalism that goes with the territory (no idea what "folk" musical journalism is like as I've never looked at it). As far as the OP is concerned, my abstinence didn't stop me from hearing good music, but then there are DJ's, friends and festivals for that too, along now with online materials. But I guess journalists are an essential link in the chain somewhere. Albeit one that I've intentionally, and happily, succeeded in evading all my adult life as a music lover.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Dave Sutherland
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 03:59 PM

Re-reading my contribution to the OP's previous thread on this subject I can only reiterate that as the steady flow of albums from singers, musicians, songwriters,their PR and their record companies keep arriving, for inclusion in a regional newspaper,I can only assume that some artists still find reviews valuable.

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: M.Ted
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 04:28 PM

Music critics and reviewers are here, and show no signs of leaving, whatever anyone happens to think about them.

There are performers, organizers, producers, and others who understand how to use them to advantage, and who go to pains to develop and maintain good relationships with them, even when the reviews are less than flattering.

There are performers, organizers, producers, and others who publicly blame "critics" when the seats are empty, when cds don't sell, and when they aren't getting the attention they think they deserve.

The choice is yours...

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 04:33 PM

The unspoken assumption here (SEEMS to be) that maybe critics don't ever say anything good. Folks, they do. I have received reviews that suck. Sometimes the performance did. I have received 'raves', and they were usually for good performances.

There are good critics--when I say good I mean fair. There are bad critics--they are interested in how adeptly they can rip someone apart. However, I have encountered many more of the former (fair) than the latter (bad).

Bruce

Subject: RE: music critics,do we need them?
From: Gervase
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 04:50 PM

I need critics. There's an awful lot of music out there. A lot of it is self-indulgent crap. I don;t have much time to spend listening, so if a critic I respect says x is good or y is bad, or a sounds like b and I like b, then I find that helpful.
The internet, having given us myspace, folkcast and the like, is all well and good, but unless you have infinite time, infinite patience and a very uncritical ear indeed, you're going to find it frustrating.
The arrogance of those who say critics are parasites, or that their opinion doesn't count, is breath-taking. Or are those who utter such bilge really so practically perfect in every way that they really are beyond criticism? In which case those musicians who do listen to what critics say and who respond to positive feedback - those rank amateurs and struggling dilettanti like the Carthys, Bellowheads, Faustus's etc of this world - could really do with listening to you chaps. It might just help them improve a bit and raise their game to your standards!