Who’s Afraid Of The Music Critic?
Navigating the tension between artists and critics in music reviews.
A 6.8 is arguably a good rating. Not a 10, which is hard to come by, and the definition of perfection is always subjective. Or a 4, which indicates an album that had more weaknesses than strengths in its musicality and overall execution. That was the score ‘HIT ME HARD AND SOFT’ elicited from critic Hannah Jocelyn. With admirability came some fair points about the album’s lapses, nudging towards repetitive production choices. Enter Finneas via twitter, famed producer, and brother of musician Billie Eilish. “Nothing cool about writing a positive review of an album everyone likes- they’ve gotta have an angle. They gave ‘Born To Die’ a 5.5- it’s their whole hater-ass bag,”. Is this hatred in the room with us? It’s almost a 7 and not a 6, or a 5. For a decent review, it was a preposterous take from Finneas, insinuating that a writer should follow the crowd. Sure, it may feel personal and hard to hear that someone is putting your production down as an anchor to progress. Reactions like this further laments the idea of one ‘bad’ comment overshadowing the onslaught of praise, which I can feel empathy for, but it can only stretch so far in this case. At this level that they’re operating in (global stardom), this review shouldn’t be a dent in the enroute to platinum plaque.
In another tale, a random comment appears on my personal Instagram account, on an artwork that bares no relation to my music journalism. A Taylor Swift fan (this girl cannot be any older than 12), pleading for me to write a review on her newest album, as Taylor had been criticised for being popular and…white? My eyes couldn’t believe that a) someone took the time to find a critic and comment on their social media page about their idol and b) that fan culture had ridden this girl of any tangible sense. She is young, so I’m careful not to rip into her. With age, this act will sit sourly with her. After all, for her services, Taylor Swift is most definitely not paying attention and doesn’t or needn’t care.
Who has the power here? An underpaid writer who is being earnest in their review after spending much time with an album before its release, taking multiple listens to engage. Or the Grammy, Oscar winning musician? The situation varies with smaller acts, where the argument that a bad review could sway an audience holds validity. Yet to coddle a musician in a review of their work due to their status is insincere. When an artist puts their art out into the world, this is a reality they cannot escape from. It’s a sign of some worth that someone, in favour or disinterested by the art presented to them, want to engage further in discussion of the work. To be talked about is better to have no words to your art. It is a small minority of individual critics that have authority and trusted ‘fans’ who engage with their commentary. The idea of critic as cultural totem pole doesn’t hold against the 21st century reality of social media giving everyone a voice to comment.
The critic isn’t mal intended. They are reacting to art and finding what works and what doesn’t. People may find commonalities in their judgement, an overarching issue with unoriginality or an album that hasn’t pushed itself hard enough despite the artist’s ability. Criticism is a vital element of the arts, and without it, art sits as a product that is pushed and discussed informally, which is valid and fine and all good to engage with. But there is a necessity to have sites where this is the main purpose of the site, rather than fleeting discussion. Conversation ensues from the critical response, inviting audiences to agree and disagree with the viewpoint they’ve been presented with. There is a place, where people want to make a career talking about music, that fans of music can turn to for a voice that evaluates and considers an artwork for its strengths and ability to entice. Critics, despite a consensus reached by many, are not dictating the value 2 / 2 of an artwork itself. We put numbers out that are subjective and always can shift with time and distance. We are not curating cultural tastes in informing those who care about music already.
One of my favourite comments (for its humour and lack of truth) to criticism is the ‘well, you do it then!’. As if someone must be this jack of all trades octopus who can write critically as well as create a respectable album. It’s not the critic’s job to counteract art with better art. We’re not trying to top the charts and receive acclaim here. It’s like when a friend calls you out on something you’ve done, followed by, ‘I’m saying this because I love you’. A care for music means that we as critics want to interrogate an album for its intricacies and abilities, forming a context and simply telling readers our experience with the music presented to us.
A bad review might hurt an ego, I can admit that, but artists should stand by their art in all the defaming of it. Fighting back at a critic is a useless tactic. In the words of Charli XCX, ‘They don’t make statues of critics’. So why react in a way as if they do? For the most part, critics aren’t trying to acclaim some type of cult following, and the percentage of music listeners vs people who read critic’s reviews on album has a large disparity. Do I have a figure to support this? Unfortunately not, rather, it is pulled from engaging with strangers about music and mentioning a review for them to diverge from said review comment, and for this to happen on multiple occasions, is enough for me to gage on how many of us engage with music criticism. The music is the testament, our words are the noise around it. An album is no easy feat, and the critic can realise that, but it’s not our job to protect the sensitivities of the artist.
This nonchalant ‘why say anything bad’ argument is proof of some regression in the general mindset of criticism. In the 21st century, critics don’t have the power they used to helm over musicians like they did in the latter 20th century. Some artists don’t consider themselves as lucky as they are, to be birthed into a generation of hand holding criticism, against the malice and brutality critics would come at an album within the past. A mediocre album would be scathed by the likes of NME, ripped into pieces by The Rolling Stone. The brutalism isn’t there like it used to be. An example of this can be found in the rise and fall of Slowdive, who after being the flavour of the month as an emerging band in the Shoegaze, were panned to the ground and reduced repetitively for the antics that these reviewers previously lamented as strong points in their sonics. What does it say about us when we begin to adopt this mentality that saying something isn’t good is to be reactionary. Critics have a monolithic mindset. That in some massive group chat, we are curating the consensus of scores for the newest release, plotting how we are moulding the industry and taking down artist one .8 at a time? Come off it!
Music criticism, in the face of closing publications and social media forums being a stage for critical discussion to take place, is here to stay. Whether its form remains the same, is something us music critics/journalists will have to fight for. This conflation of criticism for vendetta or hatred is a marker of our times, highlighting a touch of critical thinking within ourselves. Criticism is an artform and is worthy of upholding and protecting. The ability to comment on art, without being painted as spiteful or vindictive. I guess it’s a battle of passion, a fan of the musician who idly swears by their discography versus a critic, a lover of music at large who swears by artistic integrity and the right to investigate why something works or doesn’t. The musician who has laboured over this project, overcoming adversities to create an artwork that showcases their talent, or the critic, attempting to create conversation and spark questioning from the listener when they engage with a forthcoming album? In the battle between the musician and the critic, who comes off looking worse?