Ann Powers, the excellent music critic for the LA Times (and once a fellow contributor to Seattle's semi-legendary The Rocket) posted this link on Facebook, with the following disclaimer:
I hesitate to share this ridiculous dismissal of the field to which I am devoted and about which I am so passionate, but I guess I do so to say, okay, then, perhaps this writer should never approach the subject of music again, because every act of writing about culture involves some kind of critical assessment, and he... is against that process...
She refers to this piece by Steve Almond in the Boston Globe, appearing under the headline "Love music, hold the criticism," in which Almond recalls securing a paying gig as a know-nothing El Paso newspaper music critic during the "heyday of Hair Metal," whose "only qualifications... consisted of a willingness to work nights and hit my deadlines":
My standard template was to start off with a bad pun then proceed to the concert set list, with each song title modified by at least three adjectives. If I was feeling ambitious, I described the lead singer's hair.
Wretched as I was, I loved being a music critic. I got to feel like a big shot, the one guy whose opinion (no matter how misbegotten) mattered.
But one night, he says, at an MC Hammer show, he had an epiphany:
I dutifully spent the evening scribbling witty insults in my reporter's notebook. But at a certain point (after I'd fulfilled my quota of witty insults) I turned my attention to the folks all around me. They were enthralled. And what I realized as I gazed at them was this: I was totally missing the point. [...]
I'd come up against a concept I've since come to think of as the Music Critic Paradox: the simple fact that even the best critics -- the ones, unlike me, with actual training and talent -- can't begin to capture what it feels like to listen to music. [...]
It was as if my critic credibility depended on my not being fooled into actually enjoying myself.
He was missing the point, all right. In other words, as I commented in reply to Ann, what we learn from this is that Steve Almond was, by definition and his own admission, a bad critic -- and now he's projecting his old attitudes onto everyone else. If he thought his job was to "not be fooled into enjoying myself," then he wasn't being a critic, he was just being an idiot. (And a jerk, too.) He not only couldn't write good criticism, he hadn't read any -- or else he'd know how much of it is, in fact, able to "capture what it feels like" (and what it sounds like and what it means and why it matters)...
I can't help but wonder why readers in El Paso (and editors and publishers) didn't take notice of this and point this out to someone. (Maybe they did and he's just not writing about memories he doesn't like.) Maybe they didn't know what a critic was, or what they should expect from one. Because why else would they put up with that shite -- unless they were vicariously enjoying sharing his feelings of contempt and superiority, too?
It didn't take long for Glenn Kenny, experienced in music and film criticism, to respond ("Almond, no joy"), noting that
an increasing number of self-proclaimed critics not only don't read other criticism but actually don't know what criticism is, as a form. Another, perhaps even more disturbing current it points to is the reflexive notion of criticism as a bad-faith enterprise. "Criticizing a particular band or song might make you, and some of your readers, feel smart and sophisticated," tsk-tsks Almond. (Yeah, take that, George Bernard Shaw.) [...]
The resentment towards critics and criticism that I seem to encounter more and more frequently seems to stem from a conviction that "If I disagree with what you have to say, you're just not worth engaging on any level," combined with "And stop trying to sell me that bill of goods while you're at it." And, as I said, I just do not get it. Do you?
(Reminder: We're talking about Steve Almond, not "Armond.") A few of America's other heavyweight music critics chimed in here, too. Robert Christgau observes that Almond
perfectly exemplifies the indifference of arts editors to the quality of their popular music criticism. I mean, Almond actually seems to define "critic" the way hip-hoppers do, as "guy who says bad stuff about me." He's right. He should never have gotten the job in the first place.
And Tom Moon (I love reading Tom Moon) writes:
The comments that follow Almond's piece are instructive. Mostly the usual prattle about critics not "liking" stuff the public likes, being out of step to the point of cluelessness, etc.
One Professor Wombat, though, offers clarity: "The best criticism makes connections, shows me a different or larger way to look at an artwork, gives a historical context, points out subtleties of structure and image I've missed....The critical enterprise is not of itself incorrect or wrong. But it doesn't often challenge, rather than illuminate, my initial response to a work as good or bad."
Dingdingding!
Seems to me this notion of perspective and context is key. The net is flooded with "music critics" who speak with enchanting glibness about their reactions to a work, how it links up with their personal love trauma and life narrative, etc. That approach has sorta poisoned the well: To devote space to the personal in a discussion of a work that some soul took a year or more to create is too often downright arrogant and not at all illuminating.
