I was thinking about this the other day. Music is very different medium in that it is so broad and that there are so many different tunes and rhythms that to compare one band to another should be somewhat impossible. Music is very different compared to other forms of entertainment such as film and video games. The reason is because of the limits the other 2 mediums have. Take video games for example, all video games have to achieve certain goals to be praised by critics -good graphics, good control, and most of all fun factor/replayability. Basically you can read a review of a video game and that will make or break it your purchase because everything is straight out right there for you. It's a little similiar with film. Only this time the margin of creativity is widened. On film you can do almost anything, however, there are still limits and boundaries. You must have a hero, a villain, a story, a conflict, etc. You can read reviews of movies which will give you a good idea of what to expect but you may still strongly disagree with the reviews. Now onto music. Music has no boundaries or laws, no plotlines or graphics to worry about. Music is one of the most free art forms that exist. This free art form causes a problem within people and their ability to decipher what's good and what isn't. Music is more like food than entertainment. Whereas one person may love a certain band and always listen to it while another may hate it. But even food can be subjected to criticism. So let's look even further music is totally free expressionism, however, a big problem with it is the image that is sold along with it. If all music was sold on black albums with just band titles on it and nothing else, our musical tastes may be different. But the music industry relies on selling an image, and it is this image that makes or breaks the band selling the album. Music should not be judged by who sings the songs or the ego behind the lyrics but by whether or not YOU like it. It's not about "you suck" because you listen to "insert band name". It's about what you like, and that's all it's about. To give an award to a band is simply ridiculous. Who is to judge what is great and what is not. You are to judge yourself but not to hold people in certain regard over other people because it is just your opinion. Music tastes are the most diverse of all the mediums because it is the most diverse. Like what you like, but take reviews with a grain of salt.

I completly agree

a few points: Music is a very free form of expression, thats why theres so much stuff out there. Some people will like certain songs that another will hate and thats fine. Everyones tastes are unique. I can go and find someone that has the exact same taste in film as I do, or likes the same food I do, but it would be so much harder to find someone who listens to the same bands as you and likes the same songs and you do. Thats why I steer clear of reviews and choose what I like myself. Yes I take suggestions, everyday a friend will tell me of a song that he recently heard and liked, I'll listen to it, and if I like it cool and if not thats cool too.

And yes I agree that we're "force fed" certain types of music through the image of the artist. We buy Nsync CD's because well we see them on MTV everyday, hear them on the radio all the time and we even read about them in magazines and eventually we'll take it in. Thats why I feel pride when I find a local/indie/underground band that spews out a sound that I LIKE and not a sound that I'm just used to hearing.

Try this:


http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=175552

[conflicted as to where to post my opinion]

But it's so much FUN to rag on late 80's hair bands.

I disagree completely. It's an art form, regardless of the sensory experience. It is aural art. Art is subject to criticism. Plain and simple.

Ditto that.

I love music, much more so than, say, pottery, but to say pottery criticism is more valid than music criticism is a load of bunk. As I said in the thread Jepthah dug up, the most important value of criticism is not to tell you what is good and what is bad but is to put the piece of art (music, pottery, whatever) into context so that the reader can have more information about the piece of art in question. I don't like an album because a critic (or a friend, or my wife) tells me it's good, but if they do tell me that it's good, and I trust their opinion (e.g., their tastes are similar to mine), I'm more willing to check it out.

I also think there are plenty of strictures music operates under -- it is not such a free art form as you imply, nor is film necessarily subject to all the strictures you imply.

Hey, I love music. I just disagree with you, lesterlong.

Everything in life is open to criticism. I think you're confusing "media criticism" with "criticism" in general. If I say I hate the new fill in the blank CD, I'm a critic. As for taking reviews with a grain of salt, I think all but the most egocentric critics would agree with you. As a newspaper editor I write a lot of reviews myself but I never would be so bold as to say "this is the definitive opinion." Reviews are meant as a guideline, nothing more.

Lesterlong, meet Lester Bangs, I think he'd vehemently disagree with you.

Music is an art form, therefore criticism is very much valid.

And music should be able to evoke a response, an emotion, make a point, tell a story, transport you aurally to places you've never been and have replayability. Truly great music can be listened to and appreciated years after its release, though this sort of music is becoming harder to come by, especially in the mainstream, as the record labels are only interested in disposable acts that ape the latest big thing in order to increase their profits.

What's the story in Koyaanisqatsi? Who's the villain in Rocky? Apollo Creeed? Is he really a villain? He's just an opponent. Who's the hero in GoodFellas? Henry Hill, lifelong criminal?

You're trying to objectify art, saying it has to meet certain criteria, almost as if there is a scorecard. Art is subjective, each viewer or listener will take something different away from it. By choosing to listen to the music you listen to, you're being critical. Unless you truly listen to everything, which I find that most who say this really don't mean it as there is music they've never heard of, then you are acting as a critic when you select the music you want to hear. I consider myself fairly diverse in my listening choices, but I would never say I listen to everything.

I think this applies to all art. I fail to see how music is any different from any other art form. Film and music are both subject to the tastes of the viewer/listener. As stated in earlier posts, you seem to be confusing the validity of one person's criticism with criticism in general.

If a music reviewer is truly talented, they can evoke sounds in my head with their words. This is how I primarily discover new music to listen to. I subscribe to an email list from othermusic.com where I'm notified weekly of various new releases primarily by artists who get zero commercial exposure. Their reviews allow me to decide who I want to sample.

As for the industry selling an image, there's an easy way to solve that. Go outside the industry. Investigate new sounds on your own. I don't know what the majority of the artists I listen to look like, nor do I care.

Life is subjective, art imitates life, criticism is valid.

imo, if we had the black album covers with just the band or artists and album title, the teen pop scene would be dead since all that is is just image.

The Beatles, Radiohead, Sonic Youth and the Pixies should not be subjected to criticism.

The problem with criticism is that most people associate thier opinion with what's is 'quality' and what is not. They throw words around like 'sucks' just because the band does not appeal to them.

I personally do not like jazz. Can't stand to listen to it. Does it suck? No. Jazz has some incredible musicians who are very dedicated to thier art. That style of music pleases a lot of people, but not me.

Mark

But ultimately the truth about any music is going to come down to whether you like it or not.

Another example. I've never heard the Pixies, a group that seems to be getting a lot of discussion on the board recently. From everything I've read, I would probably think they suck. That's the value of music criticism. The people talking about the Pixies describe them not only in terms of their sound, but how they compare to other artists, and what artists they've influenced. This allows someone to place a group they haven't heard of in some kind of context. Over time, a person can learn whether to trust a particular critic, be it a friend or a 'professional'.

...and why not

Well, music is a form of artistic expression. And can you really say one person (or group's) art is better than another's? Can you say Picasso is better than Renoir? No. And why should you? Everyone has their own opinions to what is good and what isn't, and that's fine. But music isn't a contest.

Although I must add that a lot of "music" being played these days on the radio and Mtv isn't artistic at all......

really everyone looks at and hears the world differently
I sometimes enjoy reading album reviews but rarely take them to heart as it is a much more personal medium than say FILM or TV

AMEN