Qualifications to Critique Music

[Ito 2438]

One of my friends on Facebook brought this up, so I figured I would bring the conversation here:

 

Do you need to be a musician (or part of the music creation process) to be able to truly critique music?

 

I already know my opinion, but I would like to see what other people think before I say anything.

[Dark Kinma 960]

For me, no, because in case just musician can be critic music, just this sort of poeple can be listen music.

Maybe we does have musical base for make more "professional" citric, but the fact to say we like it or not and why it's a critic, and everyboy with ears can be make it.

In parallel with other exemple, we does work in the movie business for critic movies or TV series.

[Jigsaw9 6783]

Musical knowledge and insight can be a plus, but in my opinion not necessary to critique music. Music is made to be enjoyed and heard by all people to whom it might be available, therefore anyone hearing it is capable of making an equally valid opinion on it, in my eyes at least. I think the key here is 'personal taste', nothing more. Even musically super-read and -talented people can have widely differing thoughts and views on a particular piece of music (depending on a multitude of factors), so it would be foolish to ultimately value the opinion of these people more than, say, a casual music listener.

[Pandabear 414]

No. You don't. There are professional critics out there who have never touched an instrument or know anything about the music process, but make a living out of it.  It certainly does help if you are a musician since you can bring more to to table if you do have knowledge of certain instruments, the recording process or whatever else. But to me, it's more important to have a good ear, an open mind, be unbiased and be good at writing so you can explain your opinion in a logical and engaging way.

 

As a musician myself, I do find that the knowledge I have picked up over the years come into play when reviewing music. In general i get a greater sense of appreciation for music since I can recognize technical ability, good composition, good songwriting and good sound production. It allows you to recognize when all of these things are correctly executed, when they are not, or when and what individual aspects are. However in the end, what constitutes as good or bad music in a review, does come down to a matter of opinion. 

[Number Girl 48]

I don't think any amount of knowledge about or experience with music can really sway a personal opinion.

 

It can be helpful to work with music, as you can probably analyze a lot more than a person who is not as familiar, but that doesn't mean everything will be 100% objective. 

[miyuu 40]

it's like asking if it's more important for any art what the critics wrote or what the public said.

 

both. it depends on what you are searching for and what you want to find. 

who do you want to impress with your music . for who do you care more 

 

i think being a musician can change  completely your point of view. you can be more difficult also or search for different things. 

the more of an  expert you become the more you have the need of something more complicated or different.

this can be a good and bad thing.

 

but never disrespect how amazing can be the (maybe "more simple for you now") song that for some reason spoke to everyones heart/ was loved from everyone

[Zeus 7997]

Critiquing music is about offering an opinion and as long as you can offer enough reasoning to back up what you say your opinion is valid. Likewise, if you just state your opinion as fact and don't justify it your "critique" isn't really informative.

[Augie1995 325]

You don't have to be a musician to critic music but there are some circumstances where you can't really make any claims without some knowledge in the music degree or be a musician yourself. For example,  you can't claim to understand the process and critic on the process of how they make something (ex. personally attack a certain element of the group) without the adequate knowledge. You can't make a critic such as, "Oh, don't they know how to tune their guitars?" (pulled that out of my ass) without some knowledge on that. Every musician does something in a song a specific way and not just for craps and giggles. They play a certain melody this way, compose a certain section in such a way, because that's what they see fitting in with the song. You can't critic that without having some degree in music or being a musician and understanding the process one goes trough during those times. I, myself, don't appreciate it when someone listens to one of my demos and tells me that what I played just wasn't right when they have absolutely no experience in the music industry. 

 

It's kind of like telling a soccer player that his foot techniques in maneuvering the ball are wrong having no prior knowledge or experience on the soccer field.

[Karma’s Hat 3107]

Not really, but you need to realise the limitations of your knowledge in order to not make yourself appear like an ass. 

