Being a Critic, And A Musician

In a sports context, we often hear people write off criticism by saying the people talking have never played the game, so their take is rather irrelevant. In some cases, this can indeed be true. There are absolutely nuances to a game that people who haven't played it will never know. For instance, how does the lay-person know if a football play was actually an RPO, as opposed to a shotgun run designed to look like it? Or if a throw was intended to be slightly behind the received, as opposed to being errant? We don't, and it would be nice if analysts could be more honest about what they do and don't know.

We don't hear the same thing in music as often, but it does come up from time to time. It usually doesn't take the form of claiming anyone who can't play a riff can't comment on whether or not one is interesting to listen to, but the more basic air of 'who are you to criticize?' definitely comes across.

Let's answer that question.

I am a critic, and I would argue it's by nature, although my particular academic training also pointed me in that direction. The combination of the two has imbued in me a sense of taste I won't call discerning, but will instead call narrow. I look for and note weaknesses, and I'm not as willing to spend my time praising things that don't live up to my standards.

I am also a musician, and that is where my standards derive from. I've been writing song for about twenty years now, and I'm at a place where I'm rather comfortable with my own abilities in that regard. I am no performer, but when it comes to sitting down with a guitar and a piece of paper, I am rather confident in what I can do. Saying that, when I am listening to new albums, and I can't help but think to myself that I write better songs, how am I supposed to talk in reverent terms about what I'm hearing?

This all comes down to taste, and I'm sure most people would disagree with my assessment of my own talents, which is fine. The point I'm making is that when I am critical of an album, whether it's because of a terrible lyric or a flat main hook, I am trying to speak from experience. I know what works for my ear, and I also know which roads taken by songwriters are easier than others.

To give an example; while it's easy to get impressed by a prog epic filled with flashy playing, there's another side to that story. Technically proficient players can easily spit out riffs and solos full of fast runs, but slowing down to deliver a melody a listener can remember is truly difficult. It's the difference between the solos in "Sweet Child O' Mine" and "Arpeggios From Hell". The same thing is true with singers, as often a vocalist with a powerful voice will write a melody where they are belting long notes. It's impressive technique, but is it as interesting a song as what Taylor Swift can do with far less power or range? I would say not. Talent often gets in the way of songwriting.

I'm not saying any of this to make myself look good. I know I am but a middle-of-the-road songwriter whose music is never going to be anything more than a source of pride for myself. The point is merely to say that if I am at that level, and the music being promoted to me is only at or below such talent, it's no wonder to me why I tend to be more critical than a lot of other people in this field.

You don't have to be a critic to be critical of music, but I have found there was definitely something that changed in the way I thought about music once I started making it for myself. Knowing some of the under-the-hood mechanics does make it harder to like as much of what I hear as I used to, but it also gives me a deeper appreciation for the people who can consistently create great music.

Take of this what you will. Maybe I'm still talking out of my ass most of the time. My perspective makes it hard to see.