Recognition: What, when, why, (and the big question) how?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Recognition: What, when, why, (and the big question) how?

    As an extension of the RnR HoF thread, let's discuss the up-side of recognition for rock musicians.   How is it done?   We've already established that the RnR HoF is a farce with regard to its meaning, but that is just one (extremely awful) example.   

    What are legitimate expressions, "awards" (I use the term loosely), and milestones (among other ways and manners) that praise and greatness are bestowed on rock artists?   

    We have previously established  (repeatedly) that we do not seek approval from critics to select music, or derive our taste in music.    But are people who are experienced in the art of critique, and who have a thorough understanding of the music of an artist, discounted, too, for the role they play in praising an artist?   Is that quite fair?

    The rock musician dies.   All that is said is, "Here lies Joe Famous Guitarist.  Figure the rest out for yourself."   ???    Who are the people whose opinions "count"?   Other musicians?  Peers?   

    What I am looking for is some clue from you all that rock musicians deserve praise, recognition, and should be valued for what they have contributed and brought to us as fans, but also as part of their permanent legacy.   They are part of rock history.   But there's so much "put down" here among us, I can't help but wonder HOW on earth you think the "greatest of the great" should be recognized.

    Is it a matter of evolution, what is written over time, and how influential they are in the long run, as evidenced by the music and musicians that follow in their footsteps?   Years and years ...?

    Just wondering what your thoughts are, if you care to weigh in.  

    *********************************

    Here is a sample from Lou Reed's Obit:

    Not too long after his first recordings, made at 16 with a doo-wop band in Freeport, N.Y., Mr. Reed started singing outside of the song’s melody, as if he were giving a speech with a fluctuating drone in a New York accent. That sound, heard with the Velvet Underground on songs like “Heroin” and “Sweet Jane” and in his post-Velvet songs “Walk on the Wild Side,” “Street Hassle” and others, became one of the most familiar frequencies in rock. He played lead guitar the same way, straining against his limitations.

    Mr. Reed confidently made artistic decisions that other musicians would not have even considered. He was an aesthetic primitivist with high-end audio obsessions. He was an English major who understood his work as a form of literature, though he distrusted overly poetic pop lyrics, and thought distorted electric guitars and drums sometimes drowned out his words.

    Here's where it's at: Do you agree that Brian Eno's quote carries weight?

    The Velvet Underground, which was originally sponsored by Andy Warhol and showcased the songwriting of John Cale as well as Mr. Reed, wrought gradual but profound impact on the high-I.Q., low-virtuosity stratum of punk, alternative and underground rock around the world. Joy Division, Talking Heads, Patti Smith, R.E.M., the Strokes and numerous others were descendants.

    The composer Brian Eno, in an often-quoted interview from 1982, suggested that if the group’s first album, “The Velvet Underground & Nico,” sold only 30,000 copies during its first five years — a figure probably lower than the reality — “everyone who bought one of those 30,000 copies started a band.”  

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Recognition: What, when, why, (and the big question) how?

    Great topic, yoga.  I'm pressed for time right now, but I'll def think on it and come back.

    Mainly, it seems to concern what some might call the "importance" of art...what is it and who decides?

    And I'm conflicted because 1) I think most people are their own best critics but seldom others', and 2) I think criticism as its own medium still has a place at the table and something to say that may still resonate.

    Until then....

     

     

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from polar123. Show polar123's posts

    Re: Recognition: What, when, why, (and the big question) how?

    Interesting question. Recognition by your peers, fans and critics as being a major musical influence is probably the best any artist can hope for imo.  Commercial success is important, but very few artists can lay claim to being both influential and historically significant. The greats are artists, whose music not only define a generation, but inspired others to follow suit. Lou Reed did just that.  The outpouring of grief over his passing, both by fans and fellow performers, tells me that he achieved the kind of recognition that no music hall of fame can provide. 

     

     

     

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Recognition: What, when, why, (and the big question) how?

