My apologies, Troll heart. I definitely did not mean to piss anyone off so much. I aslo didn't mean that it's impossible to be a decent music reviewer without playing an instrument.
In my defense, my number one, worst reviewer, listed at the top, was the very elitist, highly educated in music guy...
My number two guy was a list of a whole bunch of qualities that personally bug ME in music reviews, which is basically when someone who knows nothing about music rants or raves about the vibes they got, leaving you knowing nothing about the actual music. This guy could just as easily be a musician, it's just more likely that a musician would want to talk about the actual music, and less about the personal connection, at least in my experience.
Aslo, I didn't mean that ALL non-musicians are this guy. or that all non-musicians listen to indie Coldplay-wannabes. I have lots of non-musician friends, almost none of them listen to that stuff. And if they did, that would be fine, too. I was talking about a stereotypical, and I thought humorous group that people might pick up on.
Again, apologies if that is insulting.
My number three guy, the one I think is the best, yes, I said should be a musician. Now, it's, I suppose, possible to know a ton about music, know some theory, have had great ear training so you can pick up on and correctly identify details of the music that an untrained ear simply cannot.
Also, at least around here, the musicians tend to all be friends with each other, and constantly exploring and letting each other in on their discoveries. That's undeniably helpful, or so I would guess. And sure, a non-musician can wiggle into those circles and get that experience too. It just isn't as likely, I would assume, so I didn't include it in my broad description of what makes the best reviewer.
But, if you read carfeully, I several times said that basically, what is neccesary are these two things:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack
d1. While remaining accessible, describe the music so that readers get a clear sense of what it might sound like.
d2. Evaluate who well the music achieves whatever it's meant to achieve. If that goal is complex conceptual innovation, fine, talk about that. If it's a dance album, talk about that.
Don't forget these two goals. If you know what you're talking about, and you keep in mind that your readership do not, then in my book, you're on your way to writing good reviews.
|
So, no, I wouldn't say that being a musician is absolutely neccesary, but I do think it's an instant leg up. If you have experience doing what you're talking about, if you have the training to really hear and understand what you're talking about, if you know the behind-the-scenes theory or whatnot to describe what you're talking about, that's got to be a leg up. Now, can you have developed a very skilled ear, able to identify the component parts of music, without being a musician? Can you learn theory and its compadres without being a musician? Can you get a good understanding of how it is to create music without being a musician?
Sure, you can do all that, but at that point, I would call you a musician. Or at least a true student of music...
Now, If you don't have any of that knowledge, experience, or skill, can you still write a good review? Sure, but I think you're immediately playing catch up. Now, are there musicians who lack decent ear-training, know no theory, and have limited experience? Heck yeah. Tons of 'em. I don't think they probably write what, to me, are the best reviews. And they're musicians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart
I am not a musician, never will be, but I know that and don't try to pretend I am. Nevertheless, I think I'm a decent reviewer and talk about what the music means to me, what I think the musician is trying to say and also try to put their work in context.To say you have to be a musician to be a proper reviewer is quite an insult to those of us who can't play, but certainly know our stuff.
|
So, if you're a decent reviewer, and you can talk about your personal connection to the music, guess the musician's intended message, compare their work well to other works, and know enough about music to explain what it is that they are doing, then yeah, I'd say you probably fullfil my two ultimate criteria.
You're probably a great reviewer.
Who am I to say no?
But finally, this was an explanation of what *I* like to see in a review. It's not necessarily what everyone else wants to see. So yeah, my ideal reveiwer is a musician who can talk to me about the music like a musician. A lot of people don't want that.
Again, sorry to offend.