Criticism & Sound Art / Experimental Music

[simon reynell]

For anyone who doesn't follow Richard Pinnell's Watchful Ear blog, there is an extremely good piece about music criticism which might be of interest to people here. As a lead up to a conference on criticism and sound art that's taking place in Madrid in June, Richard was asked to respond to two questions:

Do you think that discographic criticism in sound art is necessary?, Why?

What is your opinion about the evolution of experimental music and sound art on the Internet in recent years? What has improved and what has gotten worse in your opinion?

You can read his responses, which I think are spot on, here: http://www.thewatchfulear.com/?p=3336

[Hal McGee]

You're right, Simon. I just read this newest blog entry of Richard's, and I think it is thought-provoking. Especially relevant to me are his comments about the negatives and positives of the Internet's influence on music.

[Min Boyce]

I'll comment on this here, rather than directly on Richard's blog, as I'm not registered there:

The problem that exists in the area of music I personally write about however is that there is a distinct shortage of writers about the music.

An impossible task, but I'd be interested to know whether this is still the case if you take the number of writers as a percentage of the number of listeners. Obviously you don't have to search very hard for a write up of the latest Kanye West tour de force, but he shifts millions upon millions of units of actual product in addition to the uncountable millions of radio listeners. Some of the stuff talked about on The Watchful Ear, or in Vital Weekly, or even The Wire, might not even sell 100 copies. You might not consider Vital Weekly, for instance, to be 'critical review', more like just a list of stuff that's available with brief descriptive accompaniment, but that's just as important, if not more, to me than a reviewer who'll spend two whole pages essentially telling me more about themselves than about what they're responding to.

[DarkAttraktor]

Do you think that discographic criticism in sound art is necessary?, Why?

If the so called 'discographic criticism' is regarded as a legacy of colloquial music journalism or even historic rock journalism in disguise, where music critics due to insufficient vocabulary and/or knowledge emphasized the importance of personal experience, adhered to metaphors, various tricks or in the most unfortunate case - using a lot of adjectives, then the answer would be yes. Because no matter what the actual nature of recorded sound is you have two (or possibly three) ways of communicating with people: the formally structured one (academic or pseudo-academic), utilizing the exact provided terminology to convey thoughts, pinpointing all the necessary contexts right and, as an ultimate expression of creativity drawing parallels and comparisons in the 'field' you previously marked. The second would be the above-mentioned legacy of rock journalism where an inexperienced music critic in a youth magazine is trying to make something out of nothing and in the process create a language-system of his own. And of course there are compromises between the two.

Personally, I would never disregard this legacy because I considerate it a part of a ongoing (noble) process of democratization of access to cultural resources that would eventually erase all boundaries between the professionals and the non-professionals and that would make us all musicians and critics on our own right.

Moreover I always enjoyed inspired, mindboggling metaphors of a total dilettante more then accurately getting all the contexts right and communicating in a familiar language, because it's ultimately a more creative thing to do. Or in words of my dear friend Nikola Vitkovic - Alone: "Any talk about music is like snowballing with clouds. First you have to be very quick to actually catch the puff of cloud, then you have to be dexterous enough not to let it escape through your fingers while you make a snowball and finally, you have to try to throw it at your opponent so you'd hit him." And that's what only a poet - as an apotheosis of a dilettante - can do.

[Hal McGee]

You might not consider Vital Weekly, for instance, to be 'critical review', more like just a list of stuff that's available with brief descriptive accompaniment, but that's just as important, if not more, to me than a reviewer who'll spend two whole pages essentially telling me more about themselves than about what they're responding to.

I can see your point, and a perfectly sore example was Keenan's "review" of the four Guitar Series CDs on Another Timbre. Besides disgust when I got done reading it I felt like I had wasted my time because I really found out next to nothing about the releases themselves - just Keenan's "agenda". I've read lots of reviews over the past 30 years or so that have the same problem. I learn more about the reviewer than I do the music or I find out nothing whatsoever about anything except the reviewer's readings in Derrida, Foucault, and other philosophers.

I read Vital Weekly on occasion, and I find it only marginally useful. In most reviews on there by Frans De Waard we read his complaints about the length of the CDs he's reviewing. This can be attributed partly to him having too review too much stuff. He does seem to listen to everything closely and I appreciate that, but I get the idea that he likes few CDs that are longer than 20 minutes.

