Critics

[jon abbey]

the Toop book is Haunted Weather, not Heavy Weather, if anyone is looking for it. my impression of that book is that he asks very interesting questions, but ends up attacking/answering them pretty superficially. he can be great, though, his review of the Toshi/Sachiko-do record in the Wire was fantastic, even at very short length.

as I've said here before a few times in different threads, there's tons of in-depth criticism of this music in Japanese, in book form, magazines, blogs, it's pretty ridiculous how much of it there is actually. but that doesn't especially help us non-Japanese speakers...

[Jared McKinley]

I posted this in the 150 people thread. It probably belongs here.

I tend to agree with Jon, et al. But I am not sure if that is because the Wire is a bad zine, or because there is a more general problem with EAI criticism. Most music criticism was built around a music that follows some sort of classic musical rules: even avant jazz or lots of 20th century composers salvage some sort of something from "music" as most people know it: some sort of melody line, some sort of chordal rule, some sense of rhythm, something. EAI is really one of the first musics that totally leaves all of that behind. It seems as if it has tried to get as far away from music as it can to see what will result. I thought this problem was brought up well by you in PT. But in general any critic of EAI has to establish new rules by which to describe the music. Because there IS something there more than "that is a cool sound". There are moods. There are general impressions the album leaves. But the terminology we all have to describe this stuff is really insufficient because it was all developed around music with musical rules we could latch on to. We could talk about tonality. We could talk about rhythm. We could talk about counterpoint.

But that is why I love this stuff so much. Because it is really interesting, at least to me. It is a developing art, even if only 150 people really care (I suspect that there are a lot more than that). It is exciting that an art can entertain us, but we struggle so much as to what we enjoy so much about it. It brings up aesthetic values that, at least in music we lack the language for at this point.

I have always thought music was far behind the visual arts. The visual arts left literal representational techniques with a lot less inertia. That is not to say that many people still don't get why Rothko is cool. But that revolution in art happened and passed a long time ago. Even people who dislike that stuff begrudgingly agree that it is art-there is not the resistance to that sort of art that there is to EAI.

But, as I have said many times before, music seems to be a lot more of a nostalgic art than the visual arts. You don't generally take a Rothko home with you (maybe a reprint), but you DO own music recordings. People are very possessive, defensive about their music. And that is why to this day Schoenberg is still a controversy. The world of music has resisted change every step of the way. It probably doesn't help that music has always been very closely associated with religion.

That is my take on this subject anyway. I prefer reading PT or Olewnick's blog, or just scan the pages here. But I find most writing on EAI to be totally difficult. I myself have tried and failed to write convincingly about the stuff. But I find that failure very interesting.

[jkudler]

No it's not dead on, it's a crass generalisation. 90%? Name names, name issues, add up the reviews, let's do the math.
And while you're doing that, you write a paragraph explaining / describing the difference in sound between English and nmperign. Remember you've got 250 words to cover a whole disc, including setting it in the context of its creators' output, giving basic info about recording dates and places where appropriate, background on the musicians if they're not household names (most aren't), description of music and where necessary, packaging, track titles, etc, and finally some sort of value judgement. Oh, and remember you're writing the review to be read by people who know probably next to nothing of the genre. Let's see you do it without whooshes, crackles and hisses.
It takes me about four hours - exclusive of time spent listening to the disc - to write a Wire review. How long did it take you to write that last post?

uh. it didn't take me long at all to ape a style i think is far too common. beyond that. . . i wasn't getting paid, and it wasn't for publication in an international magazine. come on, dan, the "good you do better?" angle has never held much weight with me, and it's particularly ironic coming from a critic, defending critics no less!

that said, most of what you focus on is a shortcoming of the format, which i think i had mentioned too. those tiny capsule reviews are pretty pointless. that is what i was getting at. also, why must they be for the neophyte? if one is reading the wire, and that deep into it, can't he or she be assumed to have some knowledge? if nobody cares besides the hardcore fans, why not direct it towards them, at least in the really short reviews?

