Critics, The Internet, and Steve Wilson's Ego

Thanks to Tony for finding this and posting it in the Reviews Discussion thread, I thought it would be fun to make this a new thread, since most people don't look at Reviews Discussion very much.

Edited by Henry Plainview - September 16 2010 at 00:01

The fact you called him Steve instead of Steven renders your argument invalid. 

I for one do not care what the artist thinks of reviews in any form. If they want objectivity and higher artistic value to be added to their work, the first thing they can do is let people say what they want.

Edited by Any Colour You Like - September 16 2010 at 00:40

I remember him being interviewed in Classic Rock magazine just after Stupid Dream was released and he came across as arrogant and well up himself. Still I bought the album and not surprisingly in a way I was very disappointed. Wasn't quite the progressive rock masterpeice I was expecting. Took me about 5 years to realise I was wrong. Now I've seen the light and have bought just about everything PT have released and I've seen them live a couple of times. He's not just a naughty boy you know!

Henry Plainview wrote: Do you think that the internet is lowering the quality of musical discourse?

Sort of, but it's probably a cultural thing rather than the internet.  The internet, as Wilson fails to realize seemingly ,  is just a vehicle, a tool. It reflects how we are, nothing more.  Anyway, back to my point, the sort of music discussions I used to have with elders in my childhood or teenhood, I can now have only with musicians, by and large.   Most people are only interested in their own preferences and not in the hows and whys of music and what then is the point exactly of knowing what somebody else likes without understanding why (which might potentially widen your horizons).  So, he's quite accurate when he says music 'discussion' is just a gigantic listmania now, but it doesn't have much to do with the internet.  I didn't get the feeling that even in private, people enjoy getting down to the substance of music. Rather, I felt there was an almost superstitious impulse to guard their fragile impression of the album/artist and irritation at my analytical inclination lest it might spoil their pretty picture.  Sorry, these are strong words, but I am just going to say it. 

Having said all this, Steven's self professed flair for blending genres is often at a very superficial level and is not very interesting in substance to me and this is generally the problem I have with his rhetoric.  I don't expect an artist to back up his boast all the time but Wilson consistently seems to fall way short of the lofty perch he is shooting for with his words.  He's just a good songwriter with commendable pop sensibilities and a fair appetite for adventure, he's not Robert Fripp's heir apparent.

Henry Plainview wrote: Should magazines write better reviews? Did they ever write good reviews?

I have read some reviews on *gulp* RS that were acceptable, but most magazines don't really understand niche genres too well, that is a trend I have observed.  However, the best music reviews, whether by professional critics or fans, I have read are Cert1fied's on this website and I have serious doubts over how many music journos today (I am only leaving out reviews of the past because I haven't read enough of them to comment) would be able to write reviews that detailed and comprehensive, so much for Steven's rants then! 

 

Henry Plainview wrote: What constitutes a "good review"?

Is one which describes the music adequately well to give the listener a good idea of what it sounds like without playing spoiler and also one which states the opinion of the reviewer firmly without pretending that that is the 'right' or 'universal' opinion.  I can't find it now, but I had read a good piece recently on movie reviews by a critic himself, I think, and what he described in there was sort of how I would expect a professional critic to approach a review.

 

Henry Plainview wrote: Do you want Steve Wilson to shut up?

Yes, please! 

Pitchfork is an interesting read but I find the rate of my opinions synching with theirs extremely erratic- they've raved about stuff I've hated, panned stuff I've loved, as well as gotten it exactly right. They do put far too much effort into the style of the review and oftentimes you'll find one of those dreadful "LOOK HOW WELL I CAN WRITE" type of reviews where they use all these elaborate analogies and little stories and conceits and so on and barely get around to the album.

I have recently read some reviews of KC from the 70's. They were positive reviews, but were clearly written by someone who didn't what to say about the actual music itself, in terms of composition etc. I remember Genesis moaning that reviews of their gigs in the early days only ever really talked about Petes costumes, because it was beyond them to talk about the actual musical content itself. I don't think things have changed. I rarely read reviews in magazines these days, but in terms of whether the internet has improved musical debate, well probably ,yes. Anyone can post reviews on websites now, or write blogs on any given artist, and by and large people who really are moved by music are going to be more able to critique, than some prick in a hemp shirt who's been given an album to review, or a gig to attend under duress.

The worst reviews and articles I ever read were in Kerrang magazine in the 80's. They were written so badly, I couldn't cope with more than one page. They got frequent letters of complaint about it too, but done naff all about it.

I basically stopped reading reviews in the 80's. As an ELP fan you can become ill reading what seemd an endless ongoing rant against them from critics.