Everybody's A Critic [EDIT]

Something I've often found fascinating about making music is that the most specific criticisms come from the most unlikely sources.  For instance, you'll play someone a song you wrote/performed and they'll say something very specific, like "I wish there was a different guitar line there" or "I wish the lyrics had been delivered differently" or "I wish you'd used a keyboard there" or "I want more cowbell" (okay, I made that last one up).  One friend's mom -- his MOM! -- said about a song he wrote, "I wish there was more organ."

I find it interesting because the criticisms are occasionally so specific that it makes you sincerely doubt the same criticisms would be made about a song on the radio by a well-known band.  I find it hard to believe that some of the same people would make similar comments about a song by The Postal Service or Bob Dylan or Bruce Springsteen.  To me, the difference is all about context: when asked for an honest opinion, it's difficult for people to remove their responses from the context in which they are hearing the song and put themselves in the mindset of hearing a song on the radio.

Because as critical of music as I am, I don't make such specific criticisms of most of the songs I hear from established bands.  Oh, don't get me wrong -- I have plenty of complaints about songs that I hear, even from artists that I like.  But usually they have to do with tone, singing quality, song complexity (does it hold my attention?), or how well the musicians are playing their instruments.  Maybe I'll say something about the quality of the lyrics.

It's rare that I will make a comment about a radio song not having enough of a certain instrument, or about a specific section of music that I feel is missing something.  The reason is that I figure that's the way the artist wrote the song, and that they did so for a decent reason.  Usually if there is such an issue, it permeates the entire song or the entire album, not just one section (although Metallica's Load and Re-Load albums are notable exceptions to this rule). 

With minimal effort, it would be very easy to make similar criticisms about songs from very established artists.  I think the transition to the last verse of Bruce Springsteen's song "Born To Run" is awkward and discordant at moments, and the keyboard is too dominant.  I think the harmonica in U2's "Desire" is weak and pointless; they should have used another instrument or just skipped it altogether.  I think U2's "Where The Streets have No Name" has a guitar/keyboard intro that is too long and repetitive, and an outro with the exact same flaws.  I would love to hear Coldplay write a real guitar or piano solo once in one of their songs, instead of the repetitive crap they put in place of a solo in each song (I'm looking at you, "Violet Hill").  I wish Eric B and Rakim's "Microphone Fiend" didn't end with that long, drawn-out DJ scratching/mixing coda after the rapping ends, and I wish Rakim had written more verses. 

Does any of that matter?  Not really.  I still love all of those songs.  They are still iconic, in spite of their flaws.  Why?  Well, partly because I heard them on the radio or on a major-label album release first.  By their popularity, they had already been validated.  Thus, it was easier for me to quickly grow accustomed to their imperfections, and I learned to accept them anyway.

[EDIT] During my freshman year of college, someone introduced me to Jamiroquai.  I loved their second album -- the one before the album that broke them big in the States.  When I tried to tell people about them, or offered to play some of their stuff, most people didn't care to hear it or weren't really into the music.  But that all changed as soon as Jamiroquai's video for "Virtual Insanity" went into heavy rotation on MTV: suddenly, even some of the people who had already shown disinterest in the band were asking me about Jamiroquai.  It annoyed me at the time.  Now I realize it is perfectly natural.  Context determines everything: my word didn't mean nearly as much to these people as seeing the video on a cable network did. 

People don't get that context with unsigned bands, or people writing music who aren't on tour.  All they get is the song that gets played for them or viewed on YouTube.  There is no greater context of validation, and I think this is what brings out the specificity of criticisms from some people that amateur musicians get when they start out.

Well, that and the fact that a lot of them suck.  But I find that when a band sucks, the listener will either say "I don't like it" or "It's okay."  If polite, they will say "It's not bad" or "It's pretty good" in an unconvincing tone.  That kind of hedging is always fun to watch. 

[EDIT] The biggest problem, however, is that most people aren't nearly as specific in their praise as they are in their criticisms.  Being specific about what you like about a song is just as useful -- if not more so -- than being specific about what you don't like.  A band may be able to give you more of what you like if you tell them what it is exactly.  Unfortunately, changing or fixing an element you don't like can be much more challenging...or might simply not be something the band will (or should) do.      

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit