Christopher Owens writes on the crucial need for writers to critically review the work they observe.  

"I am unattractiv, sexually immachure, lazy, stupid and meen. What career would sute me best?

Journalism. If you fail there, try music journalism."
The Sisters of Mercy


♜ ♞ ♟ ♜ ♞ ♟ ♜ ♞ ♟ ♜ ♞ ♟ ♜ ♞ ♟  

A few years ago, I went to see Power Trip. I'd been a fan for a number of years, and seeing them play Belfast would certainly be exciting. After paying in, I watched each support act. Not a big deal, I hear you say and it certainly isn't. But I like to get my money's worth and I like to check out bands I haven't seen before.

One particular support band was, I thought, dreadful. Derivative, hollow and no excitement in the music. But hey, at least I watched them. As a good lot of people do, I posted on my personal Facebook page about the gig and gave a run down of each band on the bill (as a good lot of others do as well).

Said band (none of whom were "friends" with me on Facebook) weren't happy that I hadn't enjoyed their set and proceeded to make various posts about me and talked about how they couldn't care less about what I thought. That I could write my "shitty review and no one would care."

Anyone with half a brain can see that they did care (otherwise why would they talk about it in the first place), and it got me thinking about the relationship between a band and a critic. Is it not necessary anymore due to the internet giving everyone a voice? And, if so, why do artists still get bent out of shape over criticisms?


A little context: I've been writing reviews in some shape or form since 2012. Like other writers on the Quill, I'm not a hired gun. I simply feel like contributing to the site by reviewing books/albums/films I've bought or gigs that I've been to. And I've been honest in my reviews as to whether I've enjoyed them or not.

I've had various metal, hardcore and indie fans throw hissy fits over my reviews (including one which was, ultimately, a positive review). At no point did I set out for this to happen. I simply try and give my opinion in a way which, I believe, is informative and honest.

Responses can reveal a lot about people, and this particular one still stands out for me after all these years:

Can Christopher Owens please stop writing reviews of albums he doesn’t expect to like in the first place? By fuck is it unprofessional.

What I can draw from that is:

  1. I'm only allowed to review albums I like.
  2. Being even slightly critical is "unprofessional."
  3. The author of that particular quote has no concept of how reviews work.

It could be argued that the above post is a variation on the age old question "is there any point in a bad review?" 

The most obvious response to that is: what constitutes a "bad" review?

To me, a genuinely bad review is a poorly written piece that gives me no indication about what the band are like and the reviewers' thoughts on them. I've read various reviews that have been positive towards the band, but have employed the most generic language imaginable, with the end result feeling like a rewritten press release.

With reviews like that, I get no sense of passion or excitement for the medium (even if it's expressing how bad or bland something is). Everything's brilliant and each band/artist deserves five stars for trying.

That, to me, constitutes a bad review.

So, to answer the "is there any point in a bad review" question (which in this context is used to denote negative reviews), the answer is yes.

Aside from the obvious fact that someone will have an opinion on whatever form of art you put out for public consumption, it's also interesting to read/hear how you come across to other people. While some bands may genuinely believe that their drummer is a boundaries pushing pioneer, it might just sound to others that said drummer can't keep time.

On top of that, there is usually a desire within artists to prove critics wrong because of these reviews. When Charles Shaar Murray wrote that The Clash were "the kind of garage band who should be speedily returned to their garage, preferably with the engine running", the band wrote 'Garageland' in response. Using the song as a chance to respond to their critics in the press and in punk circles, it was a setlist staple until their demise.

And would they have done that without a "bad" review? Unlikely.


In 2020, the word 'critic' is synonymous with 'troll' or 'hater' in the minds of the youth. As far as many of them are concerned, people offering an interpretation that doesn't coincide with their own are nothing more than mouthy keyboard warriors.

We've seen pop stars like Jessie J, arena sized rock bands like Bring Me The Horizon and underground heroes such as Asomvel write songs about them, and I find it highly indicative of the modern age that this is the subject which riles people to create art and/or music about.