But that type of writing is what passes for criticism anymore. It doesn't help develop discernment, doesn't make connections, doesn't live up to Wombat's notion of "challenging" the reader's thinking.
Sigh.
Why do people let that kind of writing pass for criticism? (That's not entirely a rhetorical question, though I will offer one answer to it.) Because some people -- like Almond himself -- aren't interested in critical appreciation of music, or movies, or politics, or anything else. And you're never going to persuade them that they should be. All they want, according to Almond, is to be made to "dance or weep or laugh":
Criticizing a particular band or song might make you, and some of your readers, feel smart or sophisticated. But it rarely does anything to advance the cause of art. After all, you can't rescind the pleasure someone derives from a particular piece of music. All you can do is deride that pleasure, which strikes me as a fairly stingy way to make a living.
I myself still write about music a good deal. But I devote myself almost exclusively to spreading the gospel of those bands that I love. As for the bands I don't like (and there are still plenty of those) I tend to assume someone else will.
He is so right about this: "you can't rescind the pleasure someone derives from" a piece of art or entertainment -- even by derision. But why is he even thinking along those lines? Oh, we already established that: He's a bad critic who is only familiar with bad criticism and doesn't recognize what good criticism is.
Further proof is his attitude of "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." If you cared about music -- or food or movies or sex or politics or anything at all -- you would know that passions run in both directions. To feel intense love is also to know intense hatred. If you don't care enough about something to hate the worst in it, then you aren't capable of appreciating the best. You're either numb or have no standards (which is the same thing). So, to say you will only write about what you like is vacuous, dishonest, one-dimensional. If you care enough to write about something, you can't ignore a whole part of your sensibility. Your yin is shapeless and meaningless without your yang. Dammit.
Remember: Those who can, write. Those who can't, dance.
Meanwhile, Almond is promoting a new book called "Rock and Roll Will Save Your Life." If this piece is a sample of his credibility, knowledge or enthusiasm for music... I'll assume someone else will read it.
46 Comments
In the world of film criticism, Kevin Smith just went on a twitter rant decrying critics approach to Cop Out, along similar lines as Almond.
I have all but given up writing about music because I found myself thinking some -- SOME -- of the same things Almond says in his universally savaged piece. I can (and do) write about film and TV, and feel like I can adequately explain why something works or not in those realms, but I continually find myself at a loss to describe why I like or dislike music. (Saying "it's awesome" or "it sucks" just doesn't cut it, does it?)
Some people just aren't cut out to be music critics. I suspect Almond is, like me, a very superficial music listener in that we both like that which feels right. I've never listened to pop music for the lyrics, the meaning, the place in history and society. I listen for how it moves me on the most basic of levels. If it sounds good, it sounds good. And that probably explains my mostly juvenile taste in music: Metallica, Iron Maiden, Lady Gaga, John Williams themes, symphonic metal bands like Nightwish, et cetera.
Of course, I would never go so far as to say that pop criticism has no place, for it certainly does; I would only admit that I am perhaps not someone who should be writing it.
But, Jim, isn't it always better to write a review that champions a small, unknown, good film than to write a dismissal of a popular one? I'm not saying that it should be the case. Just that, if I were a critic and had the option, I would prefer writing a positive review of another film than a negative review of the one I'm asked to write.
Jim-
While I completely disagree with Almond's piece, I think Tom Moon is a bit out of line. Yes, context and perspective are key. And those two items are crucial for any sort of robust and satisfying piece of criticism. But to suggest that one must leave out their personal life in order to write criticism, seems like an impossible feat. Personal tastes, bias, memories, and experiences all seep out when engaging with a piece of art. Whether conscience our unconscious, it is this personal imprint that gives criticism it's zest. In my view, Moon is presenting a false dilemma; inserting personal experience into criticism does not necessarily preclude an informed sense of perspective and context.
Hear hear
I think there is more bad criticism than good criticism out there. And this was true even before the Internet. Just that, as a long-time reader of criticism, you have become very good at knowing where to look for and how to spot the good criticism and so, you have come to the conclusion that criticism is a fine and worthy endeavor.
However, most people mostly encounter bad criticism. If I survey everyone I know as sample, perhaps only 1 in 4 have discovered the joy of reading good criticism. To many people, criticism still only amounts to the caricature of deriding others that Almond has illustrated here.
Quite often, the caricature gets shaped this way. You trusted bad/lazy/glib criticism when you were young and impressionable. Later, you have a realization that such criticism gets you nowhere. Then, you develop a bad impression of criticism in general and lose your trust in it.
