Why we need bad reviews
Nope, I don’t mean badly-written reviews, though there’s plenty of them online, and offline too (don’t kid yourself). What I mean is that we need negative ones. Sometimes.
The thought occurred to me after seeing this tweet from Accujazz in late May: “What do you think? Do bad reviews of jazz CDs help or hurt the art form? Why do you think jazz critics and bloggers are so hesitant to trash”
Around the same time, ace writer Anne Midgette was thinking the same thing in a Washington Post column. “Loving music, to a critic, cannot simply mean bestowing praise. In fact, I think one of the biggest problems in the classical music field is that there’s too much praise. There’s an idea that our field is so small and beleaguered that we have to band together and all like everything all the time.”
Wise words indeed and a similar sentiment to what Accujazz was thinking. Is jazz also a field that’s become “small and beleaguered” that it needs to be saved from itself? I don’t remember hearing any writer or musician say anything like that but you have to wonder sometimes when you read pubs/mags/columns sometimes. Part of the impetus was Tom Hull’s Consumer Guide for the Village Voice. Like Robert Christgau’s Consumer Guide (which it’s modeled after), Hull lists a bunch of notable albums that he likes and then throws a few little pies at some stinkers at the end. Christgau himself used to mix in positive and negative reviews in his guide until he got tired of trashing albums and wasting his time on stinkers so around 1990, he changed the format of his Guide to concentrate on the records he liked. As he always did, he reserved a list of REALLY crappy records for Thanksgiving time and his annual ‘Turkey Shoot’ column. Though it was always a popular feature, he admitted that he always hated doing it.
I can definitely sympathize with this sentiment. When I pitch reviews to editors, I tend to chose music & artists that I’m inclined to like or find something interesting in. I keep thinking “why should I waste my time continually listening to and writing about garbage?” I know it’s fun sometimes to get a good zinger in but it’s not for me.
But Midgette does have a good point. Even if you’re not fond of giving a thumbs down to an album, song or performance, you owe it to readers to speak truthfully about music and give an honest opinion about it, even if it’s negative.
Even then, I think there’s a context for it. Let’s say that a famous artist puts a new record out and your publication has to weigh in on it. A really negative review might imperil future cover stories or interviews but should that stop a pub/mag from being honest? Some would might say ‘yes’ if only because they wanna maintain a cozy relationship with the artist. Others, like MOJO (disclaimer: I write for them sometimes), will actually run an interview with an artist side-by-side with a bad review. That’s kinda gutsy though artists know that a pub like that will come back for more coverage with them regardless so it serves them well in the end, even if it doesn’t in the short term.
How about less well-known entities and bad reviews? For anyone who gets records sent to them by labels or trowels through MySpace enough, one sad obvious fact is clear- there’s a lotta crappy music out there. There’s a lot of good music still out there but that’s another story. Anyway, as you go through these hopeful acts, you’ll be looking for good ones to spread the word about. But what about the bad ones? Should you spit on them and make fun of them? Any honest writer would tell you that they’re probably tempted to do that but what’s the point? Why would you elevate a really bad unknown act and tell the world how bad they are? It looks like you’re being mean and picking on them for no good reason. As a writer, what are you trying to achieve when you do that except to show what a goddamn jerk you are? That’s why most writers usually pass on this type of criticism.
What do you think? How important is it to have bad reviews, at least sometimes?
(I also briefly discussed this topic based on a SXSW panel last March)
Comments
There is always a need for reviewers to give an honest appraisal of an artist’s work, regardless of their popularity or audience awareness of them. A good reviewer will be able to give constructive criticism of a musical work which, if taken on board by the artist, could allow them to improve. Music critics also have a duty to give their audiences as much information as possible about a musical work, and if that means being negative about aspects of the work, then so be it. A negative review of a lesser-known artist’s work can be an indication that the artist has not yet fulfilled their potential.
