I refuse to attend Key Arena shows. And Kayne shows, for that matter.

Wow angry! And I didn't know people actually typed Ya'll, so I guess this is a learning experience.

I don't like Kanye on a personal level, but...I did think his show at the Grammy's with Daft Punk was incredible.

Saw this last night. I knew Kanye was an ass before, but... wow. I suppose he wants reviews to read like his fans' Myspace blogs rather than critical journalism.

I'll add that he should be glad he's not being "graded" on his writing as well as his performances. The comments on his site are, sadly, even worse.

I take Kanye with a grain of salt. Like many rapper identities, it's for show; it's an act and a persona. It's too bad he goes to extremes to live out that persona, but maybe it's better (and more entertaining) than him pretending to be some bad ass gangsta.

It is not just Kanye, I know several bands (small, unsigned bands even) that throw fits if they get critiqued at all. We once received a thrashing email from a Seattle bands because we said they were monotonous, and oh did we get it from them. threw a fit like no other.

Artists are weird, but good and bad (and even middle of the road) reviews are what makes the world go round... and round.

I stopped listening to a word Kanye said when he compared himself to Jesus... he is just self absorbed.

i'm a fan of kanye's music; i think he's one of the most compelling and creative entertainers [i don't think the word "rapper" really fits what kanye does, even though he tries] in pop music, but it's sort of foolish for THE biggest "rapper" in the world to have such a crippling underdog complex. scratch that: it's extremely foolish.

This is a great topic, Chris -- thanks so much for bringing it up. Not so much for Kanye or Key Arena shows, neither of which I know anything about (save for I avoid most mainstream pop music due to its banality, and I actually walked out of the line of a Key Arena show once, forfeiting the price of the ticket due to being treated like a feral sheep on the way in to one). But there are good reasons why a band fears a not-high-enough score.

If I'm sitting on the fence on whether to buy something, anything less than a 7.5 from any website I respect might determine whether I actually check it out. At that point the content of the review determines the final decision, but I do take ratings seriously, and hope those that assign them do as well.

If you're in an original but marginal band you might receive a low rating simply because the reviewer or editor deems what you're doing a minority voice and not worth enough mathematical enthusiasm. In the days of the original New Wave I could expect my favorite records by artists like Joe Jackson to get two and a half star or three star ratings, because whoever determined the rating amount probably felt that not "enough" of the people reading the review would be interested in anything so "extreme." Sounds ridiculous now, but those Joe Jackson albums now get four or five star ratings, because time proved them right. (Watch the change in ratings for AC/DC for the next few years, from older record guides to newer ones, due to the perspective towards genre being altered.)

That said, a lot of musicians and record labels are big fucking whiners, too. Oh yeah. I have had the most bum-kissing reviews I've written both argued with by the artist or dismissed as if they were going to get sweetness for the rest of their career. I have seen artists and labels take the good press for granted and in the next year find even their ability to make any kind of living at music dry up. And they wonder why.

I congratulated a label owner the other day on an artist getting a great write up in Under the Radar magazine, and he responded the way I like to hear best, a real compliment to the writer: "Yeah, that was great. It sounded like he really listened to the album." As writers, that would be our challenge -- do we really sound as if we've listened to the album (enough)? Or are we behaving like the UK press in passing along conventional wisdom, or just altering the bios and PR sent our way or on the websites about a release, "personalized" a little? Hey, everyone has done a bit of that when in a rush. The great thing about TIG is that it's based on actually enjoying something, period. That's why I'm here.

chris e., you bring up some incredibly thorough points about the nature of music criticism. as an artist, whether it's a positive or a negative review, i get the most excited when it reads as though the writer actually listened to my album. even if they don't have very many nice things to say about it, it's flattering when someone shows that they spent some time with my music.

in regards to the idea of original-but-marginal artists getting low ratings, i agree with you there, as well. the first night of the EMP pop conference, i hung out with a friend-- an L.A.-based blogger/journalist-- who reviewed my album. while talking about the review, he pretty much pointed out the same thing you said, about getting low ratings because there wouldn't be enough mathematical enthusiasm.

his point was that the same sort of goes with blogs [at least the really popular ones] nowadays. being as though blogging is big business, blogs aren't going to often waste their time with a record that's not going to sell, unless they're REALLY psyched about it. he told me that since my music is on the other side of accessible, it probably wouldn't do very well unless somewhere like pitchfork got behind it, which is sort of an albatross, because pitchfork doesn't usually review unsigned artists unless the blogs are all over said artist.

to make a long story short, the part about joe jackson getting two-and-a-half and three star reviews in the old days sort of resonated with me, even though i can't bank on time proving my own music right.

very thoughtful comment, chris.