the utility of music reviews

[hibernal_dream]

Are there limits to the extent which we can objectively evaluate music? Is it significant that a statement "X band is complete garbage" is made by me and a statement that "X is totally great" was made by you? Say X which I consider total garbage has no value for me, but might it not have value for a 12 year old boy on the other side of the planet, who discovers an idea, melody or pattern he had not encountered before - even if it is the equivalent of a chimpanzee throwing a tantrum in a musical instrument store?

This idea in part depends on an acceptance of the relevance of the distinction between music as the thing-in-itself and the music as heard under a particular set of circumstances or experiences. On one side, we could say all people are similar enough to be able to assess music in a similar way - though observation tells us otherwise, since musical 'taste' varies widely from person to person unless it's in the Top 50 charts. Alternatively, if we assume all listeners are under a very different set of circumstances and life experience, we can't infer the same benefit or detriment to any music which inherently requires a certain level of experience to understand (pretty much everything, unless it's Pantera). That would be like recommending a class in Advanced Quantum Physics to a 6th grader. To actually interpret a song it needs to pass through our own, individual, internal filter.

This is not to reject all discussion on music, but broad, absolute statements in music reviews are probably not highly useful, especially on a discussion forum involving people of all age, gender and race. But the alternative is reviews filled with dry analyzes of coherence of structure and form, their mathematical integrity accompanied by pointless statements such as "I really enjoyed this album". So what use, if any, are music reviews if they are not directed to a group of like-minded people? Is it necessary to add a disclaimer saying "this review is only useful for people of character X who are over age Y and have read book Z"? More importantly, when can I say "Agalloch blows" and be right about it?

EDIT: I just realized Cythraul kind of covered similar ground in his "some questions about art" thread. Ah well

 

[Justin S.]

whatpretentiousnonsense

 

[Nile577]

I am not certain that the 'subject' 'object' divide upon which your question is founded has been sufficiently considered. Since time is short I hope you will forgive me if I again post some relevant sections of my notes/transcript/summary of the introduction to Merleau-Ponty's Pheneomenology of Perception. Despite the problems inherent with an 'ology,' it offers an excellent introduction and engages strongly with the question of perspectives, arguing that IN phenomenology - a return to the experience - the subjective and objective are united.

If I get time I will try and write a bit about "aesthetics" and art in a subsequent post. Briefly: Kant's notion of the Sensus Communis is very important here, but I think any attempt to engage with it (in 'refutation' or 'affirmation') must take into account Heidegger's monumental 'The Origin of the work of Art?'

What is phenomenology?

Phenomenology is the study of essences and the attempt to define them. It is a ‘transcendental’ philosophy in that it considers the fundamental nature of thought and being, but it is a philosophy for which the world is ‘already there’ before reflection begins. This perspective, this ‘facticity,’ is taken as the position from which to conduct philosophical enquiry into how contact is established with the world.

Phenomenology attempts to return to the ‘essence’ of our experiences as they are, without recourse to the causal explanations offered by scientific objectivism, sociology or history. It offers an account of space, time and existence as they are lived.

Phenomenology and Science

Phenomenology is from the start a rejection of science. One cannot ‘step outside’ of consciousness and argue from an objective viewpoint. I am not an object for biological investigation, existing in coordinates of objective space. ‘All my knowledge of the world, even my scientific knowledge, is gained from my own particular point of view.’ Science is the ‘second-order’ expression of this particular point of view, this experience. If we wish to understand science properly, we must return to the primary, lived experience that underpins it.

Science offers an explanation of the lived world but in returning to the living (as a verb) of that world we find that ‘I am not a ‘living creature’ nor even a ‘man,’ nor again even ‘a consciousness’ endowed with the characteristics biology might ascribe to them. I am the absolute source.’ There are no ‘befores,’ no antecedents to my existence. My existence is not granted by the physical and social conditions of my environment. Rather it reaches out to sustain them. I alone bring into being the world in which I live. If I were not there to scan it with my gaze, the ‘horizon’ would not exist, since its distance from me is not one of its properties.

The scientific viewpoint, holding my existence as a moment in the world’s, is therefore naïve and dishonest, ‘as is geography in relation to the countryside in which we have learnt beforehand what a forest, a prairie or a river is.’

