Shiat Sandwich.

"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read."
-Frank Zappa

Beavis and Butthead?????


That Pantera dude looks pissed

To be fair, nobody looks in the music tab...

Wouldn't it be cool if music journalists could, oh, I don't know, read music?

Marla Singer's Laundry: Wouldn't it be cool if music journalists could, oh, I don't know, read music?

I don't quite understand what you mean. Do you mean that they should be accomplished enough musically to sit down with sheet music and be able to critique solely on that?

Not a troll I actually want to know what you meant.

I feel we need to rastify these music reviewers by, oh, about ten percent.

SlashW: Beavis and Butthead?????


That Pantera dude looks pissed

The Beavis and Butt-Head quote was perfect.

If music critics based their roles on this tab, you'd get the same review of every piece of music. "Wow, that rules, wow that sucked, this person is better, who the hell are you to critique, oh now I have to be a great musician to have an opinion, let's disparage unrelated bands, let's talk about subby's mom, Rush rules, Rush sucks. Overall, 3 out of 5 stars."

titwrench: Marla Singer's Laundry: Wouldn't it be cool if music journalists could, oh, I don't know, read music?

I don't quite understand what you mean. Do you mean that they should be accomplished enough musically to sit down with sheet music and be able to critique solely on that?

Not a troll I actually want to know what you meant.

I can't speak for Marla Singer's Laundry, but I made what I gather to be a similar comment.

Music criticism is worthless when the critic has no knowledge of music. I don't expect a PhD from them, but I expect a critic to be able to identify chord progressions, time signatures, and "ethnic" musical instruments at the very least. I've read far too many reviews with blatant mistakes (misidentifying 5/4 as 7/8, calling a sitar a "Middle Eastern instrument", etc.), and those mistakes tell me that the critic knows nothing of what he or she is talking. The fact that these idiots can give a bad review to a performer--and therefore may have a negative impact on that performer's income--while knowing nothing about how music is constructed and/or performed, should piss off anyone who cares about music as an art form. Too many reviews are written by some dolt with a journalism degree who has never touched a musical instrument.

Classical reviewers often have some musical background. There's no reason pop critics shouldn't.


GreenAdder: "Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read."
-Frank Zappa


One of my favorite Zappa stories revolved around the performance of one of his pieces ("While You Were Art") at an art installation (IIRC). The musicians had no chance to rehearse the piece, which was rather complex, and Zappa simply had them "mime" to a recording. The performance got a great writeup, until one of the musicians admitted they faked it--at which point the critic turned around and slammed the musicians for the deception. Zappa's response: "The fact that the musicians faked the performance isn't the scandal--the scandal is the fact that the critic sat in the front row and didn't even recognize that the musicians were faking it."

...but did the song have a cool video?

Rock journalism is the bottom of the barrel in terms of ability and writing. Trade words for free CDs until you become an extension of a promotional arm for labels with an advertising budget. Maybe get exciting about one or two bands along the way and give them a little nudge. Fool yourself that people care what you have to say.

GypsyJoker: One of my favorite Zappa stories revolved around the performance of one of his pieces ("While You Were Art") at an art installation (IIRC). The musicians had no chance to rehearse the piece, which was rather complex, and Zappa simply had them "mime" to a recording. The performance got a great writeup, until one of the musicians admitted they faked it--at which point the critic turned around and slammed the musicians for the deception. Zappa's response: "The fact that the musicians faked the performance isn't the scandal--the scandal is the fact that the critic sat in the front row and didn't even recognize that the musicians were faking it."

Whoa.

Actually, I've never really listened to Zappa. Which of his albums should I start with?

Jedi_Templar: GypsyJoker: One of my favorite Zappa stories revolved around the performance of one of his pieces ("While You Were Art") at an art installation (IIRC). The musicians had no chance to rehearse the piece, which was rather complex, and Zappa simply had them "mime" to a recording. The performance got a great writeup, until one of the musicians admitted they faked it--at which point the critic turned around and slammed the musicians for the deception. Zappa's response: "The fact that the musicians faked the performance isn't the scandal--the scandal is the fact that the critic sat in the front row and didn't even recognize that the musicians were faking it."

Whoa.

Actually, I've never really listened to Zappa. Which of his albums should I start with?

Zappa needs to be eased into the right way or else you might hit a track that makes you go "what the fark is this shiat" and then you give up.

Then, after you ease in the right way, you'll think that the song that was originally "what the fark" is the "coolest farking song you've ever heard".

Overnite Sensation may be one of the more approachable albums, and if you like guitar, Montana is a must listen.

