Sulphur on 17/9/2018 at 14:49
I'm okay with someone not having musical pedigree as long as they have a degree of understanding of the subject matter. If they don't, that generally tends to come across, like a Pitchfork review I read that made the wonderful analogy of Purity Ring eating the lunch Miley Cyrus packed. My immediate reaction to that was, 'oh, good job. Now please skate off a cliff and die.' But if you want to wax lyrical about the six different melodies in Peter Gabriel's 'Digging in the Dirt', or how Keith Moon's ridiculous drum fills make sense because he played like the drums were the lead instrument, you're doing a decent job of making me consider your viewpoint as something to look deeper into.
There's no need for a degree from Berklee or whatever to engage deeper than the average Joe's opinion when you break down a thing into its constituent parts. Sure, it'd be nice if someone with experience in writing contrapuntal harpsichord pieces does a technical takedown of Bach's worst hits, but in the absence of that I'll take the next best thing.
Malf on 17/9/2018 at 14:58
Having experts as critics doesn't really help though, and is in danger of fostering snobbery.
I have a colleague at work who is musically talented, plays the guitar, spends a lot of time producing his own hobbyist music, knows the ins-and-outs of Apple's Logic, etcetera, etcetera.
And I think his views on music stink.
He gets caught up on the idea of "perfect" production, prefers overly technical music that is distinctly lacking in human warmth, and has a tendency to outright dismiss musicians that others hold in high regard, such as Johnny Cash, Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen.
In short, he has lost sight of the soul of music while focussing more on the technicalities.
Some of my favourite bands have released songs and albums with what he would dismiss as having awful production quality. But to me, the production quality itself tells its own story, giving you an insight into the band's situation at the time they recorded the music. And "bad" production can lend character to music, with little blips, echoes and bum notes eventually becoming fond anchor points on repeated listenings.
Full disclosure: I had some musical training in both violin and guitar, and sure, I found a better appreciation for the technicality of music with knowledge of how music is made. And when I was younger, I definitely had a tendency to focus on the overly technical myself.
But my tastes eventually matured, and I was able to see past the technical to what really matters. And at the same time, I can recognise that musical taste is deeply personal.
I also no longer actively play, and probably haven't in well over 15 years. And I think this has allowed me to distance myself from the technicalities somewhat.
My taste in music is... broad, to say the least. But at its core, it's based in a progression from metal to industrial to punk/alternative, with a massive fondness for pop and rock from the Seventies and Eighties, a massive swathe of Ska and Funk, some Nineties dance, and even a grudging admiration for Britney.
And that's not even touching on the stuff my Dad exposed me to when I was younger. Suffice to say, I really appreciate Little Feat these days.
Fuck it, I'll listen to anything.
Of course, working in an office where everyone has different and eclectic tastes and free access to the playlist has certainly helped broaden my horizons.
Also, Joe Satriani's "Surfing with the Alien" used to be one of my favourite albums. What the hell was I thinking? :p
Also-also, Tool are boring. FIGHT ME.
To end this ramble of thoughts, if someone can write well about something and express their opinions clearly and concisely, and I am familiar with their views, that to me is more important than any technical background they might have.
froghawk on 17/9/2018 at 15:02
Quote Posted by Thirith
I have some sympathy for your point of view, but I also think it's very limited. Technical accomplishment isn't the only aspect that's relevant when it comes to music, and it may not even be the most important one some of the time. You call Mick Jagger "a man with absolutely no technical singing ability and frankly little expressive capacity", but to my mind that's massively dismissive to the things that he did bring to the table. It's also an inherently conservative view of quality, because you always compare to an ideal that's already there, which means that you're less likely to see the value of something new that doesn't easily fit into the old categories.
What I see is an incompetent white man imitating many excellent black musicians who didn't get half as much money or credit (none of his ideas were new if you really dig into the history there), but we're getting derailed here. Technique absolutely isn't the most important thing. As an end in itself, it's pretty much worthless. Music is a tool that's used to transmit ideas. No one is going to learn to use a screwdriver for its own sake and say 'oh, hey, look at this cool new thing I can do with a screwdriver just because', but musicians do this all the time. I think it's very silly. You have to have something to say. You also have to have a minimum baseline of technical ability to effectively communicate your ideas, though - something many rock musicians have historically lacked (listen to Lisa Fischer sing the lead on Gimme Shelter and tell me she isn't astronomically more expressive than Jagger). It's all a balancing act.
As for how that plays into criticism, it's simply about learning how to hear music from different angles that most critics haven't even considered. Their viewpoints tend to lack a wider lens outside the scope of western popular music, and it's impossible to maintain a somewhat objective stance without that lens. Everything descends into trends and tradition.
So, Malf, I would argue that your friend is also missing that wider perspective and has forgotten that music is a tool rather than an end in itself. That said, he hardly sounds like a studied expert - more a talented amateur. What I am talking about requires a pretty dedicated study of music history from multiple cultures and of the western avantgarde, not just playing and recording for fun as a hobbyist. (All that said, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with dismissing figures who are highly respected in the public eye if you have a well thought out justification for it. The public is hardly informed, as we clearly all agree, otherwise you'd all be saying that user reviews are indeed equally valid.)
Pyrian on 17/9/2018 at 15:47
For my time and money, game criticism is better than film criticism is better than music criticism. I can read some game reviews and have a very good idea of whether I'll like the game, usually because the reviewer did. I can read some film reviews and have a decent idea of whether I'll like the film, often in direct contradiction to whether the film critics liked it. I can read some music reviews of an album I already have and have absolutely no idea what the frick they're going on about at all.
N'Al on 17/9/2018 at 17:50
Quote Posted by Pyrian
I can read some music reviews of an album I already have and have absolutely no idea what the frick they're going on about at all.
Hah, too true.
icemann on 18/9/2018 at 01:07
Quote Posted by Thirith
@icemann
It's ironic that you say so in a thread that used to be about
The Witcher 3, which has a fantastic soundtrack. I also think that "the days when the majority had decent stuff" is pretty much the usual "things used to be better in the past". There are plenty of games with good music, there are plenty more games with mediocre, forgettable music, and that's how it's always been.
Well you should have read in my post that I did mention that The Witcher 3 has some damn fine music, as does Skyrim. I still play 90s games, with the majority being games that I'd never played before. Like year I played through the "Tex Murphy" series of games. Some pretty good music there. A week or so ago I gave the "Forsaken" remaster a go. Again, excellent music.
Renzatic on 18/9/2018 at 02:25
Quote Posted by Malf
Also, Joe Satriani's "Surfing with the Alien" used to be one of my favourite albums. What the hell was I thinking? :p
We were all cheesy when we were younger, Malf.
Somewhere out there in this wide world, there is a person who thought getting a tattoo 3 inches above their ass crack of a peace sign throwing alien wearing a pair of baggy Jncos would've been awesome and timeless. That person now lives a life of regret.
Sulphur on 18/9/2018 at 05:22
Clearly, Flying in a Blue Dream was better than Surfing with the Alien. The guy who introduced me to Satriani also though SwtA was the greatest Satriani album, but he also thought one of Rush's best albums was Presto, for which I have no words.
Renzatic on 18/9/2018 at 05:28
I haven't listened to either one of these bands all that much.
All I know about Rush is that if I hear Tom Sawyer one more time on the radio, I'll snap.
Sulphur on 18/9/2018 at 05:33
NO HIS MIND IS NOT FOR RENT
TO ANY GOD OR GOVERNMENT