SHANIANUTS!
10-16-2003, 9:21pm
http://www.corrsonline.com/home/columns/2002/july/24a.shtml
***************
WHILE THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT A CORRS REVIEW IT APPLIES EQUALLY TO SHANIA CRITIC REVIEWS - I post it as food for thought and discussion - you might even want to send all or part of it (or paraphrase parts ) to a reviewer of a Shania performance you might disagree with.
*****************
Please note: Each column expresses the thoughts and ideas of the individual author, The Corrs Online doesn't necessarily agree to them.
Music reviews: we need some basic rules
By Fantasmagorical - Published on July 24th 2002
I have just read another so-called review in which the Corrs are slated with accusations of mediocrity etc. I can only conclude that we need new rules for many music critics.
At present, many of them operate with power but apparently no accountability, and in my view sometimes
negligible responsibility.
For a given reviewer, we need to know:
a) What are their criteria for their judging of music;
b) Who they consider to be exemplars of good music;
so that we can know where they are coming from and can
contextualise what they are saying.
It's simply not good enough for a reputable publication or website to have some twerp saying "The Corrs are poor" if we don't at the same time know that his/her criteria for judging what's good relates, for example, more to the social impact of the lyrics of songs than to the musical content.
Some critics may appreciate musical content in terms of chord progressions, timbre and sound quality. Others may be much more into sequential melody lines. For example, there is a glorious section of "I Never Loved You Anyway" (INLYA) on the Lansdowne Road video as Andrea introduces the band where there is a "wall of sound". I think this is brilliant. I love sound quality and texture in my music. But another person may be into chord progressions and melody lines and observe that this section entails essentially one chord struck repeatedly. I write a review that INLYA was a brilliant performance, whilst the other person says it was trite. Both our reviews are meaningless if we don't say where we are coming from.
If we don't know where a reviewer is coming from on issues such as this - then reviews like this are utterly meaningless and totally useless. To take a silly - but hopefully illustrative - example...
Some deaf people are excellent musicians - the UK has at least one world class percussionist who feels music via other senses. She may review a piece of music in terms of these feelings and percussionary vibrations. This may form a valuable critique of an aspect of a piece of music in particular its rhythmic and percussive components. But don't tell me it's not relevant to know that the reviewer is deaf.
OK - so we know (assume) that a reviewer in a reputable publication or website is unlikely to be deaf - though believe me, I really wonder about this when I read some Corrs reviews. But what does this tell us? Is the assumption that because he or she is employed by a reputable publication that there is some sort of built-in "standard" or quality control that renders their comments more worthy of publication and reading than others - even though they give no context, criteria or reasoning? I hardly think so. Music critics are not like school or university examiners who must work to agreed standards and transparent evaluative criteria. You can read and disagree with an academic's review of another academic's journal paper - but at least the reviewer will say where s/he is coming from, what assumptions s/he brings to bear on the critique, and the reasoning behind his/her judgement.
But the same is hardly true of many so-called music critics. Music criticism without such transparency and contextual explanation is entirely subjective and idiosyncratic.
If I read a review of a Corrs album, I need to know whether the reviewer is into words or sounds, melody or texture - or what blends of these - possibly discernible from examples of his/her favourite bands and artists - Eminem or Enya; Dylan or Courtney Pine. I need to know the basis of his/her comments - the parameters of his or her musical taste.
It's the easiest thing in the world to criticise someone else. But to do so without coming out and showing where you're coming from, and exposing your criteria, taste and reasoning to the scrutiny of those people whom you are seeking to influence, can in some circumstances my opinion constitute a cowardly act.
We need some rules to make these people put their musical credentials above the parapit so they can receive some of the same treatment they dish out.
:)
***************
WHILE THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT A CORRS REVIEW IT APPLIES EQUALLY TO SHANIA CRITIC REVIEWS - I post it as food for thought and discussion - you might even want to send all or part of it (or paraphrase parts ) to a reviewer of a Shania performance you might disagree with.
*****************
Please note: Each column expresses the thoughts and ideas of the individual author, The Corrs Online doesn't necessarily agree to them.
Music reviews: we need some basic rules
By Fantasmagorical - Published on July 24th 2002
I have just read another so-called review in which the Corrs are slated with accusations of mediocrity etc. I can only conclude that we need new rules for many music critics.
At present, many of them operate with power but apparently no accountability, and in my view sometimes
negligible responsibility.
For a given reviewer, we need to know:
a) What are their criteria for their judging of music;
b) Who they consider to be exemplars of good music;
so that we can know where they are coming from and can
contextualise what they are saying.
It's simply not good enough for a reputable publication or website to have some twerp saying "The Corrs are poor" if we don't at the same time know that his/her criteria for judging what's good relates, for example, more to the social impact of the lyrics of songs than to the musical content.
Some critics may appreciate musical content in terms of chord progressions, timbre and sound quality. Others may be much more into sequential melody lines. For example, there is a glorious section of "I Never Loved You Anyway" (INLYA) on the Lansdowne Road video as Andrea introduces the band where there is a "wall of sound". I think this is brilliant. I love sound quality and texture in my music. But another person may be into chord progressions and melody lines and observe that this section entails essentially one chord struck repeatedly. I write a review that INLYA was a brilliant performance, whilst the other person says it was trite. Both our reviews are meaningless if we don't say where we are coming from.
If we don't know where a reviewer is coming from on issues such as this - then reviews like this are utterly meaningless and totally useless. To take a silly - but hopefully illustrative - example...
Some deaf people are excellent musicians - the UK has at least one world class percussionist who feels music via other senses. She may review a piece of music in terms of these feelings and percussionary vibrations. This may form a valuable critique of an aspect of a piece of music in particular its rhythmic and percussive components. But don't tell me it's not relevant to know that the reviewer is deaf.
OK - so we know (assume) that a reviewer in a reputable publication or website is unlikely to be deaf - though believe me, I really wonder about this when I read some Corrs reviews. But what does this tell us? Is the assumption that because he or she is employed by a reputable publication that there is some sort of built-in "standard" or quality control that renders their comments more worthy of publication and reading than others - even though they give no context, criteria or reasoning? I hardly think so. Music critics are not like school or university examiners who must work to agreed standards and transparent evaluative criteria. You can read and disagree with an academic's review of another academic's journal paper - but at least the reviewer will say where s/he is coming from, what assumptions s/he brings to bear on the critique, and the reasoning behind his/her judgement.
But the same is hardly true of many so-called music critics. Music criticism without such transparency and contextual explanation is entirely subjective and idiosyncratic.
If I read a review of a Corrs album, I need to know whether the reviewer is into words or sounds, melody or texture - or what blends of these - possibly discernible from examples of his/her favourite bands and artists - Eminem or Enya; Dylan or Courtney Pine. I need to know the basis of his/her comments - the parameters of his or her musical taste.
It's the easiest thing in the world to criticise someone else. But to do so without coming out and showing where you're coming from, and exposing your criteria, taste and reasoning to the scrutiny of those people whom you are seeking to influence, can in some circumstances my opinion constitute a cowardly act.
We need some rules to make these people put their musical credentials above the parapit so they can receive some of the same treatment they dish out.
:)