Critics: What are They Good For?
Friday, June 29th, 2007Two articles in The Guardian last week discussed whether or not critics serve any useful purpose. The original articles were about classical critics, which I don’t know enough about to comment meaningfully on. A lot of the resulting comments shifted the discussion towards rock critics.
In my opinion, rock criticism is completely and fundamentally broken, to the point where I’m much more likely to trust the opinion of an amateur blogger or web message board poster than most so-called professionals. Partly it’s because I know my own tastes in music are 180 degrees in opposition to the collective groupthink of mainstream rock critics, which seems to date from the punk era of the late 70s.
They pretty much all seem to toe the following party line:
- Music and artists are supposed to be ‘of the moment’ and aren’t supposed to last.
- Image and attitude are more important than substance
- Raw passion is infinitely more important than craftsmanship
- Any diplay of instrumental ability beyond the most rudimentary is self-indulgence of no interest to anyone other than musicians.
All of those are highly subjective premises, but they’re presented as inerrant gospel truths. That might be valid if it was just one of many schools of music criticism, but unfortunately it has come to represent the mainstream consensus. So you end up with ridiculous amounts of praise directed at anyone that conforms to the above template (Can you say ‘Pete Doherty’? Yes, I though you could), and marginalisation for anyone that doesn’t. Entire genres of music get dismissed with a sneer.
Then there’s the fact that when the critic do pay attention to content rather than image they only seem to be interested in the lyrics rather than the music. And it often appears that they’re reluctant to listen to any record more than once, so anything that takes several spins to appreciate will have trouble getting a fair review.
Another big problem with the British music critic establishment is that they’re so obsessed with finding ‘the next big thing’ (so that they can bask in reflected glory, perhaps?) that they tend to overlook the sort of artists that don’t start producing their best work until several years into the careers. Then we have the dreadful “build ‘em up and knock ‘em down” attitude. The result is all too often massive hype directed at some fresh-faced hopefuls who have yet to do anything much. The moment they fail to live up to the unrealistic expectations thrust upon their shoulders the inevitable backlash begins. Then you get the archetypal ‘difficult second album’ followed by a quick exit to the ‘where are they now’ file.
As I said, mainstream rock criticism is broken.