My friend recently mentioned on a post from way way back when that she'd prefer a world of less music criticism... or as she phrased it "whining about music". I don't think I can really get on board, but I do find myself really often at odds with only critics I really read, the pitchfork gang.
Since albums get out on the net before they get up for review these days, Ive had some time to listen to the new fiery furnaces album over the last month. I listened, and formed my opinions about it. I like it. It's not quite what the last one was, but it doesn't feel so invested in a gimmick as that one did either. A solid, listenable record that I would still consider pretty avant garde, in it's narrative style, and the fast paced shift of instruments and genres.
So, when I saw it finally pop up on pitchfork yesterday, I tried to give a guess as to what the score might be. I was already surprised to see that it didn't have a best new music tag (unlike the stupid animal collective, clipse, and the crappy new sigur ros album), but I figured maybe a 7.5 or so. Fuckers gave it a 4.0. That's rilly bad by their standards... and it's not even accompanied by such a bad review.
"Thus, the central problem of Rehearsing My Choir: It's a spectacular experiment, groundbreaking and perverse, bloated with possibilities and prime for parsing. But its practical function is unclear. No matter how open your mind, how welcome to art-without-directions you may be..."
The music fails to "function" cleanly in the reviewers lifestyle, thus is is sent to the bottom 10% or so of reviewed records. The kallikak family, meanwhile takes home an 8.2 for what I can't see as more than too much spare time to record uninteresting noises, I've listened to it several times to no avail. But rather than get all internet angry...
Why does it matter? money. If music were free (cough), then it wouldn't really be a problem. People would just get reccomendations from sources they trust, and if they didn't like it, so be it, off to the recycle bin. But reviews cost a lot less than cds... especially reputable internet reviews. For the price of one cd in japan (roughly 28 US smackeroos), I can buy a lot of onigiri at the conbini. So music reviews are keeping ears happy and my belly full by keeping me from wasting that money elsewhere.
If I had a wide network of friends with impeccable or at least similar taste, I could probably just fine without pitchfork. but I dont. and I generally agree with them, so I'll keep going.
I'm glad to have that off my chest and onto the internet.
Plus I think after reading that review snippet, my friend might be a little more interested in the fiery furnaces.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
i never read these professional music reviews (so i shouldn't judge in the first place possibly), and i dare to agree with you in this one point you make. i like getting all of my music from recommendations of friends. this to me seems like a more natural way of distributing cultural capital, more pre-/post-capitalism (haha, capital) for sure.
i think part of the reason why i don't like the fiery furnaces is that they feel like music industry to me. i heard their song 'tropical icy land' (the nice, fast version thats not on the album) on bbc 6 music first, and although i liked the sound of it a lot, it also was so obvious that this band by being played on 6 music is part of the industry's promoting scheme, and that's why i couldn't get myself to like them later i think. somehow this is a huge part of what makes it possible for me enjoy music or not. where it comes from, how its made and distributed, what it means culturally, is a part of its aesthetic. it's not just an ideological decision i make at all.
of course i can't earnestly mean that i hate musical criticism because it's important and productive, but what i don't like about it is the way it often widens the gap between music consumers and its production, turned into spectacle so to speak, when i think that it's something to be practiced at the same time as theorized about.
Post a Comment