It has also been my experience that with some reviewers I can base my CD purchasing on what they don't like. A lot of times I'll read reviews and the things that the reviewer doesn't like about a CD are often things that actually appeal to me. The same holds true for opinions about various CDs talked about here on IHM.

Actually I consider personal review blogs like Richard Pinnell's The Watchful Ear, Brian Olewnick's Just Outside, and Crow with no mouth by Jesse Goin to be of great value. I like the idea that these three writers often frame their reviews within the context of their personal listening experiences, states and conditions. It's obvious to me that all three of these writers make a point to listen carefully and thoroughly to what they review and that they consider their views and words about them carefully. I read Paris Transatlantic too, but I personally find it less useful because of its release schedule. But I do like to read reviews of older things on PT as context for the newer things that are coming out.

[A Consumer]

I learn more about the reviewer than I do the music or I find out nothing whatsoever about anything except the reviewer's readings in Derrida, Foucault, and other philosophers.

Vital Weekly..... a reviewer who'll spend two whole pages essentially telling me more about themselves than about what they're responding to.

JILAT

[RFKorp]

Vital Weekly..... a reviewer who'll spend two whole pages essentially telling me more about themselves than about what they're responding to.

JILAT

no, I'd say that's more FdW behavior.

Jliat just cites biblical passages and comments on how he can't believe you're not Polish!

[kandu]

Do you think that discographic criticism in sound art is necessary?, Why?

If the so called 'discographic criticism' is regarded as a legacy of colloquial music journalism or even historic rock journalism in disguise, where music critics due to insufficient vocabulary and/or knowledge emphasized the importance of personal experience, adhered to metaphors, various tricks or in the most unfortunate case - using a lot of adjectives, then the answer would be yes. Because no matter what the actual nature of recorded sound is you have two (or possibly three) ways of communicating with people: the formally structured one (academic or pseudo-academic), utilizing the exact provided terminology to convey thoughts, pinpointing all the necessary contexts right and, as an ultimate expression of creativity drawing parallels and comparisons in the 'field' you previously marked. The second would be the above-mentioned legacy of rock journalism where an inexperienced music critic in a youth magazine is trying to make something out of nothing and in the process create a language-system of his own. And of course there are compromises between the two.

Personally, I would never disregard this legacy because I considerate it a part of a ongoing (noble) process of democratization of access to cultural resources that would eventually erase all boundaries between the professionals and the non-professionals and that would make us all musicians and critics on our own right.

Moreover I always enjoyed inspired, mindboggling metaphors of a total dilettante more then accurately getting all the contexts right and communicating in a familiar language, because it's ultimately a more creative thing to do. Or in words of my dear friend Nikola Vitkovic - Alone: "Any talk about music is like snowballing with clouds. First you have to be very quick to actually catch the puff of cloud, then you have to be dexterous enough not to let it escape through your fingers while you make a snowball and finally, you have to try to throw it at your opponent so you'd hit him." And that's what only a poet - as an apotheosis of a dilettante - can do.

well done.

[cheerios]

I like Richard Pinnell's blog, personally.

-Fei

[Dan Warburton]

I read Paris Transatlantic too, but I personally find it less useful because of its release schedule.

What release schedule? I didn't know there was one anymore
Good point though - the one I suspect is lurking behind your remark, Hal - there's still a real rush to get reviews out pretty soon after the album hits the streets (and in some cases before). Pitching things for The Wire each month is very much a question of, have I got this album before the other writers have? Can I get in first and pee on the tree before the other dogs?
It all adds up to a sense of enormous frustration on my part (I"ve said this many times before), not being able to do everything right away. And the pre-2007 deadline I used to set myself of producing a monthly issue drove me up the wall, so I decided to publish it less frequently (4 or 5 issues a year now).
Richard's answers in the page linked above are honest, like his writing, and I find myself in general agreement with what he says.

[Hal McGee]

Yes, Dan, that is it. I just wish that Paris Transatlantic came out more frequently. I do enjoy reading the reviews and I've spent many a happy hour there.

I am interested to find out if everybody agrees with Richard that there need to be more people writing reviews. I am starting to investigate the possibilities of starting my own review blog. I have a good deal of experience with review writing, having published two zines back in the day - notably Electronic Cottage from 1989-1992.

[Dan Warburton]

If you ever feel like scribbling something for PT, you'd be most welcome.

[Hal McGee]

If you ever feel like scribbling something for PT, you'd be most welcome.

Sure, Dan, I'd like to. Might be a good way to get my feet wet writing reviews again.

