Critical battles between head and belly...

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Is "but I like it" a valid enough reason to rate a record highly when you can't really argue for it on any critical grounds?

― mark p (Mark P), Monday, 30 December 2002 16:07 (twenty-three years ago)

Well, sure. It's what college admissions brochures would call "intangible qualities."

― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 30 December 2002 16:10 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah but those are usually pretty crap colleges!

― mark p (Mark P), Monday, 30 December 2002 16:22 (twenty-three years ago)

Touche.

― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 30 December 2002 16:30 (twenty-three years ago)

And if I can't argue for it on a critical level, is it possible that the record is not as good as I think it is/want it to be, or do "critical grounds" tell only half the story? Then again, as a critic, aren't "critical grounds" all I have to work with?

― mark p (Mark P), Monday, 30 December 2002 16:38 (twenty-three years ago)

no it's what the colleges that reject most of their applicants say. "no matter how great you are you're probably not good enough on the basis of intangible qualities." argh.

― Maria (Maria), Monday, 30 December 2002 16:40 (twenty-three years ago)

Really? What college did that sentence come from? I recall receiving the generic "We had many qualified applicants, unfortunately we cannot accept everyone" letter.

Anyways:

My critical faculties are rarely up to the task of defending a song (or anything) I know, intuitively, that I love. That says more about my critical faculties than the objects of my affection.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 30 December 2002 16:42 (twenty-three years ago)

And if I can't argue for it on a critical level, is it possible that the record is not as good as I think it is/want it to be

I have this problem when reviewing things I like -- I'll start out with glowing superlatives and favorable comparisons, and then I'll have to stop and think "Wait, is this true? Do I really mean this?" And I'm always a little sad when my rewrite is less flattering than it was originally.

I'm not sure what "critical grounds" are anymore. My first reaction is never the same as my second or third reaction, so I don't know which one to go by, which one is more "honest." They say that the gut reaction is the best, but I find that the first listen is the time when I make all the expected knee-jerk responses and react to the most extreme characteristics of the music. So maybe it's best to get the gut reaction out of the way, put it behind me, so I can do my real listening and critical thinking and "feeling." So does music exist as a whole fruit that we have to tear away at in small bites until we get to the pit, or is it the other way around -- are we just building everything up ourselves around preexisting, verifiable notes and rhythms?

I don't know. "Feeling" leads to cool synesthetic reactions, but it also leads to bad Pitchfork reviews. (OK, OK, I'll stop with the P-fork hate.)

― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 30 December 2002 17:10 (twenty-three years ago)

If I can't come up with a better explanation than "But I Like it!", it doesn't reflect on the quality of the record, just on my quality as a writer. It doesn't make my love of the record less valid. In truth, I can make a decent fist of describing why I like most records, but sometimes it's tricky putting it into words without falling into cliche. But my love of the record remains genuine.

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Monday, 30 December 2002 17:15 (twenty-three years ago)

I stopped fighting with my feelings, & just accepted them. If my heart goes for "crap", then "crap" it'll get - I'd like to think that if I like it, it isn't irredeemable "crap". If I need to explicate on the quality of said "crap", I'd like to think I'm able to present a case wherein good & bad points are given equal time & consideration. Usually, such cases are saddled w/ a paragraph or 20 explaining my predilection (NOT "weakness" - that's a slightly different bushel of apples) (slightly different) for the stuff, which is probably unnecessary, & bogs down the impartiality the left side of my brain craves, but whatever.

― David R. (popshots75`), Monday, 30 December 2002 17:27 (twenty-three years ago)

But if my primary responsibility as a critic is to argue my opinions in a cogent fashion, then what of the few records that I literally cannot defend?

The way I see it, I have two options - a) write about it defensively, pre-empting any possible attack with a "yeah I know, but..." type sentiment or b) lower it in the ranks a bit, allowing for the fact that my reasons for liking it are probably case-specific and not useful to the general populace.

As I see it, both options are not without major flaws.

― mark p (Mark P), Monday, 30 December 2002 17:41 (twenty-three years ago)

Is there an example of a record you can't defend?

c) write about the song/album/band, explain the context of why you like it. Like where you first heard it, how it makes you feel, cast aside notions of worthiness and appeal.

― jel -- (jel), Monday, 30 December 2002 18:25 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.