 

Nothing is more embarrassing to see than someone trying to be all criticull&sheyyt and has it culminating into arguments like "The songwriting is not good" ( everyone who has ever used this in a review without elaborating further 'ought to be shot )  or "the guitarist is not good" and so on. I recall that I did reviews in this manner back in the day! I can't really say for sure, since I'd rather kill myself than look at my old posts. 

 

Quoting some of what Augie said above with the provided example and all. Someone clinging on to something relatively minor like that often implies that the reviewer has no clue what to even look for in music ( in order to write a critical analysis of it! Not saying that there are otherwise wrong ways to listen to it ) or missed the point of the piece entirely. 

[sai 868]

I don't think any amount of knowledge about or experience with music can really sway a personal opinion.

 

It can be helpful to work with music, as you can probably analyze a lot more than a person who is not as familiar, but that doesn't mean everything will be 100% objective. 

 

I pretty much agree with this statement. Having knowledge on the matter can help you appreciate things someone without that specific knowledge probably couldn't, but if a song is not to your liking, it won't really matter how well it is produced. Of course, when you critic music, it's always necessary to give a little insight on why you liked/didn't like a particular release instead of saying "boohoo this sucks", but pretty much everyone can with a little bit of effort and a good listen of the release you're going to review. No special knowledge is necessarily needed. Though I think the "boohoo this sucks"-part has more to do with someone behaving like a complete ass rather than trying to give a good review on music.

 

Therefore, writing that a band needs to use guitar tuning (which both Zess and I stated in the GazettE's DIVISION review) is irrelevant to whether the thoughts of the musicians were to use it to create a certain mood (mostly in reference to Augie). We can't and won't know what the musicians thought when they wrote it if they don't give interviews about it. All we can say is that it bothered us that they used the same tuning for each song, and that it got boring in our opinion. That has nothing to do with giving critic on areas you know nothing about, which makes your argument kind of irrelevant for this particular discussion.

[Karma’s Hat 3107]

But... most bands use the same tuning their entire careers! It's the chuggy riffing you people have issue with, not the tuning. 

 

 a band needs to use guitar tuning

 

HOW DOES ONE NOT USE TUNING ANYWAY? If it sounds sterile ( to youj, then the issue could be in the production, or that the chuggy riffz do not express any emotion ( on contrary to old Gazette, where the riffs were where the emotional impact came from ). 

[sai 868]

A band always uses guitar tuning, what is meant is changing the tuning, I'm not retarded. It's probably the chugging in the current tuning that is the problem, I give you that, but it stands out more merely because it used to be different and worked better with the older ideas. A standard tuning isn't always the case, bands often change it when moving labels or getting access to better production methods. But this is not a GazettE thread, so I suggest that we'd move the discussion there if necessary (as it was just an example).

[Des 289]

I think age and time spent listening to (different) music affects one's ability to judge. Real knowledge of music grows in one's subconsious as they grow older and listen to more music.

[Peace Heavy mk II 7200]

Never helped you, what with the imbecilic shit you sprouted as critiques and "reviews", though earning either name they did not.

My biggest fan xoxoxox

[TheBistroButcher666 228]

I don't critique music because in the end I listen to Visual Kei which is terrible music.

 

I know this band is bad and I should feel bad but Arisugawa Arisu is one kawaii motherfucker and I don't care. Fuck the poe poe.

 

I agree with some of the posts in this thread, you have to be realistic and know that your opinion is still only an opinion. Yes, if that guy on guitar can't tune for shit, at least back up your claims with some facts. Not just whine about how it's bad and wrong and someone else does it better. Perhaps also stop and realize that the awful tuning was intentional to build atmosphere to the song?

 

Music is subjective and a lot of times some people try to use critiquing as a way to try and push their personal opinion as fact.

[miyuu 40]

.. Perhaps also stop and realize that the awful tuning was intentional to build atmosphere to the song?

 

Music is subjective and a lot of times some people try to use critiquing as a way to try and push their personal opinion as fact.

 

lmao.

but i agree in a weird way.i'm thinking punk rock for example suck at quality but is about revolution . who says is not art

and didn't have success.

