Music Critics and You: How to Find Music Writers You Trust
Music Critics and You: How to Find Music Writers You Trust
Plus: Miranda Lambert, Santana, Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, Cat Stevens, Led Zeppelin
Learning how to navigate the world of critical music writing can be difficult for the inexperienced. Music writers are a fantastic alternative to algorithms, but they do require a bit more time commitment to get what you really want from them - recommendations for music you’ll like. True, music writers also offer far more than that; analysis, context , popular commentary, and infinite other things a good writer can provide. But I’m going to focus on music critics specifically here, as their role is normally to provide taste-based ratings and recommendations. If they also offer life lessons, that’s fantastic as well - however, the critical reading skills below will help most when applied to direct reviews of music.
NOTE: This post was written and scheduled 2 weeks before the Pitchfork acquisition by GQ, which will undoubtedly cause strong feelings in the music writing community. I’m just a music fan who writes about being a music fan, but I can fully understand the frustration the acquisition will cause.
The intent of this post is to discuss how music listeners can most effectively read and digest critical writing about music, not to bash writers at all - the post is supportive towards music critics in general, whose work I find very useful. It’s not focused on music journalists or writers of other kinds, only on album reviews by people I consider music critics, and how a music fan should interact with critical writing about music in order to find music they’ll love.
Stay strong out there, music writers.
Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
For me, the idealistic way to think about music critics is that they have objectively good taste in music, and they will recommend music I like, assuming I find one with similar tastes to mine. They are the ones who define good taste, thanks to their combination of music knowledge, industry expertise, connection to artists, and journalistic skills.
But is that really the way music critics operate? In my examination of the RS500 list, as well as my recent fascination with Metacritic’s critical review consensus system, I’ve had some conflicting thoughts about how infallible critics really are in rating (and helping us discover) music. I’ve found old and new reviews, and have noticed some trends that I want to point out and be aware of going forward.
First, a couple of notes - these are my opinions based on reading reviews for a wide variety of music, written by people I define as music critics, and they don’t apply to every critic. There are also a wide variety of music writers who don’t qualify as critics - I think of critics as writers working for larger publications that they don’t own, e.g. Rolling Stone. Independent reviewers on sites like RateYourMusic are similar in some ways, but not others. And self-employed writers on platforms like Substack tend to be even less similar to the aforementioned critics because they control their own ideas and are more free to write how they want vs. towards a pre-existing audience. These observations are only meant to highlight some general trends I’ve found that didn’t match my expectations going in, and they’re simply ideas to keep in mind as possibilities when you read a critical review of a piece of music.
In short, I’m only generalizing to help find patterns I can use to understand what I’m reading, not trying to label people.
Also, remember that these observations aren’t good or bad in and of themselves - they’re just trends I’ve seen, and on their own they aren’t positive or negative at all. Rather, these traits might make some critics’ reviews more or less useful to your music search, depending on your priorities and tastes.
What music critics do
Write and sell words, not music
Critics are, in my experience, good writers with a talent for putting a clever, snarky, insightful, or even harsh set of words together to describe their reaction to music. But the issue that sometimes arises is that the critic makes a living for their words - that means writers must often compete to sound the most clever, the most biting, the most snarky. Sometimes this can lead to a situation where critics are writing to impress or out-write each other rather than trying to put together the clearest picture of the music for actual music fans. In fairness, I believe writers are forced into this competitive behavior by the desire to land jobs and keep them. But I suspect some reviews might take on a more dramatic character than intended because the critic simply got on a roll writing in a certain direction and it sounded good, when their real feelings weren’t quite as extreme as the final piece makes them sound.
Place a lot of emphasis on the lyrics and meaning of songs
Since critics have to generate a lot of words, they have to look into every aspect of the music possible for inspiration and material to critique. This leads to a lot of focus on lyrics and the potential or actual meaning of the lyrics. And that’s great! But some people might not be as interested in reading lyrics as poetry or analyzing them word for word, and for those people, it’s important to realize that critics often focus heavily on this aspect of the music when drawing their conclusions. This is awesome if you’re into it, but if you’re just dancing to the groove, maybe not so much. Just consider how important lyrics are to you, and keep that in mind when reading reviews.