"Objectivism" vs. "Subjectivism"

Extreme objectivism and extreme subjectivism are united in the notion of the world (or rationality). Rationality is measured by experiences in which it is disclosed. To say that there exists rationally is to acknowledge that perspectives blend and that perceptions confirm each other - a 'meaning' emerges. But this objective rational world should not be set apart in abstraction. The rational 'sense' of the world is revealed where my perceptual experiences intersect with others' and engage with them like gears. Thus it is founded on radical subjectivism and intersubjectivism (that is: on my own past experiences and of other people's past experiences in my own past experience). Objectivism and subjectivism return to the LIVED EXPERIENCE of 'being-in-the-world.'

The phenomenological world is not an explicit expression of pre-existing being, but the laying down of being. Philosophy is not reflection on pre-existing truth but, like art, the act of bringing truth into being. Rationality is not discovered as already existing but is SUSTAINED. There cannot be an objective world outside of consciousness (just as there cannot be a world) but the miracle of shared experience between people leads towards the PHENOMENA of an objective world.

 

[Έρεβος]

More importantly, when can I say "Agalloch blows" and be right about it?

Fuck you. Never. Bitch.

Anyway, in what way is discussing music any different than discussing philosophy? The only limit on evaluating music should be how good a case you can present. In other words: "Agalloch blows" is just as dumb as "fascism is the best ever."

 

[MURAI]

Oh yeah, I ran across some Nile577's album reviews of Malevolent Creation on metal-archives.

 

[hibernal_dream]

Thanks Nile, that helped a lot.

I can't quite fully see how Nile's post relates to music. Are you saying that all observations which purport to be objective, whether scientific or music reviews, are actually phenomenological? I don't have a problem with accepting that. I do think there is an important difference between the two. Science is not really about evaluating anything, it is about seeing what is there. Reviews tend to go further and put a value on sound and that is what I have a problem with. My argument doesn't really rest upon the objective/subjective distinction.

Final question - isn't your argument posited from your own perspective? You're saying we can't step outside ourselves to see how things really are, but at the same time you're rejecting science by doing that exact thing. Aside from the theories, do you really believe all that you're saying - that no objective world exists? That seems to be going a bit too far for me to accept.

Also, I should have said, I don't hate agalloch - I could have just as easily asked "when can i say agalloch blows and be wrong?".

 

[Έρεβος]

]
Also, I should have said, I don't hate agalloch - I could have just as easily asked "when can i say agalloch blows and be wrong?".

 

[Έρεβος]

Final question - isn't your argument posited from your own perspective? You're saying we can't step outside ourselves to see how things really are, but at the same time you're rejecting science by doing that exact thing. Aside from the theories, do you really believe all that you're saying - that no objective world exists? That seems to be going a bit too far for me to accept.

It's not that he believes no objective world exists. It's just that he knows it doesn't matter. I'd say he probably has no opinion on the existence of such a world.

 

[Viremic]

Statements in music reviews are basically as useful to you as how similar your music tastes are to those of the reviewers.

Music does sound good or bad depending on the circumstances under which it is listened to - but you could probably look at the circumstances under which a particular piece of music would sound good, and perhaps analyse whether or not it is actually good from that (eg. the emotions of the listener, how much similar music they've heard etc). Also, the purpose of the music should be considered - I don't know that you can compare a piece of music that is intended to be danced to in one way or another, with one that is intended to be listened to for the musics sake.

 

[Seditious]

the point of a review isn't to say 'omg i love this, get it!" but to let people know what they would be getting or avoiding.

 

[Seditious]

It's not that he believes no objective world exists. It's just that he knows it doesn't matter. I'd say he probably has no opinion on the existence of such a world.

Hume FTW

 

[felinusz]

Music reviews are quite utilitarian if one uses them correctly.

The whole idea is to discover a reviewer who shares one's own taste. This reviewer can then be used as a fairly consistant benchmark through which we can judge content prior to actually listening to it.

In this day and age of rampant copyright infringement however, I don't think the reviewer has much purpose.

Want to see if it's good? Download it and listen.

Is it necessary to add a disclaimer saying "this review is only useful for people of character X who are over age Y and have read book Z"? More importantly, when can I say "Agalloch blows" and be right about it?

These kinds of questions do not have definitive, or even compelling answers.

Personal aesthetic is not something which can be gift wrapped and labelled.