i do enjoy the writing of everyone who has been mentioned here or posted - pinnell is always very nice to read, brian olewnick's blog often provides very brief but long-enough round-ups of recent things, and PT is often very thoughtful. but true, those are geared more to the connoisseur. i guess part of what i was lamenting before was that i see very very little criticism/reviewing that is geared in any useful way at all towards engaging or explaining to the non-initiate. the wire and STN strike me as two fora in which that might be useful - you have a curious but largely non-expert audience.

phenomenon is not the only thing i'd like to read about. of course, music is sound. but it's not only that. offer me something i myself might not think of, might not feel, grasp, when listening to the same record you did. offer me an alternative view. and i'm not talking about positive reviews of records i couldn't get though. try to convince me to give it another chance, at least.

yes, i think this gets to it. what irks me so much about the "hisses, crackles, and whooshes" take is that it reduces the music to just the sounds and too often doesn't engage with what the sound is trying to do or how it functions. too records may have very similar palettes, but they may use those sounds entirely differently. i think one major step towards a better critical space for EAI is trying to regard it compositionally, not just as "funny sounds from a trumpet."

just skimming PT, i see some great writing from you, dan, and even stuff that dovetails with the above (and was in another thread here) here:
http://www.paristransatlantic.com/magaz ... ext.html#9

you even make note of the verbiage so often employed.

as for short reviews for a general audience, i remembered ratliff talking about kevin drumm in the NYT a few years back.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A9669C8B63

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... gewanted=2

if you really want me to, i could try for a paragraph about nmperign and english later - might help me to re-listen to some records.

-j.

[Richard Pinnell]

Frankly, no matter how much effort it takes to write a review, if the result still makes Greg Kelley and Franz Hautzinger sound the same, there is some kind of failure going on.

Agreed here completely.

My previous suggestion may not suit you, but the rejection of it was immediately followed by a number of posts begging sympathy for the need to describe the music at hand and the difficulty of doing so. It seems we agree on one of the problems, at least. I offer that the solution is not in a thesaurus.

The problem is, the need to describe music in words really does remain. Not everyone has the time, broadband connection, hard drive space or simply the inclination to download a piece of music that they have no idea if they will like or not. Personally I don't ever use soulseek either. Essentially if I want to know how something sounds I need to either read a review or buy the CD, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that situation.

Also what happens with live concert reviews? Maybe the reviewer should be stood in the corner of the hall providing a running commentary?!

I agree that we need to get away from the lazy, overly descriptive style of reviewing but IMO the best way of achieving this is through better research, more room to write and a lot more listening time. In a written review some degree of description is always going to be needed though, otherwise Greg Kelley really may as well sound the same as Franz Hautzinger. We just need to make sure that its only one part of what a reader takes from a review.

[Richard Pinnell]

By the way I've been working on a long review over the past few days. I've now re-written it three times. This thread is bloody disconcerting!

[rainey]

The problem is, the need to describe music in words really does remain. Not everyone has the time, broadband connection, hard drive space or simply the inclination to download a piece of music that they have no idea if they will like or not. Personally I don't ever use soulseek either.

Never said the problem wouldn't remain. In fact, I said that it would. However, I have suggested one way in which it could be avoided that could be interesting to many people in many possible situations. Such a drearily negative response! Tons of people have broadband connections (and that continues to increase), you don't need hard drive space on your personal computer to stream audio, and your inclinations may not reflect the inclinations of people present and future.

Essentially if I want to know how something sounds I need to either read a review or buy the CD, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that situation.

Again, this is not just about how something sounds and whether you should buy it; it's about the enjoyment of commentary.

Also what happens with live concert reviews? Maybe the reviewer should be stood in the corner of the hall providing a running commentary?!

As if I was suggesting the reviewer be present in the studio while recording record reviews. I'm not suggesting the abolition of current forms of critique, just pointing out that there are many possibilities that are cheap and accessible and have not been utilized.

[Richard Pinnell]

Such a drearily negative response! Tons of people have broadband connections (and that continues to increase), you don't need hard drive space on your personal computer to stream audio, and your inclinations may not reflect the inclinations of people present and future.