If you want a live show that spans quite a few sounds and styles, and also gives you a feel for his persona, get Roxy and Elsewhere

GypsyJoker: Music criticism is worthless when the critic has no knowledge of music. I don't expect a PhD from them, but I expect a critic to be able to identify chord progressions, time signatures, and "ethnic" musical instruments at the very least. I've read far too many reviews with blatant mistakes (misidentifying 5/4 as 7/8, calling a sitar a "Middle Eastern instrument", etc.), and those mistakes tell me that the critic knows nothing of what he or she is talking. The fact that these idiots can give a bad review to a performer--and therefore may have a negative impact on that performer's income--while knowing nothing about how music is constructed and/or performed, should piss off anyone who cares about music as an art form. Too many reviews are written by some dolt with a journalism degree who has never touched a musical instrument.

Classical reviewers often have some musical background. There's no reason pop critics shouldn't.

There's a real reason they shouldn't. Odds are, if it's not coming from some snobbish indie blog that may or may not have a paper edition, it's reviewing music that has been drained of artistic merit and replaced by formulaic triggers written by other people. Who are they then criticizing? The person singing or the team of producers and label-lackeys who wrote the song?

If the band a bit more respectable, I'd be surprised if the band themselves can read or even transcribe some of the stuff they write. If you're intuitively good, you don't need to know, so why should the critic?

The best form of a critic would be one that intuitively hears what a band would hear but can't play an instrument. The ones that can hear where the song should have raised that last note a step, not what the note the raised 5th would technically be. That, or they know the scene and they can weed out the next Candlebox before they get popular, or they could possibly prevent a resurgence of eyebrow ring music (Staind, Linkin Park, Disturbed, etc).

For Zappa, what you want to do is listen to the Beatles Sgt. Pepper album, then right after that, listen to Zappa's We're Only In It For the Money.
Then you'll be fine.



/Oh, what's this? Is that a tear, Pantera? Is Daddy's little girl upset?

GypsyJoker:
Music criticism is worthless when the critic has no knowledge of music.

As someone who makes a wide variety of objects that can be criticized, I CAN say something about art criticism: It's better if the critic has the same level of knowledge about the subject as the reader.

I like knives, a lot. I'm gonna googly eyed over a well made blade that's functional and made of good carbon steel. 99% of people I know don't give a rat's ass about hardness or edge retention and just want to cut tomatoes and not have rust in the food. They chose stainless, ceramic, or titanium coated blades over any prize knife in my collection. A reviewer with my level knowledge would give a bad review to the knives most people would love and a good review to knives most people would hate.

Music is the same. Very good Jazz still sounds like crap to people with no musical talent. On the other hand, I meet more people a week who like Justin Timberlake's "music" than good jazz. They just want another boring club song. An intelligent reviewer would be doing their pathetic tastes a disservice by trying to introduce them to the concept of good music.

The same is true of anything. Wine Nuts love wines most people don't. Soccer Hooligans go murderous over 22 guys running in circles with a ball. Chefs are willing to eat food most folks are afraid of.

An intelligent critic is only better if they are speaking to a crowd with a similar level of refinement.

Nickelback sucks.

I came in hoping nobody said it, and leave satisfied.

I usually check out Metacritic to get the widest variety of reviews in one place I can find. I have found several new (to me at least) bands there.

FTFA: And, finally, here's Beavis and Butthead dissecting Radiohead's Creep:
Beavis: "Why don't they just play the cool part all the way through?"
Butthead: "Well Beavis, if they didn't have a part of the song that sucked, the other part wouldn't be so cool."

Wow. I don't think I've ever heard "Creep" described so perfectly.

Anybody ever read this?

Link (new window)

Best music crit ever!

Best Beavis & Butthead comment:

An old Sabbath video comes on.

One of them asks, "Dude, are they from Seattle?"
THe other replies, "No man, hey're American."

El Chode, doglover:

While I can see your points, I'll have to respectfully disagree. To me, it's unconscionable that a critic could use an opinion based on ignorance to affect the career of a promising musician (be it performer or songwriter). And perhaps one of the reasons dreck dominates the charts is that the critics aren't intelligent enough to steer the masses toward music that's of a higher order than the mass-consumption garbage.

Roger Ebert once commented that it's part of the critic's job to enlighten the readers as to what makes good films, both in terms of narrative and in technique. An uneducated or ignorant critic can't do this. For myself, I prefer to gain some knowledge about a performer's style from a review--something beyond a "good/bad" rating and a few snide comments, which are what seem to dominate reviews these days. Again, I'm not asking for a dissertation; a few informed observations will do. (Hell, I'll settle for a review that simply gets the facts right anymore.) Obviously, we're looking for different things from reviews and critics.

My $0.02.

GypsyJoker: I expect a critic to be able to identify chord progressions, time signatures, and "ethnic" musical instruments at the very least. I've read far too many reviews with blatant mistakes (misidentifying 5/4 as 7/8, calling a sitar a "Middle Eastern instrument", etc.)

if the critic is going to critique said elements in music, then yes, they should know what they're talking about. Me? I fail to see why a song written in 11/4 is better than one in 4/4. I get the technical complexity, yet it still doesn't make the song in 11/4 better just because it is complex.