    In response to polar123's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Interesting question. Recognition by your peers, fans and critics as being a major musical influence is probably the best any artist can hope for imo.  Commercial success is important, but very few artists can lay claim to being both influential and historically significant. The greats are artists, whose music not only define a generation, but inspired others to follow suit. Lou Reed did just that.  The outpouring of grief over his passing, both by fans and fellow performers, tells me that he achieved the kind of recognition that no music hall of fame can provide. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Hey, thanks for weighing in.   =)

    This may be too heavy a topic today, since everyone is partying and distracted over the World Series Champions  (!!!), but I'll be back soon.   

    This issue crossed my mind more than once on other recent threads, since we tend to have push / pull attitudes as to how recognition is dealt with in the rock music world.   It seems as though other music circles aren't as conflicted about it; rock, on the other hand, seems to have conflicts.   

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Recognition: What, when, why, (and the big question) how?

    My feeling ( and I learned this a long, long time ago when I used to read and subscribe to Rolling Stone Magazine) is that critics like to be critical. Rock music listeners and fans ( and they are not always the same...I listened to, read about, lived , breathed and dreamt about Rock 'n Roll music, incl. Punk, Heavy Metal , Folk Rock, and the like for around 15 years. 76-91. I am a Rock Music Fan...not merely a "casual listener").

    I feel my years dedicated to understanding and learning about Rock , it's origins, it's personalities and it's variations make me a valid judge on what is "good" or "historic" or "artistic" in Rock and what is merely "filler" or "background" or any other term for "inane" sounds that pretend to be creative. I know nothing about playing it....I am not a musician.

    Yet, while I have great disdain for Rap and Disco, I simply cannot accept that these are genres of Rock Music any more than Rock is a genre of Blues.

    Critics, on the other hand live to cut bands down to size, they nitpick , they think they are superior....yet many times the music they scoff at sells in record ( no pun intended) numbers. Examples are Foreigner, Led Zeppelin ( their name derives from a term used from their first US tour when they went over like " a lead balloon")  and Black Sabbath. My favorite example is Uriah Heep , a band with a huge following across the globe ( Japan , Europe , Australia) but little success here in the states.....ditto Slade, Status Quo and numerous Hard Rock bands that fascinated crowds in Europe but hardly got a sniff here. The popularity of these bands abroad is undeniable.....yet critics continue to knock them and disrepect the opinions of the millions of fans that love the music they make.

    Recognition can be a funny thing. Uriah Heep has sold albums and packed stadiums the world over. People in the U.S. ( CASUAL LISTENERS) have no idea who they are, they cannot even recall their two US hits, Stealin' and 'Easy Livin' ...two fabulous Hard Rock masterpieces. One critic once said that if Uriah Heep "made it" he would have to kill himself.......they did...he likely didn't.....they have a "legacy" the critic has faded into oblivion, probably still knocking bands who sell biliions of records and concert tickets to adoring fans.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from RogerTaylor. Show RogerTaylor's posts

    Re: Recognition: What, when, why, (and the big question) how?


    RnRHOF, Awards, praise is deserved among musical peers - critics don't count they contribute NOTHING to the art of music. If a recipiant of a trophy wants to except or decline (I don't think all honorees have showed up for their RnRHOF induction!) - hence, 0 value!

    Ultimately it's the fans that decide on the praise, awards and acolades............as well as a bands longevity!  No fans = No sales!

     

    If the artist wants to drop the trophy on the ground or pawn it, that's up to them...

     

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Recognition: What, when, why, (and the big question) how?

    Who counts more, the critics or the fans?  Well, personally I think that as with so many things, the truth lies in between.

    An artist that can achieve a balance of critical success and commercial success is usually the artist who is really nailing it... 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Recognition: What, when, why, (and the big question) how?

    Recognition of rock stars beyond their already overblown fame seems redundant to me. If anyone needs recognition, it is those unknown people behind the scenes who do all the heavy lifting. Y'know, the ones the big stars thank when they receive their redundant awards. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Recognition: What, when, why, (and the big question) how?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Great topic, yoga.  I'm pressed for time right now, but I'll def think on it and come back.

    Mainly, it seems to concern what some might call the "importance" of art...what is it and who decides?

    And I'm conflicted because 1) I think most people are their own best critics but seldom others', and 2) I think criticism as its own medium still has a place at the table and something to say that may still resonate.