 

[Seditious]

Statements in music reviews are basically as useful to you as how similar your music tastes are to those of the reviewer.

not true, he who says 'this sounds exactly like their last album' helps me avoid a shit album if I didn't like the former. or if he says 'it's more like their older work' or 'it's similar to this other well known band' or 'they've mixed this and that elements this time' or 'the production quality is higher' and so on... whether I'm some BM nazi who only likes shitty tapedeck muted fuckin Graveland sounding albums doesn't matter, the review is helpful whether or not I actually like what the reviewer likes, all that matters is that I know something about what is being reviewed thanks to the reviewer.

 

[thisisaformicatable]

Music can be evaluated objectively, but most people can't get past the point of admitting that maybe their personal favorites and good music aren't synonymous.

the point of a review isn't to say 'omg i love this, get it!" but to let people know what they would be getting or avoiding.

A good review should aspire to be more than just a product review. A review should examine the album on a relatively objective level, make some meaningful observations about it, look at in a way that you hadn't considered, something more ambitious than evaluating the mundane ingredients (riffs, vocals) that make up the whole. I don't need a review to tell me that fans of band X will like this album, that's what those stickers on the shrink wrap are for. A good review should tell you something new and interesting about the album whether you've never heard it before or it's one of your lifetime favorites.

 

[Viremic]

not true, he who says 'this sounds exactly like their last album' helps me avoid a shit album if I didn't like the former. or if he says 'it's more like their older work' or 'it's similar to this other well known band' or 'they've mixed this and that elements this time' or 'the production quality is higher' and so on... whether I'm some BM nazi who only likes shitty tapedeck muted fuckin Graveland sounding albums doesn't matter, the review is helpful whether or not I actually like what the reviewer likes, all that matters is that I know something about what is being reviewed thanks to the reviewer.

I guess I was referring to subjective statements, rather than objective ones - though it perhaps still isn't completely true.

 

[hibernal_dream]

Music reviews are quite utilitarian if one uses them correctly.

The whole idea is to discover a reviewer who shares one's own taste. This reviewer can then be used as a fairly consistant benchmark through which we can judge content prior to actually listening to it.

In this day and age of rampant copyright infringement however, I don't think the reviewer has much purpose.

Want to see if it's good? Download it and listen.


These kinds of questions do not have definitive, or even compelling answers.

Personal aesthetic is not something which can be gift wrapped and labelled.

Well, if you do a quick search of UM, you'll find very many absolute statements - "this song is good" isn't about personal aesthetic. They are not saying it is in accordance with their taste, or that they like it. I find that problematic.

 

[death metal black metal]

Are there limits to the extent which we can objectively evaluate music?

There are limits to everything, and also the possibility of overcoming them to the point where it doesn't matter.

Communicating that through text is difficult, mostly because those who write try to describe effect and not the music itself. They are also obsessed with how clever they are.

Some reviews are less prone to this. Whether they're good or not is another issue. My advice is to find a reviewer whose taste you understand, and buy according to that, even if they love everything you hate.

 

[Cythraul]

Well, if you do a quick search of UM, you'll find very many absolute statements - "this song is good" isn't about personal aesthetic. They are not saying it is in accordance with their taste, or that they like it. I find that problematic.

Does this present some sort of practical problem or does it just offend your taste? I'm tempted to ask "Who gives a crap?"

 

[hibernal_dream]

Of course it presents a practical problem. If i'm reading a review from an anonymous author and it gets at 10/10, should I buy the damn CD or not? It seems like people are saying there is no way to be right or wrong in a review, unlike say a literature review or science article. If art commentary it's just long-winded bullshit about taste then what's the point?

 

[Cythraul]

Of course it presents a practical problem. If i'm reading a review from an anonymous author and it gets at 10/10, should I buy the damn CD or not? It seems like people are saying there is no way to be right or wrong in a review, unlike say a literature review or science article. If art commentary it's just long-winded bullshit about taste then what's the point?

I don't see the problem. There's a difference between describing music and making value judgments about it. Most reviews consist of both. How are the value judgments detracting from the usefulness of the review? Can't you just take the value judgments with a grain of salt and make your decision to check out the music based on the author's description of it? I could sympathize with your point if most reviews consisted solely of "This is good" or "This album rules."