Jack-Flash-Jr
There's something that needs to be said about what I read in the Watershed thread... I've got a rule of thumb when it comes to criticising: whatever I say, and whatever tone of voice I say it in in any forum (online or in person) I should be prepared to say to the artist in question if they were right in front of me. I have felt strongly enough in the past to be quite outspoken to artists who in my youth offended me - I once told Adam Duritz from Counting Crows that their three guitar "attack" was unnecessary given how boring their music was. I'm feel bad now about how I said it and he probably didn't give a hoot about my opinion since millions obviously love them...
Keira-WitherKay
yeah well in general i feel musicians especially guitarists are creatures of extreme criticism and mostly it's the ones who are not out there doing the gigs and charting/recording themselves who are most critical of all of the ones who are "making the grade and on the market/scene" what ever happened to that saying ..."before you criticise ..first walk a mile in that mans shoes" but more likely the saying " it's jealousy makes you nasty"........ is more what applies....
anyway most people who are in the limelight learn to judge critism from wence it comes.......... so most of the time i'm sure are not phased by much even in print.....
but i do find it funny when critics who can barely play their instruments and don't understand basic music theory go into long critical discussions on solo's and the feel and arrangements of established artists.........
Jack-Flash-Jr
Agree with everything you say Keira however I don't think you need to play an instrument well or at all to be able to appreciate that some music is better than other and that some players are better than others. I know Virginia Woolf is a brilliant author and I also know Stephanie Meyer is middling at best, this despite the fact that I am not as good a writer as her.
EDIT: to clarify, I offer criticism bands as a informed listener, not a guitar player.
Bob-Dubery
Agreed. One can form a reasonable opinion on many things that one cannot do oneself but have paid a lot of attention to.
And saying that only those who can may criticise doesn't work for me. The vast majority of musicians do not live in a vacuum and do not want to. They WANT an audience, they want a reaction, a connection. And if they want that they have to gamble on rejection as well. It's like me chatting up a pretty girl - I hope that it'll lead on to other things, but I have to accept that it may not.
Riaan-Combrink
Isn't the thing about criticism, ultimately, that it should serve a purpose? We speak of 'constructive' criticism if comments are intended to influence something positively, offer suggestions for improvement, etc. Destructive, arbitrary criticism probably intends to destroy or denigrate as its purpose - its origin is something else. It may be rooted in arrogance,envy, low self-esteem, etc.
But I would venture that the minimum base-mark requirement for either form of criticism is that it should be INFORMED. Whether you need to be a musician to criticise musicians is an interesting point - I tend to agree with JFJnr and XRB that the knowledge may be based on other modes of acquiring critical perspective - not just playing.
But back to the forum - where few of us are paid to provide critique - I agree that there has been a scary slide in the vibe of some posts. Explaining why I've steered well clear (having gotten into the midst of the last big flare-up some time ago). I think a number of members have pointed out that one of the major attractions of GFSA is the incredibly tolerant and friendly vibe of the place. Long may that continue.
As to a rule of thumb - I tend to go for the tried and tested: "do unto others ..."
vic
Re. the Watershed thread....some of post/s were plain crude. It was at this point when certain members, including myself, asked for a softer tone when "delivering critique". It's everybody's right to crit. We experience it in all walks life...in academia where papers are peer reviewed prior to publication, amongst artists,writers, and so forth...However it's HOW we express ourselves that matters. I strongly believe that no one, no matter how famous you are, or how much you have achieved in your field, is immune to criticism. It always touches you..... ?
Bob-Dubery
Riaan C wrote
Isn't the thing about criticism, ultimately, that it should serve a purpose? We speak of 'constructive' criticism if comments are intended to influence something positively, offer suggestions for improvement, etc. Destructive, arbitrary criticism probably intends to destroy or denigrate as its purpose - its origin is something else. It may be rooted in arrogance,envy, low self-esteem, etc.
In the round I agree. But there are some folks I can think of for whom the only honest criticism would be - you can't play, you can't sing and even if you did get around to picking more suitable keys you STILL wouldn't sound a whole lot better. Sometimes it's kinder to just come out with the unwanted truth - though outside of things like Idols that truth usually comes out before any real harm is done.