 

you still can be a critic. since you can understand the difference between what is objectively good

and what's your personal taste. also you can have no clue about music and still have more people that  trust your judgment and agree with you than a musician.even choosing a critic that fits you and who is the best critic is a matter of opinion.

*

this is what annoys me with some critics.sometimes they look so much the details they loose prespective(the tunning. the  technic someone plays the quitar, the quality of the sound...)

and a song with less quality can still be better and has more success than everything else , just because of the way it makes people feel. emotionally

 

well what matters most to me it's the way a song makes me feel because i am not a musician.

except if you like listening to technical skills more. and then we go again to it's all a matter of point of view. and personal taste .

 

art is supposed to be for everyone not only for experts.

edit: and i wrote before for me both the opinion of someone who is not a musician and someone who is ,are equally interesting.i think you need to have both.

 

[Augie1995 325]

There are points in the following posts after mine and I agree. But, to honestly critique, you HAVE to know what you're talking about, you have to back it up, and you have to be reasonable and unbiased. I reiterate, you don't need to have musical knowledge to critique something but as some of you brought up with The GazettE's reviews on DIVISION about the guitar tuning and the comments made upon it, 1) You can't make a comment without backing up your statement, 2) the musical knowledge gives you the edge and you can't really know why it was done that way.

 

P.S: Were you guys saying I'm wrong? I got a bit confused.

[Seimeisen 4406]

@Augie1995 I personally agree with everything you've said, and I think your followup post clears things up. If you want to say that a song was terribly composed or that you think a band's guitarist is unskilled, show your fucking work! In my opinion, explaining (thoroughly) why something you hated sucked is ALL you have to do in order to make your review valid.

[Zeus 7997]

But... most bands use the same tuning their entire careers! It's the chuggy riffing you people have issue with, not the tuning. 

 

HOW DOES ONE NOT USE TUNING ANYWAY? If it sounds sterile ( to youj, then the issue could be in the production, or that the chuggy riffz do not express any emotion ( on contrary to old Gazette, where the riffs were where the emotional impact came from ). 

 

My comment on the tuning is more of an extended complaint that I have with them that only makes sense to me and those that follow my every thought on the GazettE (which I'm sure amounts to a grand total of...no one). In the most simplistic form, I feel that what they're trying to do with their guitars doesn't match with how they sound or how they're playing it and that it would help if they tuned their guitars to better meet that sound. It's a small, badly worded complaint that often gets misunderstood but it's important that I state it now before the topic turns into into how people feel about the band.

Regardless, doesn't change my feelings on DIVISION Disc 2 any, but this isn't the place for it.

 

 

this is what annoys me with some critics.sometimes they look so much the details they loose prespective(the tunning. the  technic someone plays the quitar, the quality of the sound...)

and a song with less quality can still be better and has more success than everything else , just because of the way it makes people feel. emotionally.

 

This is why I believe that anyone can be a critic of music. People have different reactions to albums or pieces of music. Reviews are nothing more than how you emotionally reacted to an album. If you can adequately express your emotions in a review without sounding like a pretentious twat spewing verbiage to sound authentic, then your review is valid. But too often I see "professional" reviews do just that - spew words along the lines of (this is an example):

"This artist seems to suffer from a lack of creative output, producing material that is all at once encompassing but failing to reach an authentic vibe of earnest".

Like...what does that even mean? It's just a bunch of SAT words someone said to reach their word count. I have no idea how the writer would feel. I have no idea about any of the highlights of the album. I don't even know if the album is good. Pitchfork and Allmusic are notorious for paragraphs of fluff and that's why I don't trust them. Members on MH can write one-line reviews more informative than that.

Being a "professional" critic is nothing more than counting the number of people that take your word as fact.

 

I think age and time spent listening to (different) music affects one's ability to judge. Real knowledge of music grows in one's subconsious as they grow older and listen to more music.