Comment by Dane — July 6, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
I don’t find your argument for occasional bad reviews unreasonable; for my own part, I have resolved not to write negative reviews, for reasons I recently discussed at length:
http://twentydollars.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/everybody’s-a-critic/
In both negative and positive reviews, all critics would do well to heed your call to “speak truthfully about music and give an honest opinion about it”.
Comment by Vikram Devasthali — July 6, 2009 @ 11:52 pm
Bad reviews of music albums (or poor, as I call them) don’t do anyone any favors. They’re a waste of a gifted writers time, and every gifted writer knows that truly sublime writing only comes through inspiration. If people find poor albums inspiring, then more power to them I suppose. Although I suspect most would feel as I do - a crappy album fails to inspire! Intrinsically!
With so much music out there (more than critics can reasonably deal with), gifted critics should focus on disseminating the good albums. Don’t waste readers and listeners’ time - you’re not saving them money anymore. If they want to know what it sounds like before they spend their hard earned coin, there are numerous places they can sample everything for free.
In short, the value of a critic’s opinion is in the gutter, barely worth a penny. And if the critic’s opinion isn’t helpful, it’s not even worth that to today’s consumer. If a critic is not going to help a consumer find good music, then they’ll just go elsewhere to someone who will. Meanwhile, the “poor review” critic can keep on writing their reviews to the same 5 people who care.
Comment by Skelly from St. Paul — July 7, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
I get RSS feeds from PopMatters and a variety of other sites so I can keep up on music. I’d like to see more bad reviews, because, in truth, there are so many postive reviews for albums out there than you simply can’t keep up. If there aren’t going to be bad reviews, you may as well just list the albums that are out this week.
Comment by Tom from Portland — July 7, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
I only write negative ad’s of major label artists.
Comment by kozmicfunk from new jersey — July 7, 2009 @ 7:32 pm
I don’t see why you can’t have both. Are they really so exclusive? True in an ideal world we would only be subjected to positive reviews - nay, only to positive albums (the bad would cease to exist) - but that not being the case, we need to know the difference. I suppose it depends on how thorough a critic is aiming to be - ones with as much carte blanche as Robert Christagu can afford to limit themselves to whatever they feel like contributing, but the majority of publications out there try to cover as much space as possible. It’s more rewarding in the long run to read a good review and be lead to good music thusly, but there will always be plenty of those. No need to cut out the bad reviews, I say. If you decide to experience music (like an album in its entirety) and you’re a critic, you should report your thoughts and opinions. I mean, isn’t that your calling? Why avoid the bad ones, because it’s a waste of time? Maybe you should avoid listening to the bad albums too, then, but that’s not always possible. You can’t know all the time which will be awesome and which will suck, nor especially the ones that fall more in the middle of the spectrum. Just take your chances and let us know how it turns out. It’s helpful for others, whether it’s glowing or a total hate-fest. Not to mention entertaining - maybe this speaks ill of our society, but I’m just as fond of reading negative reviews as the happy ones.
Comment by Michael from Escondido — July 7, 2009 @ 8:46 pm
Thank you very much for the thoughtful comments above.
I’m not totally adverse to writing about bad or disappointing albums but again, unless there’s a glut of good releases (which I don’t think is happening now), it’s tough to get motivated to give a thumbs down to a record.
One good exception I think is if you make worthwhile points about what the crappy album says about an artist and their career, which can be instructive and interesting. Also, from a pure consumerist point of view, it does help to know if a highly anticipated record ain’t worth getting.
Comment by Jason Gross — July 7, 2009 @ 10:04 pm
If one possesses a musical aesthetic—if one cares about the specifics of what music means on a personal and social level—and one feels the need to express that aesthetic, then negative reviews are inevitable. And if one doesn’t possess such an aesthetic, then one should not be writing reviews for a living, anyway.
Comment by D. Strauss from Berlin — July 9, 2009 @ 6:09 am
Bad reviews are a means to set new contexts for listening in general, if the writer actually finds the context in the first place. Good writers CAN write reviews that are less than glamorous and they should. This action lets people know that not everything is great and for cogent reasons, not simply because the writer dislikes what is heard. Writers need to give credibility to the subject of their words which is the music, not as it is compared to anything else. The music as it is by itself.