Exist on their own reputations, which they’re hesitant to risk
Critics profit from the reputation that their tastes represent what’s objectively great in music, and they know that everything they write contributes to that perception. That means many are unlikely to take a risky stance on certain music (unless that’s their personal style, in which case they’ll take risky stances on everything), and their reviews of controversial pieces will often be fairly standardized middle-ground reviews, often leaning towards negativity. That’s also fine - but it’s worth noting that critical reviews tend to blunt the edges of the most controversial music. (I’m talking musically, here. How critics cover social controversy (or positive social impact) surrounding music is a separate topic in my view)
Understand social context better than many thanks to being plugged into the music world
This is where I think the traditional music critics shine the most. The experienced ones are often plugged into the music industry to a much larger degree than the rest of us, and they’re in a great position to say how music affects an industry, other artists, etc. They also seem to have a great grasp of the social environment surrounding music, and they can comment much more intelligently on the relationship of the music to society at large, at least compared to a layperson. Not to say they’re perfect by any means, or that they are always right. But a professional critic’s knowledge base is very useful as a starting point for understanding music’s societal context.
Want you to think they’re smarter than you
This isn’t a knock on critics at all, it’s just a fact of their existence - they have to present themselves as smarter than everyone else, since that’s what builds their reputation and personal brands. Just remember that it might not always be true. Their expertise is valuable, but it shouldn’t override your personal tastes and feelings if you disagree. It’s fine to love music that got bad critical reviews, and don’t let the critics’ image of expertise put you off something you love.
What music critics don’t do
Give totally unbiased, objective, or personal music reviews, all the time
Of course this item will vary drastically with the critic’s personal style, but in my experience the larger the audience of the critic (or the larger the publication they write for), the less personal the review will be. This might be a function of experience, as older, more experienced writers tend to be the ones writing for larger publications. And these experienced critics also seem to be more jaded, which is a mixed bag - it can be a blessing in some cases, but it can also shed lots of negativity on music that isn’t new to the critic (who has presumably listened to hundreds or thousands of albums), but might be new to certain listeners.
Write about music that won’t gain them exposure
If you’re writing to grow an audience or generate a lot of views, it probably pays to cover artists everyone is talking about, or soon will be. This can lead, over time, to smaller or up-and-coming artists getting less visibility from big-time critics with limited time to cover every artist.
Relate to less experienced music listeners
There are so many different reasons to love a song - I’ve enjoyed music because it just makes me feel something unique, even if that feeling is unrelated to the music itself. Maybe the song isn’t original, or deeply meaningful, or even the band’s best work, but it’s still fun to listen to. But feel-good or simplistic music doesn’t often do well in critical reviews, and if you only go by the critics ratings, you could miss out on something that’s just plain fun. You don’t always have to listen to the so-called “highest quality” music to have fun.
This is where the critics’ deep experience can be a bad thing - they’ve become so technical about the music, and they’ve heard it all before, so when a new generation’s version of a teenage love song comes out, the critics roll their eyes because it’s so “unoriginal’ or “derivative.” But every generation deserves to make its own version of timeless ideas - like finding and losing love, for example - and sometimes people who have listened to less music will enjoy these “songs of the moment” more than someone who’s heard everything before.
This attitude from critics can also make newer listeners shy away from old music that “everybody should already know.” Sometimes a grizzled critic’s review can make me feel plain stupid for not knowing things they seem to take as obvious, especially about artists from before my time, and that’s not always a useful feeling. That’s just gatekeeping - if someone’s never heard Led Zeppelin before, they shouldn’t feel ashamed of that - they should feel free to listen and enjoy as if it’s brand new music, and not feel bad that old music that “everybody” knows feels new to them.
In summary, the only thing that I see as 100% necessary is that you think about the source of your music recommendations and reviews - and understand the forces molding them - in order to find the best sources you possibly can.
Critics have a lot of wisdom to offer, but like any source, it’s up to you to understand their motivations, tendencies, and points of view of the individual before fully trusting what they have to say.
