Are Audio Reviewers Getting Too Soft?

[Tuckers]

I paraphrase from Ted Gioia's latest article about music critics, though I think there is a lot here that crosses into audio reviewing territory as well.

Are Critics Too Soft?​

Are Critics too soft and flabby?

 

[tima]

Sorry cute jpg but garbage article, leftist crackpot.
Not worth my email address.

 

[Tuckers]

Ah, I hadn't realized this was paywalled.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Put it this way, I wouldn't trust any full time critics in a real job.
Frank Zappa is your man for the correct opinions on this breed.

 

[hopkins]

Sorry cute jpg but garbage article, leftist crackpot.
Not worth my email address.

lol, is it the mention of Taylor Swift that provokes this childish reaction?

As for the premise - AI will replace those who have nothing original to say but spend their time writing anyway

 

[microstrip]

I paraphrase from Ted Gioia's latest article about music critics, though I think there is a lot here that crosses into audio reviewing territory as well.

Are Critics Too Soft?​

Are Critics too soft and flabby?

Are you posting this link because you agree or support with its points of view? IMO someone posting a link to start a thread should also comment on it in the OP. As far as I know the sailor is not member of WBF.

 

[Tuckers]

Are you posting this link because you agree or support with its points of view? IMO someone posting a link to start a thread should also comment on it in the OP. As far as I know the sailor is not member of WBF.

Again, apologies, I thought the whole article was available, I didn't realize it had a paywall.

Ted lists the value of local critics, which have largely disappeared, this crosses over almost exactly to the value good audio reviews have in our niche industry. Some quotes I believe applies here:

• Local critics keep nightclubs, theaters, and other venues alive.
• They give visibility to local talent that would otherwise get ignored.
• They help people find artistry in their own neighborhoods.

--------

(2) The notion that hardass, brutal criticism will fix this mess is a joke.
​

The most significant role for a city newspaper critic is celebratory—and is focused on building the creative community, not destroying it. Slash-and-burn tactics are rarely appropriate.

These local newspaper critics were (before they disappeared) usually friendly, caring people and they wanted culture to flourish in their cities. So every day they were doing something to support the scene, and their cumulative impact over the years was enormous.

----------
You can’t get hired as a judge until you have devoted decades to studying the law. But a critic is also a kind of judge, even though there’s no credentialing or formal requirements whatsoever.

I know this is an unpopular view, but I stick by it: If you want to be a critic, you should take the vocation seriously—just as seriously as a doctor does medicine, or a pro athlete does training. Just winging it on vibe isn’t enough.

-------

I said above that local city critics need to celebrate and support the ecosystem. But even the most elite critics with the largest, most universal outlook should cultivate a similar softness and receptivity.

Too many of them are too cool for school. They strut and preen as if the critic is the main show, and not just a helpful accessory.

And now let me tell you a nasty secret. Brutal takedowns get published because they get readers into a frenzy—the audience enjoys the blood sport. It’s not much different from bullfighting or crashes on the NASCAR circuit. They are usually self-serving, designed to boost the critic, not the art form.

I don’t want to forbid harsh criticism. On rare occasions, it might be necessary. But its value has been exaggerated—it’s mostly a spectacle.

 

[Kofi Baffour]

ye

I paraphrase from Ted Gioia's latest article about music critics, though I think there is a lot here that crosses into audio reviewing territory as well.

Are Critics Too Soft?​

Are Critics too soft and flabby?

yes they have become soft. Thankfully I have the privilege of testing stuff myself and weeding out reviewers who just blabber on to find marketing dollars

 

[PYP]

Again, apologies, I thought the whole article was available, I didn't realize it had a paywall.

Ted lists the value of local critics, which have largely disappeared, this crosses over almost exactly to the value good audio reviews have in our niche industry. Some quotes I believe applies here:

• Local critics keep nightclubs, theaters, and other venues alive.
• They give visibility to local talent that would otherwise get ignored.
• They help people find artistry in their own neighborhoods.

--------

(2) The notion that hardass, brutal criticism will fix this mess is a joke.​

​

The most significant role for a city newspaper critic is celebratory—and is focused on building the creative community, not destroying it. Slash-and-burn tactics are rarely appropriate.

These local newspaper critics were (before they disappeared) usually friendly, caring people and they wanted culture to flourish in their cities. So every day they were doing something to support the scene, and their cumulative impact over the years was enormous.

----------
You can’t get hired as a judge until you have devoted decades to studying the law. But a critic is also a kind of judge, even though there’s no credentialing or formal requirements whatsoever.

I know this is an unpopular view, but I stick by it: If you want to be a critic, you should take the vocation seriously—just as seriously as a doctor does medicine, or a pro athlete does training. Just winging it on vibe isn’t enough.

-------

I said above that local city critics need to celebrate and support the ecosystem. But even the most elite critics with the largest, most universal outlook should cultivate a similar softness and receptivity.

Too many of them are too cool for school. They strut and preen as if the critic is the main show, and not just a helpful accessory.

And now let me tell you a nasty secret. Brutal takedowns get published because they get readers into a frenzy—the audience enjoys the blood sport. It’s not much different from bullfighting or crashes on the NASCAR circuit. They are usually self-serving, designed to boost the critic, not the art form.

I don’t want to forbid harsh criticism. On rare occasions, it might be necessary. But its value has been exaggerated—it’s mostly a spectacle.

biographies of folks like Monk, Sonny Rollins and Miles tell us that the critics are often the first people who are wrong and lag far behind the musicians who knew these men were changing Jazz.