I have no idea what this philipino said in the Beavis + Butthead link, but I like it:

loosecannon
reply
loosecannon wrote on Sep 19, '06

"HAHAHA!!! tangina na-miss ko tong dalawang ugok na to"

I have no idea what "Balkanised spatchcockery" means, but I think I love it.

FTFA: 'And, finally, here's Beavis and Butthead dissecting Radiohead's Creep:
Beavis: "Why don't they just play the cool part all the way through?"
Butthead: "Well Beavis, if they didn't have a part of the song that sucked, the other part wouldn't be so cool."

I rest my case.'

Damn, that was funny and with the added benefit of being true.

Nice to see a shout out to Lester Bangs, too. Got my copy of 'Psychotic Reactions and Carburator Dung' right here.

There are some very good writers reviewing music but when you read some one like Ben Fong-Torres, who over intellectualized every little thing, it makes me realize there are some reall azzhats out there.

FeedTheCollapse: GypsyJoker: I expect a critic to be able to identify chord progressions, time signatures, and "ethnic" musical instruments at the very least. I've read far too many reviews with blatant mistakes (misidentifying 5/4 as 7/8, calling a sitar a "Middle Eastern instrument", etc.)

if the critic is going to critique said elements in music, then yes, they should know what they're talking about. Me? I fail to see why a song written in 11/4 is better than one in 4/4. I get the technical complexity, yet it still doesn't make the song in 11/4 better just because it is complex.

I didn't say that more-complex music was better. I simply said that I expect a music critic to not make idiotic mistakes, and to have some knowledge of what goes into making music.

Lars is an assgoblin.

That is all.

/Cyanide is on the radio right now. Great song, great album, but Lars is still an assgoblin

A) There's no reason for someone who reviews pop music to need to know any music theory. (I also appreciate the insult to Timberlake, I'm no fan, but to claim that he is not very very good at what he does, ala Michael Jackson, is ignorant)

B) It's impossible to be a withering music critic in the mainstream media these days because if you say something disparaging about a band, your comments section will be flooded with musical wharrgarbl. (I'm looking at you juggalos.)

GypsyJoker:
Classical reviewers often have some musical background. There's no reason pop critics shouldn't.

Pfffft. Their job is to say whether or not they liked the music, and why. I couldn't give a rat's arse whether or not they're capable of performing music or identifying chord progressions.

Did you like the music? If so or if not, why?

If you can articulate those two things in an entertaining way, then you can do all you need to know how to do.

Jedi_Templar: Actually, I've never really listened to Zappa. Which of his albums should I start with?

What you SHOULD do is avoid them completely.

I'd contend that a rock music critic that knows their history is far more valuable than one who knows music theory.

And I still miss Ed the Sock's music interviews and reviews.

Beavis and Butthead watching Black Sabbath Paranoid video


Beavis: Which one is Ozzy?

Butthead: He's the one in the Members Only jacket

bigbadideasinaction: I'd contend that a rock music critic that knows their history is far more valuable than one who knows music theory.

this. I can understand a negative review much better if the reviewer clearly understands where the band is coming from, but still doesn't like it. Whereas if the reviewer quite obviously does not like said band and slags the album (deservedly or not), it comes off much more ignorant and harder to take seriously.

GreenAdder: "Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read."
-Frank Zappa

And this is why I have no need for "critics" of any kind unless you consider a personal friend of mine with an opinion a "critic". I can honestly say I have never watched a movie, eaten at a restaurant or downloaded purchased an album based on the opinion of a "critic". Let's face it, being a critic means you have an opinion and based on that criteria we're all critics.

Roswellite13: GreenAdder: "Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read."
-Frank Zappa

And this is why I have no need for "critics" of any kind unless you consider a personal friend of mine with an opinion a "critic". I can honestly say I have never watched a movie, eaten at a restaurant or downloaded purchased an album based on the opinion of a "critic". Let's face it, being a critic means you have an opinion and based on that criteria we're all critics.

Your jib's cut warms my heartcockles.

I'm tired of all the spatchcockery in this thread.

deathon2legs: I'm tired of all the spatchcockery in this thread.

You're tearing me apart.

The trouble with the aggressive 'hatchet job' approach is that those reviews tend to avoid touching on the music in question, preferring to play the man instead of the ball, making the whole purpose of the review irrelevant. See the NME Seasick Steve review (new window)as an example.

FeedTheCollapse: (deservedly or not),

Wait, what? That wasn't a review, that was the writer randomly choosing big words from a dictionary.

SPna15: FeedTheCollapse: (deservedly or not),

Wait, what? That wasn't a review, that was the writer randomly choosing big words from a dictionary.

exactly. and for an album that had no intention of giving a good review to. (though in fairness, Pitchfork did like Death Magnetic)

My favorite record review of all time was for an album by Deep Blue Something. In its entirety, it read:

Deep Brown Something.

Summed up my feelings exactly.