And why is this: are these people so highly strung that a simple "I don't like their music" is an affront to them? Or has the role of critic become so debased and devalued in the minds of many that anything other than a glowing endorsement can be construed as negative?

Of course, it's a bit of both. Bands are notoriously thin skinned and, while they may feel justified in mouthing off about a particular topic, they don't like being called up on it. And they understand the power of a negative review: it permits them the opportunity to unite their followers on social media, allowing them to build up mass "outrage" that someone could say such a thing and leads to various spats on a variety of internet platforms (be it YouTube comments, tweets, Facebook posts, "hilarious" TikTok shots).

Obviously, the free for all that is the internet has given people a voice. And people will use that in whatever way they want. The advent of social media allows people to portray themselves in an idealised fashion, meaning that it's a highly narcissistic concept. By framing your Facebook feed to your tastes, it allows you to live in an online world where no one challenges your preconceptions. Hence the outpouring of variations on the "haters gonna hate" line when someone implies they don't share the same opinion as others.

As well as that, this online bonanza has allowed people to participate in various aspects of culture that may have been previously shut off to them. Music is an obvious one, but criticism is a lesser cited (yet as crucial) example.

Let's put this in context: for years, people read reviews by professional critics to gage the general thought on whatever was due out. Whether they agreed or disagreed with them was a different matter. The main thing is that this was the main way (besides word of mouth) that people consumed opinions.

With the rise of sites like IMDB, people were being encouraged to leave reviews of films or television programmes. So film buffs, whose previous outlets would have been fanzines or published letters in magazines, could submit a well written review and have it up on the site for others to see without any delay.

"Hey" everyone said, "this is easy. Anyone can do this." And then there were even more ways to consume opinions.

With the passing of genuine characters in criticism, such as Portadown born Alexander Walker (who once described 'Fight Club' as a film that "uncritically enshrines principles that once underpinned the politics of fascism") and the struggles of printed media to adopt to the online world, we've seen a rise in the number of papers using bloggers as reviewers. It's a win win situation for them as the former are seen to be talent spotting, and they don't have to pay the latter.

The problem here is that, while these bloggers are undoubtedly passionate about their subjects, a lot of them don't have the same insights the way a professional critic does in terms of theory, technical ability and the overall picture. There's a big difference between blogging and writing a review for an esteemed newspaper. Different mediums and different expectations altogether.

Bear in mind that there's now a generation who have grown up without a larger than life critic informing them of their opinions on whatever album/film/book is out that week. Add in the bubble that is online life, bands being thin skinned, and you can see where they're coming from. There's no doubt that, if Alexander Walker was alive and reviewing today, he'd be branded a "jealous hater" by artists and fans alike.




Naturally, there are people out there who are employed as professional critics that give the profession a bad name: I believe that a big European metal label had one of its staff members working as a writer for Metal Hammer Germany and I've heard various stories of how certain bands were profiled in NME: the London labels simply ploughed journalists with booze and +1's for gigs and, if a small label couldn't afford to do that, they could kiss goodbye to any chance of being featured.

These anecdotes give people the perception that ALL critics are professional liggers who spend the gig they're meant to be reviewing drunk and write a review before listening to the album (who can forget the infamous Black Sabbath live review of a gig that was cancelled at the last minute).

But that leads me to ask, what about the person writing reviews for their own zine, or contributing to a website, writing blogs or uploading podcasts/videos? Not for monetary gain, but because they've been moved by a piece of art and feel the need to comment about it. Are they liggers whose opinions are null and void?

I certainly don't think so.  

Another, equally important, factor is that this country has a small music scene, as compared to somewhere like England.

Certainly, in regards to Belfast, sites such as Metal Ireland, Chordblossom and radio shows like Across the Line have been at the forefront of pushing local bands of a variety of genres. On one hand, it means bands are given an extra leg up in terms of public perception and creates a very favourable view of the Irish music scene to people in other countries.

But what also happens is that some bands develop an attitude from it and believe what's written about them. So when they get a not entirely complimentary review, it leads to a certain amount of toys being thrown out of the pram. It can also give them unrealistic expectations, believing they're destined for greater things after playing Voodoo a few times.

