What good are critics?

A.O. Scott, a film critic for The New York Times, has written an essay exploring the role and purpose of critics. "Are we out of touch with the audience?" he asks. "Why do we go sniffing after art where everyone else is looking for fun, and spoiling everybody’s fun when it doesn’t live up to our notion [of] art? What gives us the right to yell 'bomb' outside a crowded theater?"

He's writing specifically about movies, but many of his points apply to music reviewing, as well. It's not uncommon for music reviewers to receive e-mails from vexed readers asking how we could have been at the same concert they attended (Thomas Kintner's recent review of American Idols Live, for example, generated some irate messages, and plenty of my reviews have angered readers, too).

Scott also writes, "a critic is really just anyone who thinks out loud about something he or she cares about, and gets into arguments with fellow enthusiasts." Which brings us to something I've always wondered: If you were at the show, and you liked it, why does it matter what a reviewer thinks?

The answer, I suspect, is this: If you loved a show that I hated, that seems to imply one of us is wrong, and who wants to be wrong? The premise there is incorrect, of course — one's response to what we'll call art is subjective, which means neither of us is right and neither of us is wrong. That's the fun of it. Our opinions are merely reactions, and my opinion is shaped by having attended hundreds of concerts and listened to hundreds of CDs (which, by force of repetition, probably makes me way more picky about certain things than a more casual music fan might be).

Also, my opinion runs in the newspaper, which lends it a sort of institutional cast: "Well, The Courant said this show rocked/sucked/whatever." That can make it seem like the paper is bullying a performer by throwing its weight behind a negative review, and America loves an underdog.

Scott concludes his essay by declaring that critics do what they do "for you." Yes, but that's only part of it. We do it because we love whatever art form we're critiquing — music, in my case — and we are eager to share our thoughts about it with you. As it happens, you don't always agree with us. But like I said, that's the fun of it.

Comments

[donnak]

ored.
about loving a show (or whathaveyou) that a critic hated... in my mind, sometimes getting a bit riled up doesn't feel like it's about wanting to be "right" that it was a good show, but about genuinely wanting other people to have had as positive an experience as you, and kind of being disappointed that they didn't. because sometimes it's that little bit of "yeah, me TOO!" about the experience (good or bad) that gives you the sense you've silently bonded with others who were at a show, movie, etc. which is at least a little part of why we partake in communal experiences like concerts instead of just going to the park with your ipod.

it's also fun to relive a show the next day through reviews, and if the reviewer didn't feel the same as you, it kinda feels like you got jipped on the chance to relive it in all it's (subjective) glory.

[ChrisB.]

I find it disturbing that we live in an era where no value is assigned critical thinking. In tv/movies/music, if something is ridiculously popular then it must be good.

Those kids on American Idol must be "incredibly talented," even if they are emulating 1990s modern rock bands, or doing second-rate Joe Cocker impressions. None of that matters because the majority of the audience is viewing their abilities in a very limited context.

I may not agree with the entries in the Village Voice's year end poll (and I often don't), but I at least respect the opinions for their academic and critical merit.

With this in mind, anyone who disagrees with the views of critic ought to base that disagreement on some sort of measurement other than "the crowd really loved it."

The "crowd" really loves a lot of things: Jerry Springer, Brittany Spears, Steve Urkel, Beanie Babies - but popularity in no way guarantees any sort of artistic merit.

[Steve]

Another answer to this question is that a critic is a perturbative force, somebody who often simply challenges your expectation or interpretation of art. Friends aren't always so good for that, since they tend to share your opinions on music, film, etc. I find value in having my opinion of an artist or an album challenged. Such confrontation, even by some random person in a newspaper, keeps you thinking.

[Shag Frenzy]

If you get a chance...
Colin McGinn was on last weekend's edition of the "Bill Moyers:Faith and Reason" series talking about this very subject. He was talking about the attack on reason in the past 50 years, and how reason is no longer taken as seriously, because it has been undermined by subjectivism.
When I read the article this weekend in regards to readers reaction to the "AI" review I was appalled. Everyone seemed to mention how "into it" the crowd was, without any actual analysis of the performances - it was bizarre!!

[dl004d]

A good review will describe the performance/film so that the readers get a good sense of whether THEY would like it.

When I'm deciding on a movie to see, I might base my decision on a well-written review that makes it sound like the type of thing I'd enjoy -- even if the critic mostly hated the film.

Eric replies: Fine, but concert reviews have limited use in that area -- the show has generally come and gone by the time the review runs.