Critical condition analysis

Time Out Chicago ran a piece about a panel of Chicago critics, well, critiquing themselves and their opinions.

Here is the article.


While all of the critics brought up valid arguments, a majority of them agreed that passion in whatever particular field you are critiquing is key. And passion and education play two important roles for critics.

Sam Jones, book blogger, Golden Rule Jones brings up a great point when he stated, “Critics are like statistics—what they say is almost meaningless without the underlying story.” This makes sense because, even though there might be super fans within the target audience, if there are readers who are unfamiliar with a particular author or artist, it would be best to look beyond that and help them understand some background information

He then goes on to say “We come to trust critics by reading them…” It is true. If you pay attention to several pieces by a particular critic, you learn to trust their opinion, whether you agree or disagree with the review, you are still looking for them to give you a solid foundation to work with when forming your own opinion.

The panel transitioned into a discussion about the “rapid evolution” of the websites and blogs and the disappearance of print pieces. Jones asked an interesting question about whether or not readers appreciate the editorial content enough to pay money for it. Of course, there was much skepticism. Why pay for something when you can have a dozen reviews of a particular album with a few clicks of a mouse.

Jones went on to discuss a positive thing about being an online critic, “Well on the web I can treat my readers more intimately, because I know them.”

Kris Vire, Time Out writer agreed with Jones’ point by adding that it is easy to get feedback and interact with readers through comment spaces and message boards. Jim DeRogatis, music critic, added that nothing but the mode of delivery has changed. While this is true, responding to writers and readers is simply easier online.

The discussion bounced back and forth about the validity of Internet readers and writers. Jones said, “For many people, the Internet is a vast internship opportunity.” This is very true. Head writer for The Onion’s A.V. Club Nathan Rabin said, “I’ve always seen criticism as an extension of fandom.” Which brought up one of the initial topics of the discussion; being passionate in the critical field is one of the most important things you can do as a reviewer.

The good and the bad

Good: Closer -The lights go on for The xx by Sasha Frere-Jones
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/musical/2010/01/25/100125crmu_music_frerejones?currentPage=1

The New Yorker’s review of The xx’s live show in a small Lower East Side venue and their self-titled debut album hit the nail on the head. It was indeed spot on. The review was a success as Frere-Jones expressed his dissatisfaction in their live show and used it to transition into a convincing review of their January 2010 album.

Starting with the bands lackluster and awkward live show, Frere-Jones set the scene as a member of the crowd, standing before the London-based group as they avoided eye contact with anyone in the venue. And although the writer was disappointed, he didn’t give up on them as a band. Instead he consciously listened to the album again and used his experience as a way to better understand them and why they aren’t as successful as a live group. “The xx (the album)”, though incredibly intimate, is as simplistic as it could be. It’s sensual and incredibly personal and like the writer said the music is meant to be whispered into someone’s ear in the dark, not exploited on a stage in front of hundreds. Frere-Jones used good details and examples of not only lyrics, but also sound riffs and emotions of the tracks on the album.

The review was a holistic approach and it was successful because he used a scene-setting opener, in which you thought it was going to be a bad review and turned it into a clear, valid point about not only this album and live shows, but from other bands in general.


Bad: Pitchfork Sia “We are born” by Liz Colville
http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/14296-we-are-born/

Colville’s review of Sia’s latest album didn’t work for a couple of reasons. The most obvious one is that Colville spent a majority of the review giving readers background information on the artist. Sia has been around for almost a decade, if not more. There is no point in wasting that much time giving the history of her music career. It could have been summed up in two brief sentences instead of two very long paragraphs.

Also, the review really didn’t tell readers much about the actual album. She gave some comparisons to songs sounding like ones off of a previous album. However, given the amount of space she used divulging in background information, one could assume the reader wouldn’t know what a song off of her old album sounded like. At one point in the review Colville said, “…the melodies are boring.” That is one of the most vague things you can say in a review. It is telling the audience nothing about the actual melodies or why they are even boring. There are no details about any of the tracks. There is no sense of what the writer was actually feeling when she listened to this album.

She then closes out the review by saying the sounds on the album don’t reach the electronic pop level of the big time names like Lady Gaga, Katy Perry and Ke$ha. I’m not quite sure why these artist would fall into a category with the music of Sia. For those who have seen her live and listened to her for a few years, they wouldn’t get the sense she was trying to be on a level with them either.