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.
Reviews
douglas martin said on May 4, 2008:
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.