Of course, discovering good criticism could change all that. But that is if you find it.
Spot on.
Whenever I watch/hear something I find 'good' or 'praise-worthy', I get disturbed and restless when I don't have anything to say about it. It almost feels as if I owe it to myself to justify my preferences. This also applies to those "somethings" that lie on the other side of the curve. If someone proclaims to be a critic and can't do this she/he should shoot her/himself (this of course goes mutatis mutandis for time constraints).
I like this:
"If you care enough to write about something, you can't ignore a whole part of your sensibility. Your yin is shapeless and meaningless without your yang. Dammit."
But even more importantly, and what I think you are getting at, is that writing, discussing, thinking, criticizing are all constitutive elements of actively shaping one's sensibility.
Otherwise, how can we be sure whether it has a form or not?
(SATIRE WARNING)
After deciding being a music critic wasn't for him, Almond decided to become a doctor. Patients came in, Almond checked WebMD very quickly. If webMD couldn't identify their symptoms, he would periodically yell at germs to go away, or say several chants in the hopes that people would get better.
One day, he realized that the people he was talking to could check WebMD and yell at germs themselves. He had an epiphany: doctors are useless. After all, HE was a doctor, and all he did was check webMD and yell at germs, so now he has the insider's perspective that people should just try to heal themselves.
One extra step: He would only deal with things he liked -- easily detectable, diagnosable and treatable. The stuff he didn't like -- ugly diseases with nasty or fatal symptoms, difficult diagnoses and complicated treatments -- he just ignored those in hopes someone else would take them on.
Of course, in this scenario he has to luck out to find someone willing to take him on as a paid doctor without any training or a rudimentary understanding of what a doctor is/does....
This may be a perverse reaction, but I rarely feel worthy to dabble in the field so many others have enobled over the decades....I'm not great, but at least all the above struck me as obvious.
Jim, I see you take it very personal this time. You even call him an idiot.
I cannot understand why, since it's quite clear that this guy is completely missing the point (by the most common an cliché means, by the way) plus you get this criticism-is-merely-about-pointing-out-flaws stuff everyday.
What I actually wrote was: "If he thought his job was to "not be fooled into enjoying myself," then he wasn't a critic, he was just an idiot."
OK, technically you didn't call him an idiot. Sorry, I didn't mean to "accuse". What I meant was that I was surprised by how vexed you seemed as I read the post.
OK, technically you didn't call him an idiot. Sorry, I didn't mean to "accuse". What I meant was that I was surprised by how vexed you seemed as I read the post.
"I'd come up against a concept I've since come to think of as the Music Critic Paradox: the simple fact that even the best critics -- the ones, unlike me, with actual training and talent -- can't begin to capture what it feels like to listen to music. [...]"
Sounds like the old chestnut, "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."
Well, why not?
I don't bother reading music reviews, though I like to read book and movie reviews. I guess for me music is just more subjective. Probably because unlike those other two forms of media, there's not (usually) a story to music. My reasons to like or dislike it then aren't based on the same factors as with books or movies. In movies or books you can generally rate them based on rational, logical factors like if the story makes sense, if the effects are good, if the performers bring the characters to life or seem to be reading cue cards. Whereas with music my like or dislike is based on more subjective factors. I might like a lyric or the melody or the voice. Or it might just be a bit of nostalgia depending on where/when I heard it. So there's really nothing a music critic can tell me that would be useful in that process. The best method for me is still just to listen to the radio (these days mostly my Internet station on Pandora) and make the decision for myself.
Almond obviously has never read any Lester Bangs, in fact he's probably never heard of him. Sad.
Apparently, he does. If you would have felt compelled to read the whole article before commenting on it, you would've seen this: "But a funny thing happened on the way to my glorious career as the next Lester Bangs"
Steve Almond is a hack writer with a gift for self-promotion, nothing more. I try not to read him if I can help it.
However, his ridiculous comments reminded me of Heidi Julavits and THE BELIEVER magazine, which, along similar lines, has vowed never to publish a negative review of anything. Negativity, apparently (accoding to Heidi) doesn't provide the "fertile ground" that artists need to create. In my view, this is nonsense; fertile ground or no, all gardens need pruning. As a member of Almond's and Julavits's generation, I'm sort of ashamed on their behalf. Surely our generation didn't look at the artistic achievements of generations past and conclude that the only thing holding us back from similar achievements was negative criticism? I get the feeling that Almond's (and Julavits's) position on this has less to do with an ignorance of the function of good criticism and more to do with a mania for self-promotion and a desire to silence dissenting views. If knowledgeable people would just shut up, see, Almond could continue to believe that he's a good writer.
