ps139 said:
I see critics as nothing but complainers who can't replicate that which they criticize. I think most of them are this way. Like Roger Ebert.....how many hit films has he made? If Steven Speilberg were to critique a movie I would put credence into what he said. He is a legend and he knows what he is talking about. If Jimmy Page were to critique Trey Anastasio I would listen. Jimmy knows what he is talking about. Most critics are people who haven't made it, and I do not see their opinion as any more valuable than mine.
First, I wanna go on record as saying that I think Roger Ebert is the man. I love his writing
Anyway, I think I agree with you that the critic's opinion is no more valuable than mine. I also think that the musician's opinion is no more valuable than mine. Personally, I just like to hear people's viewpoints on music. Critics (and especially ones as interesting as Lester Bangs) present their viewpoint, and I am interested.
When I read critics reviews I often disagree. What makes their critique better than anyone elses? The only thing that would make it more objective is if they had done it (films, music) themselves and were in a position to critique. But usually they are not. And among artists there seems to be an unspoken rule of not being too critical of your fellow artists. I respect that.
Actually, nothing could be harder to review objectively than one's own work, IMO
But anyway, I think I look at it a lot differently. As I said above, I don't think anyone's opinion is more valuable than anyone else's, so someone's critique is no better than anyone else's.
Well, I guess he took it to an extreme to make a point. Maybe that is part of his style. But I still disagree with him. You have to know what you're doing to be good. With music this does not mean that you have to explicitly understand the theory, or even be able to read music. But you must know somewhere in your mind that this or that works. Maybe not why it works, but that it does work. And thats talent, IMO.
I don't know if I understand what you are saying. What do you mean by what "works?"
Yeah, well if you couldn't tell I was in a rather ****y mood earlier today
Yeah, I noticed. Hope you're doing better now. Is it because of that rep thing? Did you read my post in that thread?
Here is the thing - how can you say "they are complete rubbish to me, but they are not complete rubbish." That is self contradictory. Thats not an opinion. There are a lot of bands that I will say "I recognize the talent, I can see why you really like them, they're just not my style." That is different than what he seems to be saying.
It's hard to say what he meant there. Bangs had a penchant for going for the extreme. By "rubbish," he most likely meant he didn't like it, and nothing more. Suffice it to say, if he meant that the music is rubbish and should be regarded as such by everyone, then I disagree with him
It is pretty hard for me to listen to music and call it trash, unless it is trash. For instance, I really, really hate country music. But my friend is just getting into them. He played some songs for me. I'd never buy the cd, I wouldnt listen to them on my own, but I saw the merit in them. When I listen to music I try to listen as objectively as possible at first. Same with movies, paintings, any sort of art. I have been obsessed with lots of different styles of music - classic rock, jambands, house, trance, rap, r &b, jazz, that I recognize that each genre has its gems. I may not like the shine of the gem but I'll recognize it as a gem, and not as rubbish.
Of course. Bangs was merely listing some bands he didn't like. And anyway, you know what I think about trying to evaluate music objectively, so of course we'll disagree there.
Well I guess it is relative - noist in their day might be calm to us. But again it seems he exaggerated too much here.
I really think guys like Berry and Presley were quite noisy and rebellious in their day, so I think Bangs' statement is pretty accurate. Rock and roll definitely has strong roots in rebellion.
