Greetings once more,

SractheNinja here with more thoughts on music and how it's rated, by "professional" critics particularly. There will probably be some tie ins to my last journal entry on a similar subject, so some of the same ground may be tread.

I suppose I should start off my saying that I think the current structure of "professional" criticism is ineffective in determining what music people buy, and what is seen as good music. Of course, most people probably buy what they want to buy, no matter what any critic says. Heck, most people probably don't even read critic reviews before the buy music. And honestly, this is probably a good thing. Because a critic is speaking on their personal experience with a song or an album, or even an artist. (This presumes that the critic is actually writing his or her actual opinion, as opposed to one they were instructed to construct by their superiors due to back room deals with labels or musicians.)

What critic reviews what album drastically changes what they will think of it. If you get a critic who dislike synth pop for the most part, then a review for a Depeche Mode record will probably not be so hot.

This specific example actually applies to real life. The magazine Rolling Stone, as a general rule, has rarely reviewed a Depeche Mode album in a very positive light. Even its landmark album Violator was highly criticized by the reviewer upon its release. I'm not saying it's a problem that they don't review it in a positive manner. What I'm saying is that when that sort of pattern is visible over a long period of time, then it seems that there is a certain slant of opinion toward a genre or even a specific band.

But back to the topic, a reviewer's attitude about any given thing can drastically change the tone of reviews they write. Admittedly, I don't read reviews for all genres or, by any means, all albums. I tend to read reviews for the bands I listen to. However I do so after already forming my own opinion about the music. My interest is to see how other people hear it. I often go to the worst reviews first, to see what problems people might have with it.

Since I listen to many bands that have an 80's sort of sound to them, I come across many reviewers who criticize for affecting a style from a previous era. Why does this come into such criticism?

To answer that, we must dissect the common thread. The things that reviewers are looking for in what they consider "good music." So, if bands are criticized for sounding similar to styles in the past, then it seems that reviewers may be looking for bands to come up with new sounds. To make new innovative styles, without relying on the past for cues. I find several problems with this though.(Assuming it is true.)

It seems to me unfair to criticize bands for making music that is affected by the music the band members listen to. The music they grew up with. This seems hypocritical, since every reviewers' tastes are affected by the music THEY grew up with. Often times, I see reviewers put down new bands and glorify past bands. To ask musicians to not be affected by music in their pasts would be the same as asking reviewers to do just that. And I never see them set an example.

I believe there is a marked difference between bands who create their own style by remembering what they love in music, and bands who seek to particularly emulate a band or seek to fit around a certain style of sound. The former seems to me to have much more creativity than the latter. Some reviewers seem to think these categories are one and the same, and with this, I cannot agree.

The trouble is, when a band who has perhaps sounded pretty close to some things in the past, seeks to move away and do something new, they are criticized for trying to "become important," or "trying too hard to be original." Maybe if people would give them a CHANCE and not jump on them for every little thing, they could actually hear the music instead of looking for things to pick at.

It seems sad to me that so many reviewers seem to act like vultures, looking for any little thing to exploit, instead of actually listening to the music. I think part of the problem lies in the fact that they have to review so many albums that they become jaded to it. Instead of treating music as something they enjoy, it just becomes a job to them, and I think that's part of what leads some of them to be so cynical.

Another problem with criticizing people for looking to the past for inspiration is that the current paradigm of music has been around so long. I think they can't even realize how hard it is to create something new and original. I imagine it's not hard to forget that when all you have to do is criticize others, rather than feel any empathy for the people whose work you're looking at. Critics seem to so often forget the human side of musicians. They seem to lose sight of music in their break downs of what's right and wrong in a record.

Another real problem in reviews is that critics often use dense, grandiloquent diction to describe something that really ends up telling the reader nothing. It's not as if it doesn't make any sense, but how many people are really going to get what you're saying when you write something like, "...the guitars ping-pong across a vast cityscape of gloom." How many people can accurately hear what that sounds like in their heads? Apparently what makes one a professional critic is either point out every fault in a song or describe it entirely with filler. I often find myself reading early reviews of albums before they come out, and when they describe the songs, it gives me hardly no idea of what they actually sound like. This isn't necessarily a critic's fault, since music is really hard to put into words, but when people start acting like their ability to try and describe it in the least understandable terms possible makes them a professional, someone's got a problem.

Another thing critics often seem to pick at is whether someone sounds like they're singing with "soul." If there's a term to describe singing that is more open to debate than "soul," please tell me. Because I've listened to so many albums critics describe as soulless, and been amazed by the amount of emotion in each song, that I can't understand what "soul" they're referring to. What makes a performance "soulful?" Is it the intensity with which a song is sung? Well then, that would mean any given death metal band is far more "soulful" than a band like The Beatles. I doubt many people would agree to that, and even fewer critics. So what is it then? Does earnestness give a vocal "soul?" How do we judge, then, how earnest a singer is? I can think of no one way. I think most people would probably say you could just tell. So when a critic says he feels a performance has no soul, because he can just tell, what happens when I listen to it, and I can tell that it does. Who's right? No one's right. We both have opinions, based on entirely different experiences. But the critic must be right eh? He's a professional after all.

Another problem I find in critical reviews of music is the double standard. While I have previously mentioned how some critics will scoff at a band for drawing on music in the past. However, in some cases, I clearly recall critics praising a band for the very same thing. I'll give an example. I admit fully that the Killers are one of my favorite bands. They're a victim of the former criticism for drawing on the past. I've read many reviews of their albums, so I see it there often. Then you have a band like Green Day.(And I have nothing against Green Day. I have just been reading reviews of their newest album recently, so it's fresh in my mind.) Where the Killers have been repeatedly spearheaded for sounding like a band from the 80's,(and this is a bad thing...why?) now critics have come out and almost unanimously crowed praises upon Green Day and comparing them to bands like The Who, David Bowie, Queen, etc. Some of these influences have even been attributed to the Killers, and yet the attitude toward each is so different. So where is the splitting point? Do critics think Green Day do a better homage to such people? Do they feel that they take the influences better? Who knows. I'm sure they could all concoct some flowery reasons to fill up a magazine page with.

Another double standard I often find is calling a band's lyrics "ridiculous," or "genius." Again, I use the Killers as an example, because I have seen them targeted for this. Brandon Flower (Lead singer of the Killers) can write a line like, "He looked just like you'd want him to some kind of slick chrome American prince," and be called a dunce with no ability, while Bono (Lead singer of U2 [A band I also love, so no offense here]) can write something like, "Freedom has a scent, like the top of a newborn baby's head!" and be a lyrical genius. Of course these may be different reviewers, but the many different reviews I read seem to have common threads in them. Such rampant double standards make me skeptical of such critics.

So let us take a step back and look at what critics seem to be looking for. They seem to want bands who don't rely on the past.(Or do they?) Someone please find me one of these. They seem to want bands who make new music. Someone also please find me one of these. Critics seem to want many things they can't have. Maybe it's that they can't have them that makes them so eager to tear other people down. Heck if I know.

Not that I'm much better. I just sit here, insulting critics, hahahah. But I try not to be too bad about it. Unlike what I see from most critics, I try not to think I'm absolutely right or anything. I fully admit that this is all just my opinion, and I may be completely wrong. Maybe I'm a hypocrite. It's not like I know what it's like to be a critic. It's probably all just my reaction to seeing things I like being torn apart by people who apparently don't understand said in the same way as me. But it's to be expected. Individuality begets such things.

As always, please make up your own minds about things. I'd much rather people come to their own conclusions than to just follow what I say.

If you read through to the end of this without falling asleep or taking a TV break, kudos to you.

S'rac