And, with it being such a small scene, there's a very good chance that they know who you are. Hence why there's an element of walking on eggshells in certain reviews for local acts.

I can't remember reading a single negative review of bands like Desert Hearts, Robyn G. Shields, Slomatics or Malthusian, for example. I'm certainly not saying that there aren't any at all, but they're few and far between (as far as I can see). And I'm certainly not slagging any of those bands off.

But I wonder if there are people who feel obliged to "like" them because all three have built international profiles through well executed releases, intense live shows and a strong image?

Some would argue that the bands are doing what they want on their terms (they're paying for the rehearsal spots, they're hauling themselves around the country to play to five people) and should be exempt from criticism.

Once again, give them 5 stars just for trying.

Doesn't work like that in real life, I'm afraid.


"Opinions are like assholes: everybody has one. And they're full of shit." - with apologies to Clint Eastwood.

So, after all that, does criticism still have a place? 

Of course it does. In fact, I'd argue that it's needed more so than ever. 

While it's commendable that Jim from East Kilbride can let his followers on Twitter know that the new Five Finger Death Punch album "roxs", what is really needed is someone who is familiar with that strand of music (in terms of influences, history and expectations) and can articulate them to the reader (or listener). 

Do I have to agree with them? No, but as long as there's clear passion in what they write/talk about (either for the music or the criticism, preferably both) and their argument isn't a rewrite of a bland press release (aren't they all, I hear you say), then I'm willing to give them the time of day. 

How many times have you struggled with an album, until you've read something that gives you a different perspective on it? Happens to me quite a bit. Case in point: 'Red Mecca' by Cabaret Voltaire is often regarded as their most politically aware record (because it's release coincided with the Toxteth/Brixton riots). 

I certainly never heard any of that in the music, and really couldn't get a firm handle on it. Some moments stood out, but the political interpretation completely mislead me. It wasn't until I read a retrospective on the band in The Wire magazine, that described it as their most psychedelic. 

With that in mind, I gave the album another go. And it finally clicked. 

That is the power of well informed criticism. 

Ultimately, the relationship between bands and critics is a complex one. Both are art forms in themselves, both (when done well) stay in the memory bank and both cannot exist without each other. 

Critics are not meant to give you their opinions as FACT. They exist to challenge what you think yourself, and help inform your own opinion. And that, I think, is the prime factor for bands getting bent out of shape over reviews. That good critics can see beyond the bluster, and get to the heart of what works and what doesn't. 

Besides, if critics are irrelevant to bands, why do they share positive reviews to their fans? 






 

⏩ Christopher Owens was a reviewer for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland. He is currently the TPQ Friday columnist. 

Critics Of Faith And Devotion

Christopher Owens writes on the crucial need for writers to critically review the work they observe.  

"I am unattractiv, sexually immachure, lazy, stupid and meen. What career would sute me best?

Journalism. If you fail there, try music journalism."
The Sisters of Mercy


♜ ♞ ♟ ♜ ♞ ♟ ♜ ♞ ♟ ♜ ♞ ♟ ♜ ♞ ♟  

A few years ago, I went to see Power Trip. I'd been a fan for a number of years, and seeing them play Belfast would certainly be exciting. After paying in, I watched each support act. Not a big deal, I hear you say and it certainly isn't. But I like to get my money's worth and I like to check out bands I haven't seen before.

One particular support band was, I thought, dreadful. Derivative, hollow and no excitement in the music. But hey, at least I watched them. As a good lot of people do, I posted on my personal Facebook page about the gig and gave a run down of each band on the bill (as a good lot of others do as well).

Said band (none of whom were "friends" with me on Facebook) weren't happy that I hadn't enjoyed their set and proceeded to make various posts about me and talked about how they couldn't care less about what I thought. That I could write my "shitty review and no one would care."

Anyone with half a brain can see that they did care (otherwise why would they talk about it in the first place), and it got me thinking about the relationship between a band and a critic. Is it not necessary anymore due to the internet giving everyone a voice? And, if so, why do artists still get bent out of shape over criticisms?