Indeed, and sorry for sounding negative. I think I misunderstood you as saying that we didn't need purely written reviews any more at all, when this may not have been what you were saying. I was merely pointing out that some people still prefer a purely written page and for now we still need descriptive texts to some degree. I wasn't trying to find reasons to rule multimedia out, only to show that it wouldn't work for all.

Again, this is not just about how something sounds and whether you should buy it; it's about the enjoyment of commentary.

Yes I know and agree. Another element to remember in all of this is the enjoyment that the writer gets from engaging formally with the music as well. About a year ago I wrote four or five brief reviews of 2-300 words for Dan that were printed all in one month at PT. I hated doing them, simply because of the time and space pressures. I wasn't really involving myself with the music that well, just trying to find solutions to the problem of summing up a musician's hard work in a short space and time. They ended up being complete crap. Then when very recently I took two weeks to research and write a long review of a couple of Michael Pisaro albums for Bagatellen I really enjoyed myself delving into the music and its sources of inspiration. Whether anyone paid any attention to the final review is irrelevant simply because the pleasure of writing the piece was great.

]Also what happens with live concert reviews? Maybe the reviewer should be stood in the corner of the hall providing a running commentary?!

As if I was suggesting the reviewer be present in the studio while recording record reviews. I'm not suggesting the abolition of current forms of critique, just pointing out that there are many possibilities that are cheap and accessible and have not been utilized.

That confirms that I was misreading you slightly, thanks for putting me right. I was only kidding about the reviewer in the corner of the hall though!

[nirav]

Here's an idea:

Someone should establish a paypal account called "For the sake of better experimental music criticism", or something like that. Anytime anyone thinks, "Man, I wish someone other than Brian O., PT, Jason Bivins, etc. wrote intelligently about this music", they should contribute $5 to this fund. If you could find a good way to get that money to smart people, you'd start seeing results very quickly, I think.

My $.02

[jon abbey]

which reminds me, our man Nirav was a very insightful observer before he departed for greener pastures...

[rainey]

Another element to remember in all of this is the enjoyment that the writer gets from engaging formally with the music as well.

This is often in the back of my mind. I also sometimes prefer to read a well-written account of an encounter with, say, a painting than to actually see one. They may really be two completely different experiences.

Anyway, glad we're getting clearer, here. I'm not terribly attached to any given idea, I was just taken aback by what seemed like a sad crew.

[Dan Warburton]

.

[kcorcoran]

I also sometimes prefer to read a well-written account of an encounter with, say, a painting than to actually see one. They may really be two completely different experiences.

This is an excellent point, as expanded from the earlier mention of enjoying the writing, not just the review.

I grew up very interested in creative writing and so a well-written review or critique, either informative and insightful to process, sound, space or descriptive and imaginative in terms of sound, emotion, space is still an enjoyable read for me.
I have very little money, with a long list of releases to get next, so I am not usually reading these articles to figure out what to buy - but to know what's going on with what players and labels, or with performance since I am somewhere with little to no occurrence of this area of music live. In this sense, if the writing is captivating in terms of documentation (ie Pinnell, Warburton) I can gain a nice idea of what is going on which I appreciate, and if the writing is abstracted (ie what I've read from Ricci), I can get into the potential emotional realm of listening 'creatively', which can be a pretty fun read. [This is why I echoed the earlier "hisses, whooshes..." comment, which is only relative to those who are regular listeners of EAI and looking for alternate explanations, though that is likely the best way to write for the general population under word limits]. To me its no different from the fact I usually read nonfiction but sometimes I like to reach for a good story, and all the better if it stems through imagination from an experience with something real, such as a disc of challenging music.

I don't underestimate the difficulty of writing on this topic, I think we are all just searching for the best language?

[Massimo Ricci]

the fact that you don't read the forum enough to know who everyone is can't be blamed on them

OK Mudd - I can live with this, although I don't feel any obligation to follow something I don't care anything about only to know who's participating in it. So, should I write a list of "moniker=Mr. X" to know who's posting?