Comment by Lyn Horton from United States — July 9, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
To review a CD takes at least three or four good listens—three or four hours time. Takes maybe an hour to write the review. It’s hard to put that kind of time and effort into music that doesn’t grab me.
Comment by Dan McClenaghan from Oceanside, CA — July 10, 2009 @ 9:29 am
Interesting set of comments. For me, a lot of my assignments always came from editors. Some would be stuff I’d suggested I do, but there would always be ones they wanted reviewed and thought would be good for me to write about.
Inevitably, particularly in the latter batch, would be stuff I didn’t like. Of course, back when I was doing most of this work, nothing existed except on major labels, and major labels hyped everything. Thus, I’d be presented with the task of reviewing something which was being advertised as being great—often debut albums. Knowing that the readers of the magazines I was writing for would be presented with this hype, I had a wall to aim for. Often it was a matter of modifying the hype: “this is good, but it’s not *that* good” or “don’t believe the hype.”
Today, it’s different, and here’s where blogs can play a positive role. Things get reviewed much too quickly, because of the ‘FIRST!!!’ mentality. You know what? Very likely, ten minutes after you hear something for the first time, you don’t have a very informed opinion. Yet I know lots of people who, in order to beat the next guy to print, do just that. Later, they come down off their autohype, or notice it’s better than they thought after hearing it on a sound system, but the opinion’s already out there. But you can leave a comment these days and maybe, if it’s well enough written, you can run counter to the stream.
One last thought on this: a lot of positive reviewing (there’s almost no criticism any more, just reviewing) is due to the threat of having access denied. There was a point at which record companies started acting like the Mob: give us a good review or we’ll never let you near one of our artists again. This, of course, is bullshit: when I was the alleged West Coast Editor of Creem, I talked frequently with record company publicists, some of them every day. “Wow, Lester really unloaded on _______,” they’d say. “Tell him thanks; we can’t keep it in the stores!”
In the end, it’s what’s in the grooves. Sadly, we live in an age of cultural overproduction, and this means swimming in a sea of mediocrity. I’m very happy not to have to keep up any more.
Comment by Ed Ward from Montpellier, France — July 11, 2009 @ 7:18 am
I agree with Ed. I am a writer and I am constantly pressured by the competition to get a review up first. I listen to records up to 20 times before I write. One of the best statements that ever has been made to me by a record company owner and director in this regard is: There is no time slot for the truth. Check out my Music Diary at Jazzhouse.org. I have written numerous times about writing about music.
(Jason, I heard you speak in the discussion at the Vision Festival this June.)
Comment by Lyn Horton from MA, USA — July 11, 2009 @ 8:23 am
I’ve always felt that there was “grade inflation” in music reviews. Albums that were given four stars in Rolling Stone (back when that publication mattered) were really three stars; albums that were given three stars were really two stars, etc. I see the same problem today in Uncut and Mojo—habitual over-praise for the just-okay. Why is this a problem? Because credulous consumers (such as me) buy albums expecting greatness and then are disappointed. If consumers feel like they’ve been fooled, and disappointed, often enough, they just stop buying albums. This happened to me—I found myself stuck with too many mediocre albums I bought on the basis of exaggerated praise in the music press. This is less of an issue in recent years now that it’s so easy to listen before buying, but the unwillingness to proffer honest criticism is still a significant problem.
It should be simple: Write what you honestly think, offer evidence for your opinion, and don’t succumb to bias in either direction. That’s the critic’s job—neither to do any “favors” (which really aren’t favors at all) to artists whom the critic thinks needs a boost for whatever reason, nor to do hatchet jobs on artists towards whom the critic harbors prejudice. If all critics just responded straightforwardly without a pre-existing determination to “only write positive reviews,” but rather evaluated honestly whatever was in front of them, there might be a higher proportion of negative reviews out there, but this would actually help, not hurt, the music business.
Comment by Michael Antman — July 25, 2009 @ 8:39 am