A little context: I've been writing reviews in some shape or form since 2012. Like other writers on the Quill, I'm not a hired gun. I simply feel like contributing to the site by reviewing books/albums/films I've bought or gigs that I've been to. And I've been honest in my reviews as to whether I've enjoyed them or not.

I've had various metal, hardcore and indie fans throw hissy fits over my reviews (including one which was, ultimately, a positive review). At no point did I set out for this to happen. I simply try and give my opinion in a way which, I believe, is informative and honest.

Responses can reveal a lot about people, and this particular one still stands out for me after all these years:

Can Christopher Owens please stop writing reviews of albums he doesn’t expect to like in the first place? By fuck is it unprofessional.

What I can draw from that is:

  1. I'm only allowed to review albums I like.
  2. Being even slightly critical is "unprofessional."
  3. The author of that particular quote has no concept of how reviews work.

It could be argued that the above post is a variation on the age old question "is there any point in a bad review?" 

The most obvious response to that is: what constitutes a "bad" review?

To me, a genuinely bad review is a poorly written piece that gives me no indication about what the band are like and the reviewers' thoughts on them. I've read various reviews that have been positive towards the band, but have employed the most generic language imaginable, with the end result feeling like a rewritten press release.

With reviews like that, I get no sense of passion or excitement for the medium (even if it's expressing how bad or bland something is). Everything's brilliant and each band/artist deserves five stars for trying.

That, to me, constitutes a bad review.

So, to answer the "is there any point in a bad review" question (which in this context is used to denote negative reviews), the answer is yes.

Aside from the obvious fact that someone will have an opinion on whatever form of art you put out for public consumption, it's also interesting to read/hear how you come across to other people. While some bands may genuinely believe that their drummer is a boundaries pushing pioneer, it might just sound to others that said drummer can't keep time.

On top of that, there is usually a desire within artists to prove critics wrong because of these reviews. When Charles Shaar Murray wrote that The Clash were "the kind of garage band who should be speedily returned to their garage, preferably with the engine running", the band wrote 'Garageland' in response. Using the song as a chance to respond to their critics in the press and in punk circles, it was a setlist staple until their demise.

And would they have done that without a "bad" review? Unlikely.


In 2020, the word 'critic' is synonymous with 'troll' or 'hater' in the minds of the youth. As far as many of them are concerned, people offering an interpretation that doesn't coincide with their own are nothing more than mouthy keyboard warriors.

We've seen pop stars like Jessie J, arena sized rock bands like Bring Me The Horizon and underground heroes such as Asomvel write songs about them, and I find it highly indicative of the modern age that this is the subject which riles people to create art and/or music about.

And why is this: are these people so highly strung that a simple "I don't like their music" is an affront to them? Or has the role of critic become so debased and devalued in the minds of many that anything other than a glowing endorsement can be construed as negative?

Of course, it's a bit of both. Bands are notoriously thin skinned and, while they may feel justified in mouthing off about a particular topic, they don't like being called up on it. And they understand the power of a negative review: it permits them the opportunity to unite their followers on social media, allowing them to build up mass "outrage" that someone could say such a thing and leads to various spats on a variety of internet platforms (be it YouTube comments, tweets, Facebook posts, "hilarious" TikTok shots).

Obviously, the free for all that is the internet has given people a voice. And people will use that in whatever way they want. The advent of social media allows people to portray themselves in an idealised fashion, meaning that it's a highly narcissistic concept. By framing your Facebook feed to your tastes, it allows you to live in an online world where no one challenges your preconceptions. Hence the outpouring of variations on the "haters gonna hate" line when someone implies they don't share the same opinion as others.

As well as that, this online bonanza has allowed people to participate in various aspects of culture that may have been previously shut off to them. Music is an obvious one, but criticism is a lesser cited (yet as crucial) example.

Let's put this in context: for years, people read reviews by professional critics to gage the general thought on whatever was due out. Whether they agreed or disagreed with them was a different matter. The main thing is that this was the main way (besides word of mouth) that people consumed opinions.

With the rise of sites like IMDB, people were being encouraged to leave reviews of films or television programmes. So film buffs, whose previous outlets would have been fanzines or published letters in magazines, could submit a well written review and have it up on the site for others to see without any delay.

