I thought I'd bring attention to this exchange here because I was shocked to receive a message on Facebook yesterday from a fellow research student at QUT (one whose opinion I value) stating that he thought the following blog entry was "lazy" (and presumably not worthy of further examination). The amount of time it took me to format the entry notwithstanding (folk using web 2.0 frequently underestimate the value of editors), I would like to know precisely why such a novel approach to music criticism - music criticism as dialogue: everyday conversation brought into focus via an electronic social network - merits such immediate dismissal.
At the least, I'd merit that my critic (and friend) has not thought through their reaction. Surely, dialogue is what every artist and critic seeks? One defines an artist or critic by their audience.
I was simply bringing attention to the fact there's more than one way to discuss the relative merits of a body of musical work. And that sometimes it's enough to chuck a few words into the air and see what transpires.
Indeed. And what you have here is a (relatively) thoughtful comparison of tastes. Ultimately, no-one us going to change their mind as a result of this exchange, but we all understand each other a little better having read each other's opinions. Involved in this thread are various people, whom I know, to a greater or lesser degree, via their careers as writers or musicians (for the most part). All opinions are equally valid (which is the great fuck-up of the Internet, if you ask me - I rather preferred it when music writers/critics had earned their place in the inkies by blood, sweat and tears). It's highly entertaining, too.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, I liked the Clash (exciting, then inventive), the Slits (stirring, original, sexy, utterly unattainable), the Doors (sexy, forbidden, iconoclastic, homoerotic, REVOLUTIONARY), AC/DC (if I have to explain, you're a lost cause), and almost every bit of music ever written from the dawn of prehistory until our distant future. With the obvious exception of quite a lot of stuff, including Suede and probably most of my own output. Because music doesn't have to explain why it moves you. It just does. And it doesn't matter, when all's said and done, why it does. N'est ce pas?
How postmodern of you Jerry :) The facebook dialogue as a critique, I mean.
ReplyDeleteI can see what they're getting at though - I mean it is simply a long facebook conversation that seems to deviate from subject to subject. I mean, what is it criticising precisely? Is it the Doors? Or bands people happen to dislike for a multitude of different (and often petty) reasons. Imagine if people were talking like that out-loud in real life. It would be a mess.
However, it is an interesting form though. I particularly like how its inclusive of the community. One could say it a superior form, being that it involves many voices and divergent opinions.
There is some irony in the fact that your friend called the piece lazy without expanding on why it may be lazy. How lazy of them.
In principle, all you're doing is offering up your thoughts for peer review, which is what I thought academics were meant to do.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't meant to be postmodern. I just assumed we'd long passed the stage of expecting critical appraisal to be all of one form.
ReplyDeleteIn my music blog class yesterday, while praising the excellent dialogue that one student had used in a writing exercise, I had to apologetically point out that - music critics and music editors and music criticism readers being the staid beasts they are - they don't appreciate their criticism coming in such a form, even though there's no reason whatsoever why it shouldn't.
Even more surprising about my research colleague's initial remark is that he's engaged in a strand of research which is all about pushing back the boundaries of definitions.
(Shrugs)
As all good research is, perhaps?
Comments from a lazy arse then...
ReplyDeleteOk first I would like to say I would've retracted/deleted my comment but you got to it too quickly. I've had the bastard Flu since Saturday and I'm hoping yesterday was the peak. Right now I'm wondering if my pommy blood thinks this is Vietnam. So, sweating like crazy, I happened to cough up a megachunk of vitriol and then pressed ENTER. I was in an irascible mood. Not an excuse, just an explanation.
As for the comments here... "music criticism as dialogue" - yes that is a fine idea. But I thought you were a "critic" not and "journalist". What you posted struck me as "journalism" in so far as it was a report on something that happened. You didn't provide much context though - which would have made it less like another boring list of opinons from "THE INTERNET" and more like the experiment in criticism as dialogue that you are describing.
As a critic I crave your opinion. As a human being actually! I felt that wasn't expressed in this instance. All I got was "I hate The Doors: discuss" If that is offering up your thoughts for peer review, as Tim suggests, then why don't I just bookmark a few YouTube videos!
I certainly like the idea of critics involving their community in dialogue... but beyond the experience we were involved in defining, how does a facsimile (admittedly well formatted - credit where it is due) translate its value? Given that you've taken my flu-ridden tirade (semi)seriously and you've reposted this as data for your research (and i presume will repost this also) how about we answer that question in this forum.
Does the facsimile of a relatively private (at least exclusive to your facebook friends) informal dialogue translate to valid data to be posted publically that is of interest to people in your field?
Who read and/or was a part of the original conversation on Facebook?
Did you reread the repost and get anything valuable out of it?
If you weren't part of the original conversation, did you read the repost and get something valuable out of it?
Post all your comments and then you will have some interesting data, ET.
Final thing - I love the passionate invective used in negatively reviewing things that are supposedly sacrosanct. I'm all for you trashing on The Doors and whether I like them or not I will enjoy a rant. But being the devils advocate I love to be, I'm even more interested in seeing you defend something you hate. You placed it in "Defending the indefensible" so again, like with "The Hole Reunion[tm]" when you didn't defend them I felt a little dissappointed. Oh well!
Jerry, i think what you did with the FB Doors thing is just a part of a bigger process - it's like a working document for something else. Looking at it as a 'complete' artefact doesn't really make a lot of sense to me... unless it is presented as a sketch and acknowledged as such of course.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's not to say sketches can't be more interesting than finished, polished works. They can. It's just i think we need to be clear about purpose and context. That said, I wonder if there is a difference in the context of the conversation unfolding on FB and it being transposed to a blog?
(A few words into the air...)
ReplyDeleteThe journo/critic split is something that will probably need to be [re]defined and defended repeatedly, especially since the journalism side ('why don't you include all the comments [from everywhere]") is substantially identical to the academic/PhD practice. But it seems to me the more valuable artifact will prove to be the "guided conversation" where the blogger/critic is present as editor of the dialogue as well as a participant. The proof of the dialogue's value (in PhD terms) will be examples where you can show not just a public free-for-all, but where the originating critic/blogger has his or her mind changed as a result of the debate. The other folks, too, of course.