What should be the qualifications for an audio reviewer?

 

[Tuckers]

biographies of folks like Monk, Sonny Rollins and Miles tell us that the critics are often the first people who are wrong and lag far behind the musicians who knew these men were changing Jazz.

This seems like a very blanket statement that does not take into account the wide range of critics works and opinions over time. There are plenty of critical works that don't really survive time. Yes, many critics, but not ALL critics, doesn't that point to the gist of the article to have a variety of opinions and many critics working in the field?

Miles was recognized by some reviewers early: Barry Ulanov wrote early reviews of Davis’s work with Charlie Parker and the “Birth of the Cool” sessions (1949–1950). At the time, many critics found the music too cerebral, but Ulanov praised Davis’s tone and restraint, contrasting it with Dizzy Gillespie’s flashier approach. Nat Hentoff wrote in Down Beat and The Record Changer in 1950 regarding Birth of Cool that Davis’s understatement represented a new trumpet aesthetic and defended against charges of “weakness,” saying his style was deliberate and expressive.

Nat Hentoff wrote for Down Beat and was an early champion of Sony Rollins in the 50's. Praised his improvisational logic and “thematic improvisation” (developing whole solos out of a single motif). Wrote in 1956 about Rollins’s Saxophone Colossus (Prestige, 1956) as a defining tenor record, stressing Rollins’s ability to be both muscular and witty.

Ira Gitler wrote for Metronome & Downbeat was the first to highlight Rollins’s Tenor Madness (1956, with Coltrane) and Saxophone Colossus. Coined the term “sheets of sound” for Coltrane, but for Rollins he emphasized clarity and storytelling in solos. Called Rollins “the most resourceful tenor in jazz” in the mid-50s.

Well, I am willing to put that cat monk in his own cat-egory. But Barry Ulanov wrote in Downbeat by late 1940s said Monk was an essential modernist voice (true that). Nat Hentoff in the early 50's began defending Monk as a major innovator and said his music "demands listening of a more concentrated sort" and praised his harmonic ideas. French critics André Hodeir & Hughes Panassié especially praised Monk in the early 1950s, calling him one of the most advanced composers in jazz.

I'm not going to step into horse beating of audio reviewer qualifications, there are at least a hundred pages on What's Best on this topic.

 

[PYP]

This seems like a very blanket statement that does not take into account the wide range of critics works and opinions over time. There are plenty of critical works that don't really survive time. Yes, many critics, but not ALL critics, doesn't that point to the gist of the article to have a variety of opinions and many critics working in the field?

Miles was recognized by some reviewers early: Barry Ulanov wrote early reviews of Davis’s work with Charlie Parker and the “Birth of the Cool” sessions (1949–1950). At the time, many critics found the music too cerebral, but Ulanov praised Davis’s tone and restraint, contrasting it with Dizzy Gillespie’s flashier approach. Nat Hentoff wrote in Down Beat and The Record Changer in 1950 regarding Birth of Cool that Davis’s understatement represented a new trumpet aesthetic and defended against charges of “weakness,” saying his style was deliberate and expressive.

Nat Hentoff wrote for Down Beat and was an early champion of Sony Rollins in the 50's. Praised his improvisational logic and “thematic improvisation” (developing whole solos out of a single motif). Wrote in 1956 about Rollins’s Saxophone Colossus (Prestige, 1956) as a defining tenor record, stressing Rollins’s ability to be both muscular and witty.

Ira Gitler wrote for Metronome & Downbeat was the first to highlight Rollins’s Tenor Madness (1956, with Coltrane) and Saxophone Colossus. Coined the term “sheets of sound” for Coltrane, but for Rollins he emphasized clarity and storytelling in solos. Called Rollins “the most resourceful tenor in jazz” in the mid-50s.

Well, I am willing to put that cat monk in his own cat-egory. But Barry Ulanov wrote in Downbeat by late 1940s said Monk was an essential modernist voice (true that). Nat Hentoff in the early 50's began defending Monk as a major innovator and said his music "demands listening of a more concentrated sort" and praised his harmonic ideas. French critics André Hodeir & Hughes Panassié especially praised Monk in the early 1950s, calling him one of the most advanced composers in jazz.

I'm not going to step into horse beating of audio reviewer qualifications, there are at least a hundred pages on What's Best on this topic.

Thanks for setting the record straight. Yes, my statement was a broad generalization and therefore unfair to those with great ears and/or those critics who are willing/able to recognize something new and valuable.

These great musicians were naturals, I would think, but also worked extraordinarily hard at their craft. Could the same be said of the critics who thought they were of little worth and spilled a lot of ink stating that? I find that unfair and unworthy of professional standards, but also completely human and to be expected.

Critics can become guardians of the standards they helped establish. There are some interesting stories of art critics who had established theories about Michelangelos's muted colors ostensibly used for the Sistine Chapel. When restoration revealed a much brighter palette, some blamed the restorers for a botched job.

Or am I just being critical of the critics?

 

[microstrip]

In some sense critics are part of a society that needs some kind of guidance in choice. The criticized also needs them to spread the word about their work.

Many people like (need?) "energetic" guidance - they want their critics to be harsh and to have strong opinions, clearly separating and good from bad and denigrating it. As I read mainly the why's and want to make myself my choices I avoid such critics.

IMO the main problem with high-end critics is that in order to be of any use we must read a lot of them and analyse them - sorry it is not possible to do it with an YouTube video. And sorry, if someone does even have the time to write, re-read, ponder and perfect a critic, he does not deserve my time.