Still, as someone who has practiced some Dale-Peck-style ambush criticism in the past, I can say that critics should probably hesitate before attacking too harshly. Too many of the artists/art I held in contempt in my youth have in time become more attractive to me. Stupid art is stupid art, but sometimes a critic can fail an artwork simply by not "getting" it, and critics should always be aware that their opinions may one day revise upwards.
Good piece, but thought Ann Powers was at LA Times, not NY.......
Yes, my mind made a leap back to the early '90s when she wrote to the NY Times. Thanks for bringing me back to the present. I've fixed it.
"The best criticism makes connections, shows me a different or larger way to look at an artwork, gives a historical context, points out subtleties of structure and image I've missed"
I would certianly have liked have seen Professor Wombat's(??) review of a 80's El Paso Hair Metal band
written within a short press deadline.
It's interesting in the Tom Moon interview you link to, he praises Lester Bangs while in the same paragraph deriding the "confessional here's-why-this-matters-to-me school of criticism," to use his words, which is at the heart of probably the most important and famous rockcrit article of all time, Bangs's ruminations on Astral Weeks. Maybe he's right that such personal exploration of music (or film, or even sports or politics) comes from a certain arrogance, but it also can be "illuminating." For one of the most important parts of processing an artistic work is relating to it, and I find some of my favorite criticism takes how I put myself into a piece and expresses it more eloquently than I ever could. I also find some of my favorite criticism expertly identifies the musical connections and influences of a work, and places it into a historical context -- there is no right way to critique. But to dismiss such an important (not to mention emotionally compelling) technique I think is itself arrogant, and closed-minded.
As an unpaid music critic who has striven to uphold the ideals of intelligent and thoughtful, rather than personal, criticism, this is one of the best summations of my feelings on the subject I've ever read. I guess all I can do is thank you, and everyone else who's called out Steve Almond's faulty logic, for giving me something I can point to whenever anyone questions the meaning of music criticism.
Thank you, thank you!
-Christian Hagen
www.audiosuede.com
Do you mind specifying the difference?
Does Almond really believe that critics exist solely to "deride" pieces of art? How does he explain all this "two thumbs up" "four star" sort of stuff?
It seems to me a matter of semantics. Some people think critics are supposed to criticize, when really they should be looking critically at a piece of work.
I don't agree with Mr. Almond's dismissal of criticism in general, but I do think that music criticism is vastly different than film criticism and I think some of his excerts illustrate the difference to a degree. Music, as art, appeals primarily to ones emotions. When you listen to a piece of music, or at the very least when I do, you are not looking for intellectual stimulation, but something that sounds good, that stimulates you emotionally. I don't think music lends itself to criticism as easily as film or literature in this sense, which work to stimulate intellectually as well as emotionally. Film and literature can work to accomplish a variety of things; music can too, but generally it's spectrum is more limited.
I don't necessairly agree with this quote, but I do think it captures some of what I'm talking about: "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture - it's a really stupid thing to want to do."
Like any field, there are both good and bad practitioners; hardworking saints and snake oil salesmen. Critics are no exception, and as folks who provide content, they too have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em, as it were -- it's as hard for someone uneducated in criticism to distinguish a valid and knowledgable critic from a sham steeped in self-taught legerdemain, especially in artistic endeavors. Criticism is both science and art; like a good forensic analyst, they dissect the corpus looking not for the components but for the motives, to discover the true nature of the event that preceded their own.
Steve Almond's admission does not invalidate the art of criticism. It merely reveal, in a moment of useless honesty, that Steve was a fake, and that he duped a self-selecting audience into accepting his words as authoritative. Every occupation, every art, every science has folks like that in their midst. If there is a particular point to this revelation, it's that people simply want a reason to mistrust critics, because sometimes they have to do something nobody really enjoys: reveal frauds. Steve's only legitimate effort as a critic, ironically, was to unclothe himself. D'oh!
Regardless of the fact that there's something heartbreakingly frustrating about reading a great review for a live show that you didn't attend and will never get to experience, Steve Almond is a tool.
"Poetry that is far from music is not poetry. Music that is far from dance is not music. Dance that is far from architecture may require galoshes."
