Unless you're a music scholar, the main point of music reviews is to point out lesser-known good music or to evaluate where much-anticipated musical releases land on the spectrum of mindblowing/disappointing.
Reviews educate as much as promote, though, and in evaluating the music, they're generally also going to tell you what's interesting about the music and why. At their best, music reviews use ideas about the music's cultural and technical relevance to help listeners draw more satisfaction out of the music. And that's where their real value lies.
Generally, most of us develop a sense of how to steer ourselves through music networks. I mean, we all did this before the internet. As a teenager, I was really into compilations. I ordered music sound unheard from label catalogs, on the strength of labelmates. I had favorite radio stations, which were actually good sources of new music. We follow similar routes of artist/style association on the internet-- a band's friends on myspace, last.fm suggestions, music samples on a label's site, online radio, mixes. Our music networking now is just much faster and more efficient, and therefore more pronounced.
This I think accentuates the "real" value of music reviews; ie, what they can do that surfing the internet can't. Their strength is not really about suggesting new music when you can discover it on your own, with much greater sensitivity to your own interests. Their strength is instead gathering relevant information about the music and articulating it, as I said, in a way that coaxes more satisfaction out of the music-listening experience.
Music reviews have turned a corner through music blogs. The main reason we go to a music blog is for good downloads; we can identify what will have appealing downloads by paying attention to consistent editorial content. The meat of the editorial content is the choice of download, knocking out the "recommendation" aspect of reviews.
All the reviewer has left is to carry out the "educational" services of reviewing. Blow out the music's context in a way that enhances the music's meaning. This can be talking about the music's history, live performance, technical achievements, or influential relationships with other artists.
But in the less academic, more magazine sense, reviewers addressing the cultural position of the music enhance its meaning, too. The widely compelling example of this is identifying the music's scene, associating the music with fashion or art or a city or a lifestyle. From the concrete level-- show dates, artwork-- to the abstract, maybe discussing pop cultural relevance.
And of course reviewers can write up personal associations with the music. These can help us understand more ways to love the music, too. These are blogs, after all, and music is the most emotional medium. :-)
Les Affaires Inachevés
14 years ago
2 comments:
yeah, i mean-- to me, the whole purpose of a music review is to point out unexpected aspects of the musical subject. In the pop realm, the superficial experience is pretty universally accessible. But, noticing the less obvious contexts really enhance the listening experience. You and I had a convo a long time ago where we agreed to disagree on whether or not pop was easy to grasp. All I was saying was that it's obviously easy to grasp on one level, but that other layers are often missed due to the loudness of the more obvious aspects. I find that good pop music reviews reveal the hidden layers.
I'm probably gonna get slammed for saying this, but I was gonna write a blog that originality is overrated. In the context of music in particular. Don't kill me. I still might write it if i have time to make it readable. I mean, I do value originality, honestly. But I just think it's overrated. But the premise just results in so many other conclusions that I'm not sure I'm ready to deal with without putting in the time to consider all of them.
you should post on originality. COPYRIGHT. haha. it's my favorite thing to contest these days.
Post a Comment