"Hey" everyone said, "this is easy. Anyone can do this." And then there were even more ways to consume opinions.

With the passing of genuine characters in criticism, such as Portadown born Alexander Walker (who once described 'Fight Club' as a film that "uncritically enshrines principles that once underpinned the politics of fascism") and the struggles of printed media to adopt to the online world, we've seen a rise in the number of papers using bloggers as reviewers. It's a win win situation for them as the former are seen to be talent spotting, and they don't have to pay the latter.

The problem here is that, while these bloggers are undoubtedly passionate about their subjects, a lot of them don't have the same insights the way a professional critic does in terms of theory, technical ability and the overall picture. There's a big difference between blogging and writing a review for an esteemed newspaper. Different mediums and different expectations altogether.

Bear in mind that there's now a generation who have grown up without a larger than life critic informing them of their opinions on whatever album/film/book is out that week. Add in the bubble that is online life, bands being thin skinned, and you can see where they're coming from. There's no doubt that, if Alexander Walker was alive and reviewing today, he'd be branded a "jealous hater" by artists and fans alike.




Naturally, there are people out there who are employed as professional critics that give the profession a bad name: I believe that a big European metal label had one of its staff members working as a writer for Metal Hammer Germany and I've heard various stories of how certain bands were profiled in NME: the London labels simply ploughed journalists with booze and +1's for gigs and, if a small label couldn't afford to do that, they could kiss goodbye to any chance of being featured.

These anecdotes give people the perception that ALL critics are professional liggers who spend the gig they're meant to be reviewing drunk and write a review before listening to the album (who can forget the infamous Black Sabbath live review of a gig that was cancelled at the last minute).

But that leads me to ask, what about the person writing reviews for their own zine, or contributing to a website, writing blogs or uploading podcasts/videos? Not for monetary gain, but because they've been moved by a piece of art and feel the need to comment about it. Are they liggers whose opinions are null and void?

I certainly don't think so.  

Another, equally important, factor is that this country has a small music scene, as compared to somewhere like England.

Certainly, in regards to Belfast, sites such as Metal Ireland, Chordblossom and radio shows like Across the Line have been at the forefront of pushing local bands of a variety of genres. On one hand, it means bands are given an extra leg up in terms of public perception and creates a very favourable view of the Irish music scene to people in other countries.

But what also happens is that some bands develop an attitude from it and believe what's written about them. So when they get a not entirely complimentary review, it leads to a certain amount of toys being thrown out of the pram. It can also give them unrealistic expectations, believing they're destined for greater things after playing Voodoo a few times.

And, with it being such a small scene, there's a very good chance that they know who you are. Hence why there's an element of walking on eggshells in certain reviews for local acts.

I can't remember reading a single negative review of bands like Desert Hearts, Robyn G. Shields, Slomatics or Malthusian, for example. I'm certainly not saying that there aren't any at all, but they're few and far between (as far as I can see). And I'm certainly not slagging any of those bands off.

But I wonder if there are people who feel obliged to "like" them because all three have built international profiles through well executed releases, intense live shows and a strong image?

Some would argue that the bands are doing what they want on their terms (they're paying for the rehearsal spots, they're hauling themselves around the country to play to five people) and should be exempt from criticism.

Once again, give them 5 stars just for trying.

Doesn't work like that in real life, I'm afraid.


"Opinions are like assholes: everybody has one. And they're full of shit." - with apologies to Clint Eastwood.

So, after all that, does criticism still have a place? 

Of course it does. In fact, I'd argue that it's needed more so than ever. 

While it's commendable that Jim from East Kilbride can let his followers on Twitter know that the new Five Finger Death Punch album "roxs", what is really needed is someone who is familiar with that strand of music (in terms of influences, history and expectations) and can articulate them to the reader (or listener). 

Do I have to agree with them? No, but as long as there's clear passion in what they write/talk about (either for the music or the criticism, preferably both) and their argument isn't a rewrite of a bland press release (aren't they all, I hear you say), then I'm willing to give them the time of day. 