    Until then.... 

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly right, Matty.  Music is no more or less an "art" than painting, sculpture, literature, etc.  Why is there no "painting Hall of Fame"?  Because it's obviously an absurd concept.

    I think I've posted before that the little I know about "art" is partial to surrealists like Miró, Dali, Picasso, etc.  As a teenager I had a 10" x 20" print of "Guernica" that was always on the wall opposite my bed.  I felt, and still feel, that I understood its meaning as much as a suburban Bostonian could.....my best, anyway.  

    When I first saw it in person I burst into tears.

    I'd like people to like me.....but I don't care if people like surrealism, Picasso or Guernica.  It/he/it means a lot to me and I don't care what anyone else thinks. Why should I, or anyone? Art is personal.

     

     

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Recognition: What, when, why, (and the big question) how?

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Great topic, yoga.  I'm pressed for time right now, but I'll def think on it and come back.

    Mainly, it seems to concern what some might call the "importance" of art...what is it and who decides?

    And I'm conflicted because 1) I think most people are their own best critics but seldom others', and 2) I think criticism as its own medium still has a place at the table and something to say that may still resonate.

    Until then.... 



    Exactly right, Matty.  Music is no more or less an "art" than painting, sculpture, literature, etc.  Why is there no "painting Hall of Fame"?  Because it's obviously an absurd concept.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, if you don't think that the NY Museum of Modern Art, the Metropolitan, the Louvre, the MFA Boston, the Corning Museum of Glass, the Smithsonian (I actually know a hand blown glass artist who has pieces in the Smithsonian -- yes, this is a BIG DEAL -- and now her work is shared for all the world to see), the  Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam (one of my personal favorites), the British Museum, the Guggenheim ... (need I go on, the list is endless)   are not "halls of fame" in their own way, then you must not know much about museums, or what highly-skilled curators do for a living.   

    As for literature?   There are book awards, 'best' lists up the wazoo, including "classics" (similar to classic anything, including rock) and just because you don't select your books or authors that way (and neither do I), doesn't mean that it's an invalid way for people to discover literature or authors.   It's a pathway, one pathway, not the only road.   

    I did not create this thread to have a re-tread of the RnR HoF discussion.   Please read the OP.   

    There are people, trained in the arts, in the various mediums, whether you like the idea or not.   If you want to invalidate or dismiss years of training and study and education, that only makes you sound a bit ignorant, I am sorry, Sonics, I don't mean to harsh on you, but all opinions are not created equal.    Some do come with a trained eye, and you are *still* entitled to disagree at every turn, no one will take that away from you.  :)

    I'm going to comment in another box to get my point across, at least I'll try.   Stay tuned.  

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Recognition: What, when, why, (and the big question) how?

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Exactly right, Matty.  Music is no more or less an "art" than painting, sculpture, literature, etc.  Why is there no "painting Hall of Fame"?  Because it's obviously an absurd concept.

    I think I've posted before that the little I know about "art" is partial to surrealists like Miró, Dali, Picasso, etc.  As a teenager I had a 10" x 20" print of "Guernica" that was always on the wall opposite my bed.  I felt, and still feel, that I understood its meaning as much as a suburban Bostonian could.....my best, anyway.  

    When I first saw it in person I burst into tears.

    I'd like people to like me.....but I don't care if people like surrealism, Picasso or Guernica.  It/he/it means a lot to me and I don't care what anyone else thinks. Why should I, or anyone? Art is personal.

    [/QUOTE]

    I am a huge fan of surrealistic art.  My favorite is Magritte.  Looking at some of his paintings gives me intense visual pleasure, and the strangeness of them gives me some sort of intellectual kick.  There's really not much more to it than that. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Recognition: What, when, why, (and the big question) how?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Exactly right, Matty.  Music is no more or less an "art" than painting, sculpture, literature, etc.  Why is there no "painting Hall of Fame"?  Because it's obviously an absurd concept.