--Ezra Pundit
Critic and skeptic, two hopelessly maligned terms.
"All they want, according to Almond, is to be made to "dance or weep or laugh"" - we are human beings, we cannot dissociate our rationality from our emotional part. We feel and that is an atribute of our humanity, as much as that we think. Analyzing, criticizing works of art goes to demonstrate that we are not led solely by our irrational feelings, but also by our consciousness.
Another thing about Almond is that the best music critics are actually the ones that CAN evoke music.
It seems that a lot of people seem to think the "critic" part means that you criticize the art, as opposed to offering a critical analysis.
As someone who lives in Boston and reads the Globe, I can certainly say that Almond doesn't offer any critical analysis.
Quote by Mike Figgis (director, composer etc.)
"Art is as important as the discussion it creates."
That's paraphrased, but about exact.
He praises Whitney Balliet as a rare writer that can evoke music:
"Favourite is Whitney Balliet’s Collected Works. WB was the jazz critic for the New Yorker for 50 years and is that rare thing, a writer who can evoke music. I tried this approach with Pauline Kael and found it quite boring, she doesn’t evoke anything except herself."
Thought I'd throw in that extra bit about Pauline Kael since we're talking about critics.
Here's the direct quote by Mike Figgis
"... the discussion of a work of art is as important as the art itself."
Sometimes the discussion, the criticism of art, is much more important than the work. This is especially true of art that can not or chooses not to speak for itself. Isn't that giant blue canvas that hangs in the museum of modern art is quite literally nothing without the criticism that goes along with it. It has no meaning until people ascribe it one. This is true of all art.
Yeah. It is kind of an iconic symbol of what modern painting is. With the invention of the camera, artists were liberated to just splash paint on the canvas (as some did).
Look at paintings by Gerard Richter to see the height of where that movement went.
From the website of MOMA:
Monochrome abstraction—the use of one color over an entire canvas—has been a strategy adopted by many painters wishing to challenge expectations of what an image can and should represent. Klein likened monochrome painting to an "open window to freedom." He worked with a chemist to develop his own particular brand of blue. Made from pure color pigment and a binding medium, it is called International Klein Blue. Klein adopted this hue as a means of evoking the immateriality and boundlessness of his own particular utopian vision of the world.
I think that Mike Figgis quote would go well on the epigraph part of the page along with the other ones. It's short and sweet so it won't take up too much space. Just a suggestion.
I think balanced writing will endure so long as you and your friends are here to scare the crap out of any newbies.
Someone please cue Oscar Wilde:
The artist is the creator of beautiful things.
To reveal art and conceal the artist is art’s aim.
The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things.
The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography.
Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.
Those who find beautiful meaning in beautiful things are the cultivated.
For these there is hope.
They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only Beauty.
There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book.
Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.
The nineteenth century dislike of realism is the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass.
The nineteenth century dislike of romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass.
The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium.
No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved.
No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style.
No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything.
Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art.
Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art.
From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician. From the point of view of feeling,the actor’s craft is the type.
All art is at once surface and symbol.
Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril.
Those who read the symbol do so at their peril.
It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital.
When critics disagree, the artist is in accord with himself. We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.
All art is quite useless.
Here is proof that criticism can induce passion by itself. Such unbridled excitement about an unabridged Hamlet acts as an antidote to the poison that Almond offers. Ebert chose him as one of the best web critics for a reason.
http://www.reelviews.net/php_review_template.php?identifier=863
Almond's at it again. His condemnation of music criticism has paved the way for a confession of love for -- wait for it -- the rock band Styx:
http://www.salon.com/life/excerpt/2010/03/27/rock_and_roll_will_save_your_life/index.html
Anybody catch Andrew O'Hehir's piece about movie criticism in Salon?
http://www.salon.com/news/media_criticism/index.html?story=/ent/movies/andrew_ohehir/2010/04/15/film_critics
I think Steve Almond has some competition:
'...Writing about movies requires no particular expertise or training, and as we've learned over the past decade, any idiot with an Internet connection can and will do it. Will there continue to be a market for those who can do it better than others? Probably, ultimately, over the long haul. I don't know. It depends what you mean by "better."
'At the very beginning of my writing career, I learned one thing: Film criticism is a kind of performance, an adjunct form of entertainment. If it isn't funny and lively and engaging, it isn't anything at all.'
I don't know enough about the people involved to comment, but that is a really good image of Nicholas Cage. Although I also don't understand why he's relevant to the issue.
Leave a comment