[flies]

I'm a fan of richard's blog and I have found much of interest there, but I think he's done a poor job of describing why a person like me reads his blog.

The only benefit of criticism Richard identifies is, "If there is a consensus about a piece of music that has been independently formed by a number of people then this can be useful for someone looking to select music to purchase." I think it's really too bad that this is all he could come up with. While I freely admit that I am such a someone who has occasionally read his blog with this very purpose, probably the main reason I look for reviews is to find new perspectives on music I listen to: records I own, performers i've seen, etc. I like to read reviews of an artist's music and compare what is written about an album i haven't heard to an album I own.

I don't think that this is the only thing Richard values in criticism, since I assume that like me, Richard has also enjoyed reading reviews of music he's very familiar with and of concerts he hasn't attended.

Since my gripe is that richard hasn't provided much insight into what makes criticism valuable, I probably ought to offer my own $0.02 on the matter.

Basically, criticism provides additional tools with which to appreciate music, it enriches the cultural context in which music is made and heard. Just as I might compare Weather Sky to Between, I might compare my own listening of Between to Bryan Olenwick's. Learning another's take on music enables me to hear differently. For example, a critic might point to a particular sound at a particular point in a song that I had never heard before (something unobtrusive, i guess) and discuss its relation to the song as a whole. This is just one superficial example.

maybe this point is entirely superficial, but it seems like a more valuable function for a critic than as a consumer aid.

[Dan Warburton]

Massimo "Mazzacane" Ricci's answers to the same questions:
http://criticisminsoundart.blogspot.com/

[bedouin]

[Criticism] is useful to know what's happening around, but not really "necessary", because sound is an individual experience

I kind of agree with that.
For instance while I appreciate the writing on both Brian's and Richard's blogs, for me they are essential mainly for the listings of new music. If these folks get a disc sent to them it's probably within my area of interest therefore it must be worth investigating.
The value -as flies says above- also comes from comparing notes with what these folks (and others) have to say about a disc. It's like years ago I would discuss the new Led Zep or Can disc with my friends at school. It's a communication thing albeit (unfortunately) online and mostly one way.

I personally like the paristransatlantic form of review the most, not only because of the English itself, but also because DW and the rest of the crowd get a little more technical whenever possible. A snippet from "Lost Daylight" review highlights this:
Tilbury's performance, notably his use of the sustaining pedal, is outstanding. So is his reading of 1966's Winter Sun, articulating the constituent notes of Jennings' delicately arpeggiated chord in such a way that we feel that each one is not only part of the chord and part of a melody but also a world in its own right.

The relationship between musician and listener is no longer necessarily one founded in any kind of personal commitment, and so it is inevitable that this follows through into a certain amount of casual listening, which to me personally is the biggest insult we can make towards this music.

This line puzzled me from Richard's replies.
Why do people feel that casual listening is not an acceptable form of listening?

[faster]

Yeah, that bugs me a little, too.

But what I really wonder is whether any of this stuff is even criticism. The most I ever see is a "not my thing but you might like it" or "doesn't sound good and actually annoys me but maybe that's the point."

I like the idea of a critic being someone who can add to the discourse, contextualize things in new ways, help me hear something differently, even something I've heard many times before. I think in most cases, the reviewers in improvised music mainly do a job of getting the word out, publicizing the records/shows/musicians, and inspiring others with their enthusiasm.

Those are good things--important things--but other things are possible. And I don't mean the (awesomely entertaining) Dilloway-esque free-association rambles ("When the BP oil leak diffuses throughout the Atlantic and the entire Gulf languishes in a dead zone the size of Roky Erikson's hallucination collection, you find yourself alone in a cave with a single Three Musketeers bar and a twenty-year-old bottle of blue Gatorade. This record is the sound of your final fart." Shit like that).

[cheerios]

Weird. Yeah, I haven't read many reviews of sound art or experimental music but gathering from the reviews I've read on this forum I think that people should get in touch with their emotive side more and write about that as opposed to "and then this beep went like this and sounded like a boop" you know none of that technical stuff, i mean who are you writing for anyway, Tape Op?

[Hal McGee]

What about a video blog in which the reviewer talks about the recording, shows the artwork and packaging, and plays pertinent extracts from the release to illustrate the points in his review?

[Charon]

What about a video blog in which the reviewer talks about the recording, shows the artwork and packaging, and plays pertinent extracts from the release to illustrate the points in his review?

I'd be tuning in.....