How many times have you struggled with an album, until you've read something that gives you a different perspective on it? Happens to me quite a bit. Case in point: 'Red Mecca' by Cabaret Voltaire is often regarded as their most politically aware record (because it's release coincided with the Toxteth/Brixton riots). 

I certainly never heard any of that in the music, and really couldn't get a firm handle on it. Some moments stood out, but the political interpretation completely mislead me. It wasn't until I read a retrospective on the band in The Wire magazine, that described it as their most psychedelic. 

With that in mind, I gave the album another go. And it finally clicked. 

That is the power of well informed criticism. 

Ultimately, the relationship between bands and critics is a complex one. Both are art forms in themselves, both (when done well) stay in the memory bank and both cannot exist without each other. 

Critics are not meant to give you their opinions as FACT. They exist to challenge what you think yourself, and help inform your own opinion. And that, I think, is the prime factor for bands getting bent out of shape over reviews. That good critics can see beyond the bluster, and get to the heart of what works and what doesn't. 

Besides, if critics are irrelevant to bands, why do they share positive reviews to their fans? 






 

⏩ Christopher Owens was a reviewer for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland. He is currently the TPQ Friday columnist. 

4 comments:

  1. So true about the relationship between bands and critics being a complex one. Physical proximity to the band is a factor - do they both live in the same town/city? Does the writer want to hang out with the band? Can a writer advance their own career by writing about a particular act? What is in and what is out - Deep Purple never got a good review in the NME in the 80s when they reformed. Personal spite can be a factor - Julie Burchill gave a nasty dismissive review of Siouxsie and the Banshees debut album ‘The Scream’ based on largely on her objection to a line in an early Banshees song. The ‘review’ conveyed little of what had been created and could be heard on vinyl. Melody Maker gave the album a brilliant and brilliantly written review that gave insight into the lyric references and the cold steel power of the music. Sadly I cannot remember who wrote it but I remember most of what they wrote. Nick Kent famously skewered Pink Floyd in a review of two of their Empire Pool Wembley shows in Nov 74 where they debuted ‘Shine On You Crazy Diamond‘. David Gilmour has admitted that Kent’s long shook the band and caused them to rethink their attitude and presentation. Back in the days of punk I remember very average records getting over the top reviews just because the politics was the same as the reviewer or the reviewer was caught in the headlights of hype. I wonder will there come a time in the future when a reviewer will be sued for ‘misrepresentation’ or for loss of earnings due to to a negative review of an album. Wait and see! But the fact remains as you show re ‘Red Mecca’, a great and perceptive writer can really make us view a piece of art in a new way, show us something we have missed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul,

      "I wonder will there come a time in the future when a reviewer will be sued for ‘misrepresentation’ or for loss of earnings due to to a negative review of an album."

      Funnily enough, Katy Perry fans were sending messages to noted critics about her new album, saying that they expected it to get a superb review and that anything else would trigger her postnatal depression! We've also seen Swifties attack the editor of Pitchfork over a review of her latest album, so what you suggest is certainly within that realm.

      The (seeming) loss of boundaries between fan and artist, coupled with the ability to be anonymous on the internet, means that behaviour that would have once been relegated to the odd deranged fan can fuel an online mob, people who are both repulsed and fascinated by critics.

      Delete
  2. Christopher - another fine piece written from a different angle. There should be no snowflake culture which the reviewer should be expected to conform to. Some people just want to bunk into stardom without paying any price. When you read Jude's experience of touring, you say WTF when you read about the snowflakes. Pampered primadonnas with a sense of entitlement. Challenge it before it becomes ingrained and the reviewer is then fighting against the new normal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AM,

      unfortunately, the clash of internet life and celebrity culture have created a new type of celebrity fan, commonly referred to as a stan (from the Eminem song) who indulge in hateful activities worthy of Sinn Fein:

      https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/sep/04/they-just-wanted-to-silence-her-the-dark-side-of-gay-stan-culture?fbclid=IwAR0uSosySv9pPuVVr9omSZSUBUJJPcQcZP18x0WRPJhFg4ezGfA-PAYQCT8

      Delete