    I think I've posted before that the little I know about "art" is partial to surrealists like Miró, Dali, Picasso, etc.  As a teenager I had a 10" x 20" print of "Guernica" that was always on the wall opposite my bed.  I felt, and still feel, that I understood its meaning as much as a suburban Bostonian could.....my best, anyway.  

    When I first saw it in person I burst into tears.

    I'd like people to like me.....but I don't care if people like surrealism, Picasso or Guernica.  It/he/it means a lot to me and I don't care what anyone else thinks. Why should I, or anyone? Art is personal.

    [/QUOTE]

    I am a huge fan of surrealistic art.  My favorite is Magritte.  Looking at some of his paintings gives me intense visual pleasure, and the strangeness of them gives me some sort of intellectual kick.  There's really not much more to it than that. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly.....IMO there is no more.  Do you care if other people like or loathe Magritte?  I'm sure you don't, nor should you.  It's simple.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Recognition: What, when, why, (and the big question) how?

    In response to yogafriend's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    [QUOTE]

    OTE]

    Well, if you don't think that the NY Museum of Modern Art, the Metropolitan, the Louvre, the MFA Boston, the Corning Museum of Glass, the Smithsonian (I actually know a hand blown glass artist who has pieces in the Smithsonian -- yes, this is a BIG DEAL -- and now her work is shared for all the world to see), the  Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam (one of my personal favorites), the British Museum, the Guggenheim ... (need I go on, the list is endless)   are not "halls of fame" in their own way, then you must not know much about museums, or what highly-skilled curators do for a living.   

    As for literature?   There are book awards, 'best' lists up the wazoo, including "classics" (similar to classic anything, including rock) and just because you don't select your books or authors that way (and neither do I), doesn't mean that it's an invalid way for people to discover literature or authors.   It's a pathway, one pathway, not the only road.   

    I did not create this thread to have a re-tread of the RnR HoF discussion.   Please read the OP.   

    There are people, trained in the arts, in the various mediums, whether you like the idea or not.   If you want to invalidate or dismiss years of training and study and education, that only makes you sound a bit ignorant, I am sorry, Sonics, I don't mean to harsh on you, but all opinions are not created equal.    Some do come with a trained eye, and you are *still* entitled to disagree at every turn, no one will take that away from you.  :)

    I'm going to comment in another box to get my point across, at least I'll try.   Stay tuned.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Hi Yoga, I didn't think my comment was off-topic and I certainly didn't mean to offend you.  I obviously don't view museums vs. accolades the way you do, but "invalidate or dismiss"? I think I a)  always qualify my comments re subjects I am ignorant about e.g. "the little I know about "art"", and b)  have an appropriately egalitarian view on art appreciation.  My late father-in-law was a domestically well-known, classically trained artist who taught me a lot. But he never conflated his technical knowledge of how art is created with his appreciation of it.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Recognition: What, when, why, (and the big question) how?

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    Well, if you don't think that the NY Museum of Modern Art, the Metropolitan, the Louvre, the MFA Boston, the Corning Museum of Glass, the Smithsonian (I actually know a hand blown glass artist who has pieces in the Smithsonian -- yes, this is a BIG DEAL -- and now her work is shared for all the world to see), the  Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam (one of my personal favorites), the British Museum, the Guggenheim ... (need I go on, the list is endless)   are not "halls of fame" in their own way, then you must not know much about museums, or what highly-skilled curators do for a living.   

    As for literature?   There are book awards, 'best' lists up the wazoo, including "classics" (similar to classic anything, including rock) and just because you don't select your books or authors that way (and neither do I), doesn't mean that it's an invalid way for people to discover literature or authors.   It's a pathway, one pathway, not the only road.   

    I did not create this thread to have a re-tread of the RnR HoF discussion.   Please read the OP.   

    There are people, trained in the arts, in the various mediums, whether you like the idea or not.   If you want to invalidate or dismiss years of training and study and education, that only makes you sound a bit ignorant, I am sorry, Sonics, I don't mean to harsh on you, but all opinions are not created equal.    Some do come with a trained eye, and you are *still* entitled to disagree at every turn, no one will take that away from you.  :)

    I'm going to comment in another box to get my point across, at least I'll try.   Stay tuned.  


