Michael Redrum Willow

Jul 13

Music reviews around the Press

Posted by: Michael R. Willow in 2009, Blog, General music

In magazine and blog music reviews, the role of the reviewer is to decide if an album is good or bad based on a variety of standards and factors. We often times see fans who do not agree with the reviewers blaming them while others agree. How many of these reviews are valid? Indeed not everybody has the same opinion on a certain album, but when we see an objectively good album judged badly and dozens of mediocre albums receiving praising reviews, while most of the musicians and art lovers moan about how bad is music today, that confirms that something is wrong.

I have come across several reviews from people of magazines and radio stations who are not even musicians. It is objective to say that “A Night at the Opera” by Queen is a worthy album, where you can see that the composing skills of the band are very high, no matter how commercial it became, however several reviewers do not follow the standards. They are not musicians. If one goes for example to the doctor and tells him “you are not doing your job well, I will tell you what to do” does that sound professional? If one goes to the restaurant and being somebody who has no cooking experience says “the food is horrible” this is absolutely subjective. A customer review is not meant to be official. We should not confuse the personal opinion with the review of an expert. Everybody is entitled to believe that the latest Tori Amos album is good or bad, however when people make an official review, a review that influences the public opinion, it would be advisable to have knowledge about the style of music they are reviewing, the history of the artist and ideally to be a musician. Being only a fan makes the review nothing more than a customer opinion.

Examples of reviews:

The first comes from the Rolling Stone magazine about the Metallica album “Load” which has disappointed some of their fans. The reason: the album was not as “heavy” as the band’s previous work, they changed their style and it does not sound like old-time Metallica. However the reviewer is very objective and he/she clearly points out why the album could be considered good: “is easily the heaviest record of the year, a seething beast of meaty, focused guitar dynamics, taut art-n pop drama, unexpected vocal-harmony kicks and intensely personal lyric aggression”?

Let?s see another example for “Load”. “Bad title, bad cover. Can you believe the artwork and band photos”? METALLICA had become a group of fancy boys? Well the songs in general are ok. They are so far from the style we know as METALLICA that it is shocking. There’s very little thrashing and the riffs for the most part are a little awkward. James took vocal training I guess and it shows, he sounds nothing like his angry former self and he still can’t sing too well. He is saved only because his voice is so damn cool.? (The Metal Observer). Why should they sound as heavy as before? Why should there be a lot of thrashing in the riffs? Why a musician/band that decides to change a style has to be negatively criticized? The Metal Observer here follows a narrow-minded way of reviewing music.

“Oh god, 70-plus minutes again. Haven’t we been through this enough already? Hasn’t Tori Amos, after three consecutive albums that crossed the same threshold, gotten this out of her system yet“…? Is there a reason why an album that lasts 70 minutes should be considered bad? “There’s no doubt that the songwriting is as personal, as wrenching, and as conflicted as ever, but when it’s hidden in reverb, metaphor, and affect, it becomes harder and harder to want to look for the emotion underneath the songwriting that has for better or worse grown up on us?. “500 Miles”, “Fast Horse”, and “Police Me” all sound like mid-tempo drivel bordering on cliche, or as close as Tori Amos can get to cliche? (Pop Matters) This review was written not by a musician but by a software engineer. We can see the absence of a musical point of view, the review looks more like a customer opinion while Billboard says about the same album: “Abnormally Attracted to Sin, finds her in full command of her expanded arsenal, creating an overall sound that’s as psychedelic as it is classic?.

Another unacceptable example comes from Telegraph.co.uk regarding the new Guns n Roses album “Chinese Democracy”: “but it is a remarkable and often exhilarating album. Across the 71 minutes, there are only the vaguest hints of the Nine Inch Nails-style industrial sound, with which Rose was reputedly toying. Instead, the music is densely layered, obviously using the computer programme ProTools“.

The aspects mentioned above do not make an album good or bad. The potentially “industrial” sound of an album does not necessarily exclude the “densely layered” production or the good sound quality. Apart from that, ProTools is today common place in most of the recording studios and it does not mean that if the sound engineer chooses different software the music will not be densely layered or well produced.

As far as “Chinese Democracy” is concerned, I have heard people saying that the album is bad because it does not sound like typical Guns and Roses. Well, it certainly doesn’t, but this fact does not necessarily make the album inferior. I personally expect musicians to change, to evolve. I would not expect to listen to a typical GNR album, but the main reason why I disapprove of it is because I found that the album – with the exception of a couple of songs – has nothing to offer in the art of songwriting. Everything has been played before by GNR and other bands, the production is not robust or convincing.

These were a few examples of how non-objective are many reviewers. Whatever the reason is, we should be aware of bad music no matter what the music industry wants to promote. A personal opinion is a powerful thing and should not be affected by reviewers who have nothing to do with music.

Monday 13 of July 2009