The other evening I was talking to a couple local musicians -- one of whom has a particularly excellent EP that should be out soon -- and I realized that folks have a pretty upside-down view of what motivates music critics. I've run their thoughts past a few other folks and have come to realized that people seem to think that music critics like slamming bands.
That couldn't be further from the truth.Look, I don't write about music because I hate music, I write about it because I LOVE music. Why would I want to listen to bands that are bad? I'll admit a negative review is easier to write than a positive one, but only because it's easier to pinpoint where a band goes wrong and harder to explain why what they're doing is oh-so right. Negative reviews can almost be empirical while positive ones usually rely on a firm grasp of language to describe concepts based both in emotion and historical / gnere-related context.
I don't want to see any band create bad music, and I hold out hope that every band has the potential to create something really great. Why wouldn't I want there to be more good music in the world? And nothing makes me happier than when a band that has habitually underperformed finally gets their act together and delivers a kick-ass album (see: The Redwalls). Heck, man, if Kill Hannah ever actually released a good album I would be the first to admit it, and I'd be happy to do so.
A good critic doesn't want to ever have to write a negative review.* Honest ta sweartagod. I promise.
*No, I'm not forgetting that Lester Bangs wrote a truckload of negative reviews, but I think actually reading him -- instead of just quoting one's impression of him as most writers today seem wont to do -- only proves my point that GOOD criticism is based in a love of music and the desire that an artists do great things.
No comments:
Post a Comment