Project B.A.E. - Best Albums Ever - Episode 8
This is my weekly section for album reviews. Currently listening my way through the Rolling Stone Top 500 Albums of All Time. This is part of Project B.A.E. - Best Albums Ever - where I’m making my own system to categorize music I love and find more music I love.
Tea For The Tillerman - Yusuf / Cat Stevens - 1970
The songwriting was brilliant, wistful, and clean, and the performance was the epitome of the singer-songwriter genre. Again, songwriting was just in the air in 1970, and Yusuf / Cat Stevens was a master of the craft.
Brain Rating: 8
Taste Rating:6
Jams:
“Wild World”
“Miles From Nowhere”
Songs Of Leonard Cohen - Leonard Cohen - 1967
Leonard Cohen was a novelist and poet turned musician, which just sounds so cool I can’t stand it. This album is a pinnacle of the acoustic singer-songwriter genre. Not every song captured me, but the lyrics were excellent and very interesting to follow along with.
Brain Rating: 8.5
Taste Rating: 5
Jams:
“Suzanne”
“So Long, Marianne”
The Weight Of These Wings - Miranda Lambert - 2016
At #480 on the Rolling Stone list, this album is one of the more recent entries I’ve seen in a while. It’s Miranda’s 6th studio album, and it’s a big one, with 2 “discs” of 12 songs each. I really enjoyed the lo-fi sounding vocals in some tracks like “Covered Wagon,” which sounded like it was recorded with an old-school microphone. It gave the songs a cool emotional aspect, especially on the belted notes. Great songwriting as well, even if you’re not a country fan.
Brain Rating: 8
Taste Rating: 5
Jams:
“Runnin’ Just In Case”
“Pushin’ Time”
“Things That Break”
Abraxas - Santana - 1970
What a classic and fantastic album cover, first of all. I have to get that thing on my wall somehow, some way.
The classic songs “One Como Va” and “Black Magic Woman,” are, of course, awesome. What I hadn’t listened to before was the instrumental sections of this album, which are one blended experience that really pulled me in. Sometimes this isn’t my jam, but here it worked, as the beats and guitar and grooves stayed interesting throughout, rather than just “exploring the room” or whatever high musicians like to say when they’re just making noise in the studio for half an hour. And I’m a sucker or a guitar hero, which Carlos Santana certainly is. This one gave me “70’s record shop” vibes in the best way.
Brain Rating: 8.4
Taste Rating: 7.6
Jams:
“Oye Como Va”
“Black Magic Woman”
“Mother’s Daughter”
“Samba Pa Ti”
Bringing It All Back Home - Bob Dylan - 1965
It’s so funny how this kind of music sounds so much better to me coming from a young artist than an old one. Dylan sounds like a frustrated 20-something here (he was 24), rather than the last Dylan album I listened to (Love and Theft) that sounded to me like an old man yelling at strangers. I know this take is probably the result a flaw in my own perception, but I thought it was interesting to share.
I seem to like artists’ early work better, or at least their younger work. That probably says something about me, but it’s also a useful insight into my taste profile. Everyone will feel differently about what I said, but take it as an example of the kind of tendencies to look for in your own music taste.
Anyway, this album was amazing, lyrically and musically, and felt very fresh to me. I think it’s the definition of singer-songwriter genius.
Brain Rating: 9.5
Taste Rating: 8.2
Jams:
“Subterranean Homesick Blues”
“She Belongs To Me”
“Mr. Tambourine Man”
“It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue”
Led Zeppelin II - Led Zeppelin
OMG OMG OMG I’m so excited it’s finally Zeppelin week. This is not going to be an objective review by any measure. I love this band, I’ve always loved this album, and you’re just gonna have to deal with it.
Classic after classic. This is another album I obsessively learned to play on guitar, and to this day I can still feel the rockstar dreams that filled my young head as I did my best to slog through “Heartbreaker” or strum along with “Ramble On.” This might be my favorite album of all time, and it gets the first 10 of this project.
Brain Rating: 9
Taste Rating: 10
Jams:
All of them!
Thanks, you’ve reminded me to snag an Abraxas vinyl for the collection.