DonovanB
Riaan C wrote
Isn't the thing about criticism, ultimately, that it should serve a purpose?
A Mate of mine was at a cricket match and saw Roger Telemachus going out to bat. In this instance he was supporting the Dolphins and NOT Telemachus. Inhi sdrunken state he shouted to Telemachus, "You Suck! Go Back to the change room!" Roger went out first ball.
As crude and uneducated as it was he got Roger to fail. I'm glad I wasn't there because I would have buried my head in the sand, but to me it depends on what you want to achieve by your criticism.
If I want a band to do better, I will be nice. If I want them to disappear off the face of the planet I won't exactly be encouraging them to try again. Have you ever had someone near you be so annoying that you just want them to go away? Thats how I feel sometimes about the music available to us.
chris77
Somebody once said : Opinions are like a®&£holes - everybody has one. I am not prepared to crit something if I havent the knowledge or comparative skill to do so competently. Even if I like it but I know my input will add no value to the discussion, I'll rather just keep quiet. But ask me what my thoughts are and we are on a different ball park. If I think its bad I will say so, if I like it I will say so too. Its after all my opinion and remember you asked for it. As long as its kept civil and you dont attack those who differ from you, I see no problem with it. Eg, ask me what I think of the production on Nicholas Louw's new album - No comment. Ask me what I think about Pseudo rockers backtracking and posing their way to local superstardom - (reply edited to keep it under 1000 pages...)
BMU
Jack Flash Jr wrote
I once told Adam Duritz from Counting Crows that their three guitar "attack" was unnecessary given how boring their music was.
ROTFL!!!!!! Excellent.
Sometimes you gotta vent. When you do, try and make it entertaining. ?
It's funny, when people criticize it's about things close to them. Like they say, hate is not the opposite of love, indifference is. I guess if you criticize band x, you identify with them in some way, or enjoy at least roughly their genre of music, hence the strong opinion. (Like I said in the other thread, I can't even generate an opinion 'cos I care so little about the bands mentioned there.)
TomCat
Funny that this thread has come up.
Yesterday morning I had an "expert" come tome after the morning service and spew his criticisms about my mix to me.
He said he could not hear the toms on the drum kit...My son was playing and he uses very little toms in his playing at the moment.....
Then he said he could not hear the lead guitarist....there was no lead guitarist.....we had two acoustic players on stage and none of them played lead.... ??? ???
Then he said he could not hear the vocals from one of the guitar players......the guy hardly sang a note through the service as he is rebuilding his confidence after a bad gig experience.....he was concentrating on his playing
What got to me is that this guy is a visitor who is not event a member of the congregation...he went to great pains to tell me that he is a sound engineer who mixes for various bands.....I felt like adding to his accolades that he is also an arrogant ****** and he is wasting my time.......
Don't get me wrong here.I welcome criticism from my peers and when it is given positively one swallows one's pride and say....I need to learn from this...In this case the guy had a superior attitude.
I asked him if he was interested in our congregation and would he be prepared to get involved......guess what his answer was.....I just gave him one of my "Shame" looks and walked away...
[deleted]
I think it's more honest to admit you don't like something than to try find good things to say about it. I find it a bit condescending to think someone will not be able to survive without your support. On the other hand if you really have a passion for what someone is doing and you think you have good advice to give, then that's fine. And on the OTHER hand if you just want to be mean or let off steam or try to look better than someone else, then hopefully that works for you, because otherwise it would be pointless.
TomCat
Viccy wrote
I think it's more honest to admit you don't like something than to try find good things to say about it. I find it a bit condescending to think someone will not be able to survive without your support. On the other hand if you really have a passion for what someone is doing and you think you have good advice to give, then that's fine. And on the OTHER hand if you just want to be mean or let off steam or try to look better than someone else, then hopefully that works for you, because otherwise it would be pointless.
+1 Viccy...well said....
vic
Rule of thumb....people who gig and perform on a regular basis, pro-or semi-pro, are inclined to be less critical of fellow musos...whether they're Parlotones or Watershed or Eden or... 'cause they know what it takes to put a repertoire or show together, even if this is for a Home of the Aged.