The response seems a bit over-the-top, Massimo. Musicians are getting slagged left and right in forums, blogs, magazines, etc for works they may have agonized over for years. You can't respond to every critique with a diatribe against the critic. People like what you do and find it useful, and as long as you feel similarly, carry on!

Oh, come on. Do you think I'm crying here? I don't feel "slagged", not because Grisha or someone else posts some unrequested comment. He's not the first who tells things about my reviews, you know, and surely won't be the last. The "diatribe" certainly was not started from here and - as I already wrote - mine was just the response to what I perceive as a gratuitous affirmation. A single one. That's why I stressed that I love answering to this kind of "slagging" (ha!) via personal communication, but hiding behind a well-known and respected forum is one thing, growing balls to email personally is another.

It's the tone of Grisha's post that I didn't like, not the essence. Other people don't like my writings, but I found his outburst rather hysteric. When Touching Extremes started, many years ago, Jon was man enough to clearly tell me (via email) that he didn't like the website and wouldn't send promos. I was perfectly at ease with his decision, we kept having sporadic and very civil contacts when I purchased Erstwhile CDs, which I also reviewed occasionally - positively of course, ha! No grudges, no hard feelings, no hysteric behavior. That's the way it should be. "I can't stand that guy's writing" and "Does he have any insight" is not an objective appreciation of one's work, especially when that work is not carefully scrutinized. You can't call it a "criticism", it's just the will of coming out with something "strong" without really substantiating it.

[Gaendaal]

I agree that we need to get away from the lazy, overly descriptive style of reviewing but IMO the best way of achieving this is through better research, more room to write and a lot more listening time. In a written review some degree of description is always going to be needed though, otherwise Greg Kelley really may as well sound the same as Franz Hautzinger. We just need to make sure that its only one part of what a reader takes from a review.

For me, this is the difference between a "basic" review of the music (the "crackles and wooshes" approach, if you like) and something more approaching an editorial or opinion piece. I think both have their place.

In a perfect world, it'd be nice to have a succinct summary review which an interested reader could then "click into" in order to read the longer piece. In a world with limited time, the question is around which records (if any) warrant this extra work and ultimately that decision comes down to the reviewer/editor.

I personally love being able to do longer pieces of writing, taking context and influence from various genres, but the remit is very rarely there.

[Richard Pinnell]

I imagine most folk who find their way to the Paris Transatlantic website, unless they're googling for cheap air fares and end up there by accident (it happens), know what a triad, a major seventh and an upper partial is.

I haven't a clue what these things are!

I bet I'm speaking for a few others here too that didn't want to say it and look daft!!

[Dan Warburton]

.

[Massimo Ricci]

I haven't a clue what these things are!

I bet I'm speaking for a few others here too that didn't want to say it and look daft!!

No big deal here Richard. It depends on who produces the sounds and who reviews them. It's all about responsiveness.

Phill Niblock, for example, is not a trained musician - if not for a few piano lessons - yet he creates music that is able to make people cry (I've seen this personally) only through its sheer vibrational impact.

Now try and describe Niblock's work without talking about "upper partials" or "resonant drones". Should I be forced to read about the historical context of his music in a review every time?

[Richard Pinnell]

Some bedtime reading for you then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_triad
http://www.amarilli.co.uk/music/intervs6.htm
http://www.music.vt.edu/musicdictionary ... rtone.html
Good job I didn't mention PC-space, time-point systems and K/Kh complexes then (not that EAI has any use for them)

Thanks, that looks quite excrutiatingly dull, but I'll bear it in mind next time I can't get to sleep!

In the meantime, triads are Chinese mafia rings, Major Seventh is the old bloke that lives down the road and an upper partial is a package full of ecstasy tablets as far as I'm concerned!

[Richard Pinnell]

No big deal here Richard. It depends on who produces the sounds and who reviews them. It's all about responsiveness.

I agree Massimo. I'm not remotely concerned, otherwise I'd have kept quiet about my ignorance! Music theory of that type has its place and I'm not criticising it at all, its just not very important to how I personally approach listening to music.

[skrobek]

what happens with live concert reviews? Maybe the reviewer should be stood in the corner of the hall providing a running commentary?

You should do this, record and send it to Mattin