    Hi Yoga, I didn't think my comment was off-topic and I certainly didn't mean to offend you.  I obviously don't view museums vs. accolades the way you do, but "invalidate or dismiss"? I think I a)  always qualify my comments re subjects I am ignorant about e.g. "the little I know about "art"", and b)  have an appropriately egalitarian view on art appreciation.  My late father-in-law was a domestically well-known, classically trained artist who taught me a lot. But he never conflated his technical knowledge of how art is created with his appreciation of it.



    Didn't offend me in the least, Sonics, no worries.   We are not on the same page re: museums representing a form of an accolade,  but it is something to consider for future reference, if you feel it resonates.   Just my take.   

    I was trying to drive home the point that the art may be created by an artist, but if it is not in a place where it can be shared, seen, viewed,  and potentially "appreciated" -- then, you, I, no one would even know it existed.   Curators make this possible.   Conservators make it possible.   Therefore, that "pre-recognition" makes it possible for us to invite that art into our lives.   

    For music, same thing.   There are counterparts to that scenario, plugged into the music industry.   This is what I'm having a hard time expressing.   

    I'll have to return later.  I've had difficulty because I'm trying to tease apart the idea that the job of a critic is not always a negative thing; critics can also enlighten and inform.   Late afternoon yoga class compels me to put this on the back burner (this class is so strenuous, I have to conserve all my energy, not kidding) -- so, until later.   Thanks for the feedback, that's what we're here for.   

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Recognition: What, when, why, (and the big question) how?

    In response to yogafriend's comment:
    [QUOTE]



    Didn't offend me in the least, Sonics, no worries.   We are not on the same page re: museums representing a form of an accolade,  but it is something to consider for future reference, if you feel it resonates.   Just my take.   

     

    I was trying to drive home the point that the art may be created by an artist, but if it is not in a place where it can be shared, seen, viewed,  and potentially "appreciated" -- then, you, I, no one would even know it existed.   Curators make this possible.   Conservators make it possible.   Therefore, that "pre-recognition" makes it possible for us to invite that art into our lives.   

    For music, same thing.   There are counterparts to that scenario, plugged into the music industry.   This is what I'm having a hard time expressing.   

    I'll have to return later.  I've had difficulty because I'm trying to tease apart the idea that the job of a critic is not always a negative thing; critics can also enlighten and inform.   Late afternoon yoga class compels me to put this on the back burner (this class is so strenuous, I have to conserve all my energy, not kidding) -- so, until later.   Thanks for the feedback, that's what we're here for.   

    [/QUOTE]

    You are certainly correct that the job of a critic is not always negative nor should it be. I see their job, if done well, is to separate the wheat from the chaff. They are supposed to be judges of quality. The tough part of criticsm is in esablishing criteria for quality. A critic's judgement should be at a higher level than like or dislike. Like and dislike is fine for the fan, but a critic should attempt to be more objective and base their judgement on the merits of a work apart from their own personal opinion.

    To use a simple analogy, they should be able to esablish a hierarchy of quality, like comparing fast food to fine cuisine. Quality is somewhat tricky to define, but clearly we all know it exists. 

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Recognition: What, when, why, (and the big question) how?

    In response to devildavid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'll have to return later.  I've had difficulty because I'm trying to tease apart the idea that the job of a critic is not always a negative thing; critics can also enlighten and inform.   Late afternoon yoga class compels me to put this on the back burner (this class is so strenuous, I have to conserve all my energy, not kidding) -- so, until later.   Thanks for the feedback, that's what we're here for.   

    ***************


    You are certainly correct that the job of a critic is not always negative nor should it be. I see their job, if done well, is to separate the wheat from the chaff. They are supposed to be judges of quality. The tough part of criticsm is in esablishing criteria for quality. A critic's judgement should be at a higher level than like or dislike. Like and dislike is fine for the fan, but a critic should attempt to be more objective and base their judgement on the merits of a work apart from their own personal opinion.

