Hey, long overdue congrats to Melissa Maerz, who won first place in the 2005 Association of Alternative Newspapers Music Criticism division. Read an interview here with Maerz, where she was asked:
How do you incorporate your opinion of an artist in a review without sounding preachy if you like them or cruel if you don't?
I try to avoid the cruel part by not writing reviews of relatively unknown artists who I don't like -- it seems ridiculous to give people another reason not to hear a band that they've never heard of in the first place. Bigger bands are fair game. But if I'm going to write a negative review of a bigger band, I focus on specifics: which parts of which songs don't work and why. I think cruelty usually comes from sweeping generalizations, and if you eliminate those, you get more critical and less cruel.
Interesting question, an a very sound answer. This is something I think has a wide margin in criticism - what do you OWE anyone - the listener, the reader, the band, in terms of your writing? Are you a reporter when you're a critic? Are you obligated to include facts, to represent fairly? I think of something like Nick Sylvester's piece about Louis XIV, which was clever but a little obv. shot at the sexist little boys from SD, and how I know he got some shit from the band themselves about it. Same with Caramanica and Velvet Revolver (he). It's like 'fuck those bands, the boys were right about them' but then there's times when I feel like critics haven't listened or done their homework, or their pub has it out for the band in general, and it really hurts the band. Case in point: one bad pitchfork review can KILL a young artist. Which maybe is fine from the point of view of the listener, if the listener tends to agree with what that critic writes: they were warned against somethign that would be crap to them. But to everyone? What about the band?
counteract it? maybe start a blog?
Ya, I def. feel like if you put something into the public sphere, you are asking for it to be talked about and critiqued. From the side of having been friends with many bands (which I know on Girl Group we say is a bad idea, but I feel like it's really hard to love music as most critics do (really, we do!) and to not know people who make it - it's like critics who don't know other writers, weird!) - that reviews that become more about writing/injecting the snark can be damaging. at the gg meetup, people seemed to think that it was actually worse tho for a band to get a straight up mediocre review than an absolutely appauling one, and I would agree with that.
What I wonder, maybe to Douglas in the idea that the writing is still YOURS - what happens when the opinion or writing that is done is changed in some way to reflect the institution's opinion/need/desire for a band - notable examples are the change in star ratings RS. How does a writer counteract this?
jdor's post is as snotty and useless as anything Pitchfork has ever run--a lot moreso than most of it. what, precisely, does "Hopefully that something [subjective that makes you respond to a record] is not wrapped up in too many defenses that seek to undo what is worthy of positive reviews as is the case with PITCHFORK" mean, anyway? great, your tastes don't coincide with a website's. I mean, congratulations, do you want a prize?
There is this human tendency to form cliques: high school jocks do it, cheerleaders do it, the cool anorexic chicks do it, and PItchfork folks do it. Common to all these groups are rules and boundaries whose function it is to separate the in from the out-the in usually associated with what's cool and the out with what is not. Sometimes the in is defined by redefining what is worthy of praise, as is often the case with PItchfork. Most of the bands that they champion pine in obscurity not because they are so far ahead of the curve as much as that they are not terribly good at what they do. Mr Wolk your reviews, although helpful, ultimately represent something subjective in you that makes you respond to a record. Hopefully that something is not wrapped up in too many defenses that seek to undo what is worthy of positive reviews as is the case with PITCHFORK.
As someone coming from more of the band side of the equation (ie publicist / manager) I can see what you're saying. But as a "music fan", someone who is compelled to follow new music, I know there is a glut of music out there, and someone panning a record is very much a service. Or I should say, it's a service if I trust that writer and/or that writer has done the detail work to gain my trust over the course of the review. In that case, it's one more thing I don't have to hold in the mental list of "oh that could be worth checking out".
That's probably why Pitchfork has become as influential as it has - it helps clear things away. And hopefully readers are smart enough to realize that not all of what gets cleared away is worthless. You'd have to be kind of a sheep not to.
I've never known a publication to actually have it in for a specific artist, editorially (e.g. saying "who can we assign this to who'll trash it?")--if anything it works the other way around ("who can we assign this to who'll appreciate it?"). When I write something harshing on a record--that's not Blender's take or the Village Voice's take, it's MINE.
And who do I owe when I write criticism? I owe my reader, who's paid money (or sat through ads or whatever) to see what I have to say, and part of what I owe my reader is factual accuracy & specifics-over-generalizations--general cluefulness, really. I don't owe the artist a thing. The upside of releasing your art into the world is that you might get money or fame or whatever out of it. The downside is that people then have the right to say whatever the hell they want about it.