MIKA-the-better-one
VIc I just want to know what you base that statement on? Do you know that the majority of critisism comes from "non gigging musos" who obviously are not out there experiencing music. And further more if we were "practicing musos" we would not be so critical because we understand and thus all be one very uncritical mass.
I can name you some of the bigger musos here in SA and further more tell you that they are more critical than most. I reckon if someone says "opinion" you give them your opinion.
In short I beleive there is alot of SHITE and further more I do beleive that a strong tone is needed sometimes. I also reckon though that if someone is generally making music for the right reasons and the right intentions it doesnt warrant such strong tone. PS watershed are probably making music for the right reasons.
vic
Mika, I hear what you say. The criticism I am referring to is that which is crude and destructive. Please read my posting further up the page....just to put it in context. Also read the posting of Riaan C above. I am not saying that we should be a happy homogeneous mass with no differing of opinions. The threads on Watershed and Parlotones were in fact an invitation to people to air their views and opinions of these two very successful SA bands, not so?... hopefully in a manner which is conducive to the debate and in a manner which contributes to the spirit of this Forum.
What do I base my "rule of thumb" on..?....without being arrogant, many years' experience as a muso.
George Harrison, in an interview, told the story about this singer (I think it was Chris Montez for who the Beatles was a supporting act in the early 60's) ...while he was doing his thing, the Teddy boys shouted f....off, f...off !, and how deeply sorry the Beatles felt for this guy....
Wizard
Riaan C wrote
Isn't the thing about criticism, ultimately, that it should serve a purpose? We speak of 'constructive' criticism if comments are intended to influence something positively, offer suggestions for improvement, etc. Destructive, arbitrary criticism probably intends to destroy or denigrate as its purpose - its origin is something else. It may be rooted in arrogance,envy, low self-esteem, etc.
But I would venture that the minimum base-mark requirement for either form of criticism is that it should be INFORMED. Whether you need to be a musician to criticise musicians is an interesting point - I tend to agree with JFJnr and XRB that the knowledge may be based on other modes of acquiring critical perspective - not just playing.
+1 ... very well expressed
Bob-Dubery
chris77 wrote
Somebody once said : Opinions are like a®&£holes - everybody has one. I am not prepared to crit something if I havent the knowledge or comparative skill to do so competently. Even if I like it but I know my input will add no value to the discussion, I'll rather just keep quiet. But ask me what my thoughts are and we are on a different ball park.
That's just playing semantic games. You're still airing an opinion.
I actually don't see the problem in having opinions, though I dispute that everybody has one. If opinions are thought out, if they have some kind of basis, well then that's fine.
I don't buy the need for a qualifier that I should be able to do as well. If it is necessary for the critic to be able to do better then there is, for example, an awful lot of art we would need to accept on the basis that most people who don't like couldn't do better. The fact that I can't draw for toffees doesn't make somebody else Leonardo da Vinci.
The danger with criticism is when you have critics who like the sound of their own voice and instead of trying to deliver an honest and thought out critique try to show what a clever and powerful critic they are. It can get worse when critics have contracts with news papers which require them to deliver so many thousand words per week. They then HAVE to criticise something (this is a problem with lots of columnists in papers - they don't have the luxury of not having anything to say this week).
chris77
(boertjie quickly looks up "semantics" in dictionary. Aaaah, o.k.) Fair call Bob. I just tried to say that it is arrogant and ultimately useless to critisice something that you do not comprehend, but that everybody must surely have an opinion on how they experience the effect of it on themselves - hence the nicholas louw example. I have absolutely no bloody clue on how well or how badly you can rate his shows, cd's and songs on a technical level, so I wont criticise them. But a little part of me dies everytime I see him on tv posing with a guitar in his hands when I know for a fact he uses backtracks. At least bands like Watershed and The Parlotones are getting out there performing their own stuff Live.
Wizard
Let's not get stuck on the "qualification" needed for criticism ... this isn't the issue.
The main point is that criticism should serve some useful purpose, else it's just destructive noise.