    To use a simple analogy, they should be able to esablish a hierarchy of quality, like comparing fast food to fine cuisine. Quality is somewhat tricky to define, but clearly we all know it exists. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Thanks for the jump start; you are entirely correct that part of my belief is that critics and their critiques are useful for benchmarking, guides and guideposts, and when they are accomplished and skilled writers, taking in the art of their craft, even when you heartily disagree.   Walking away with something to think about is not a bad thing.   

    A critique puts a stake in the ground; you have the right to move it around after you read and think about it.  

    But if there was nothing there at all,  we would have no starting point, no jumping off point, at least, from a third-party who is throwing out an opinion, albeit one from a trained, informed eye (or ear).    

    Similar to giving a "grade" of any kind, the standards for excellence need to be stated up front.  As long as the critic states how they are making their assessment, and the writing follows suit, that's the criteria du jour, in that instance.     No, all critiques do no follow the same rules, there's no template, and there's no meta data they have to fill into a form, but that's okay.   If you don't agree that their criteria is on the mark, that's all the more reason to take issue.   

    We tend, and in casual conversation it's fine, to have our "likes and dislikes" and not have to get into heavy analysis as to the "why" -- let's say, the music might be "boring"  (value judgement, but still, does not explain), but saying it's "derivative", and sounds like the music of 100 other bands (and you can name a bunch)  and is nothing new, and therefore, it's boring to you, is at least an explanation, and an analysis of sorts.   You're bored because you've been there 100 times, and you can even state bands that have done the sound better, in your opinion.   

    I like the idea that many people on the forum are tough about this issue (ergo, awards are rather meaningless in the big picture of greatness), and I'm the lone wolf, because I my value system is skewed.  

    I'm not in disagreement with anyone here -- my intent was more about the idea that "it's not about you" -- the fan -- and more about "them" -- the performer -- and what are the barometers and measurements and ways to pay them their props.    

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Recognition: What, when, why, (and the big question) how?

    If I'm contemplating the purchase of a CD or a DVD, I may or may not check out a critic's review.  But what I will always do now is go to the customer reviews on Amazon.  As long as the sample isn't too small, I find this to be a very valuable and reliable source of info.  Because a lot of the people who take the time to rate and review the piece of work are smart fans like the people here.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Recognition: What, when, why, (and the big question) how?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If I'm contemplating the purchase of a CD or a DVD, I may or may not check out a critic's review.  But what I will always do now is go to the customer reviews on Amazon.  As long as the sample isn't too small, I find this to be a very valuable and reliable source of info.  Because a lot of the people who take the time to rate and review the piece of work are smart fans like the people here.

    [/QUOTE]

    Good point, because in the end only YOU can truly judge which reviews to take seriously or not depending on the depth/erudition of the speaker.

    It's an understandable bias - a word I use in the most constructive way, because we may still choose to like or dislike something based on our own internal barometer.

    That's partly what I meant by people often being their own best critic but seldom that of others due to the ability of the trained/skilled critic to tamp down or at least mask their own inherent biases.  Their job is to listen to everything whether they like it or not, something most people just aren't up for day-to-day.

    All that said, I see absolutely nothing wrong with anyone offering their own critiques and thoughts about what they hear...provided that they don't mind hearing contradicting analysis from others.  Some folks don't like that kind of confrontation; good critics are brimming with it.

     

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Recognition: What, when, why, (and the big question) how?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If I'm contemplating the purchase of a CD or a DVD, I may or may not check out a critic's review.  But what I will always do now is go to the customer reviews on Amazon.  As long as the sample isn't too small, I find this to be a very valuable and reliable source of info.  Because a lot of the people who take the time to rate and review the piece of work are smart fans like the people here.

    [/QUOTE]

    I've rarely bought a record due to an "official" review.  If I have, it can't be more than 2-3 out of 5,000.  I'm sure I bought the brilliant Violent Femmes debut LP from a review (a rule-proving exception) but otherwise.....

    ....there are a few LPs I've bought for fun based solely on the bands' names.....most proved to be good, IMO, suprisingly.

    But 95%+ of the bands I love were introduced to me by friends....sometimes strangers....not people playing mp3s on commercial radio from approved lists.....not strangers on the internet.  People that know me, or liked me, and said "Listen to this".

     

Share