Critical Thinking

The Onion AV Club's review of the new Shapes and Sizes album:
http://www.avclub.com/content/music/shapes_sizes

My review of the same album:
http://amplifiermagazine.com/reviews/cds/shapes_and_sizes_cd.php

I know comparing myself to other people isn't exactly the best idea, and certainly not the healthiest idea from a creative standpoint (considering that I'm already all like, "Oh what's my blog going to have that a hundred other people's blogs don't have?"), but it fills me with a certain sense of satisfaction when writers and critics that I admire and aspire to be like express an opinion that is somewhat similar to my own. The AV club's review maybe might say what I was trying to say about the record in language that is a little more concise, but I think if I'm reading correctly that we are saying essentially the same thing about this colorful but unfocused record.

Actually, this happened once before. The first review I wrote for Amplifier was of the band 31 Knots. Here's my review:
http://amplifiermagazine.com/reviews/cds/31_knots_cd.php

And here's the review from the behemoth of online music journalism, Pitchfork:
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/42131-the-days-and-nights-of-everything-anywhere

To find that the general gist of my review so closely mirrored one from the website whose tone I am constantly striving to emulate was quite the day-maker, I assure you. Certainly I'm not suggesting that my review is as good as theirs, technically or otherwise, the point here is that it gave me a little bit of confidence in regard to whether or not I actually know what I'm talking about.

Of course, in the end it's all subjective, right? I mean what is it that makes a good write-up of an album? Should a good critic be able to trace the origins of a band's sound back to the 19th century? Should they be able to parse every lyric in every song on the record, taking them completely apart and putting them back together again in a way that illuminates an overarching theme and connects said theme to the greater course of human existence? Or should it just be an unspoken contest of who has the best metaphors? And does it even really matter anyway, now that most hardcore music fans are hearing albums through leaks at the same time that critics are receiving their review copies? If the purpose of an album review is to make people want to run right out and buy said album, is the function of the reviewer becoming steadily obsolete with every drastic drop in record sale revenue? Or is it now just that a well-written review makes people want to run out and download an album for free? Why not just go to Amazon.com or the iTunes store and peruse the hastily written, rife-with-poor-sentence-structure user reviews and make your decisions from there? Besides, isn't it much more fun to insult people you'll never meet over their clearly ill-informed opinions of the sound quality on the latest Venetian Snares album?

Which brings me I think to the point (finally!) of what record reviews are, if nothing else: quality journalism. Record reviews, or criticism of any sort, is an art and an exercise unto itself. Learning how to say as much as possible with as few words, and making each word count, is a skill unto itself (a skill that this post is damming evidence of the fact that I have not mastered), and good reviews are just as rewarding to read as a good song is to listen to. That's what makes a site like Pitchfork so great: it is to music what Slate.com is to news and culture, which is to say that they are writing thinkpieces about music. That's why part of their application process is being able to name your five favorite albums from the past four decades; they really actually do want you to be able to trace the origins of a band's sound back to the tune that J.W. Booth blasted out of Lincoln's head.

So and but in the end that's what I strive for when I sit down to carve out my little 250-word reviews: something that is entertaining to read, and hopefully gives someone an idea of what the album sounds like and whether they should go buy it if they are so inclined to actually still purchase music. But any hope that someone might read what I write and be influenced by it should probably be largely squashed, for the fact remains that there are probably hundreds of other places a person can go to get an opinion about a band/song/album, and they can even then turn around and start a free blog where they can run said opinion through their own mental machinery to produce a more personalized opinion to blog about. Hell, there are even criticisms of the Onion AV Club's criticisms under their criticisms! Which is why I believe that record reviews are not only like great journalism, but like great paintings: interesting to look at, unique to a degree, and open to wide interpretation by people who are not necessarily qualified to do so.

And if you disagree with me, I'll see you in the comments section.