+1

[sai 868]

There are points in the following posts after mine and I agree. But, to honestly critique, you HAVE to know what you're talking about, you have to back it up, and you have to be reasonable and unbiased. I reiterate, you don't need to have musical knowledge to critique something but as some of you brought up with The GazettE's reviews on DIVISION about the guitar tuning and the comments made upon it, 1) You can't make a comment without backing up your statement, 2) the musical knowledge gives you the edge and you can't really know why it was done that way.

 

P.S: Were you guys saying I'm wrong? I got a bit confused.

 

I'm just going to drop this issue, because even with these (rather weak) arguments you can't and won't be able to change people's opinions on certain releases, whether they're pros in musical knowledge or just your typical GazettE fan. Your statement about how we aren't allowed to judge on those aspects contradicts with something you said earlier:

 

"Every musician does something in a song a specific way and not just for craps and giggles. They play a certain melody this way, compose a certain section in such a way, because that's what they see fitting in with the song."

 

So why are you now saying that you can't judge at all? Doesn't that contradict your statement about the way they meant to make it? I agree with Zess about that part too, as I stated earlier (which makes it clear we can back it up). Unbiased reviews is something you shouldn't name, because I don't think in the GazettE's case you are able to.

 

But anyway, I'm going off-topic. If you want to continue this let's just do it in the artist thread.

[Karma’s Hat 3107]

This fits the subject even if the The GazettE is used as an example, so I shall keep going here. 

 

What I think Augie meant, is that music is a whole. Aesthetic choices are conscious decisions on how their work should sound, and approaching it in the manner where the reviewer picks up a few various things, tells how much they suck and concludes with the work not being up to par or whatnot is not very constructive. I feel this way is flawed and often leads to missing the point, and the reviews ending up as laundry lists of various things perceived as problems seldom elaborated further, and the vomit laced icing on the cake of fail being attempts at wit. And you know, I wouldn't even mind, unless the reviewer tried to appear as an

authority. Not having this "knowledge" is fine, but trying to come off as if you do is not. 

 

If your thoughts weren't even close to this Augie, I'd like you to expand upon what you said. 

 

 

ALSO!  Many people often yelling "Opinions!" and "This fucking sucks u ignorant stan!" in the same breath. You can't have both. 

[CAT5 9075]

Firstly, I'd like to think that having a sense of hearing is important. ; )

[Yasupon 18]

I LOVE Dispo's post.

[madygrain 515]

For me there are two things that qualify a person to be able to critique music:

 

1) being able to feel something towards music, being able to feel pleased or disapointed about music and it's elements and any other  feeling in between. This is, not being a robot.

 

2) being able to racionalize those feelings and being able to create a reasonable explanation about why a particular song makes you feel the way it does.

 

Technical knowledge about music is a plus, but it only helps you know if a piece is good or not, wich does not necessairly determinate if you like it or not or why, as most people here (including myself) loves music produced by Visual Kei bands that tends to be pretty mediocre. 

[Augie1995 325]

This fits the subject even if the The GazettE is used as an example, so I shall keep going here. 

 

What I think Augie meant, is that music is a whole. Aesthetic choices are conscious decisions on how their work should sound, and approaching it in the manner where the reviewer picks up a few various things, tells how much they suck and concludes with the work not being up to par or whatnot is not very constructive. I feel this way is flawed and often leads to missing the point, and the reviews ending up as laundry lists of various things perceived as problems seldom elaborated further, and the vomit laced icing on the cake of fail being attempts at wit. And you know, I wouldn't even mind, unless the reviewer tried to appear as an

authority. Not having this "knowledge" is fine, but trying to come off as if you do is not. 

 

If your thoughts weren't even close to this Augie, I'd like you to expand upon what you said. 

 

 

ALSO!  Many people often yelling "Opinions!" and "This fucking sucks u ignorant stan!" in the same breath. You can't have both. 

 

No, no, this is right on the money with what I was trying to say. I guess I worded it a bit odd and was misconstrued as something else.