Full Transcription:

 

Good morning or afternoon or night depending on where you're listening from. This is Kaitlin Smith coming to you from Ann Arbor, Michigan. Today I'm going to talk a little bit about something that's really important to me, and important to probably pretty much all of you out there, which is music. More specifically, the role of music journalism and music criticism in reviewing songs, albums, performances, albums, you name it. I'm not a journalist. I'm actually studying business here at the University of Michigan, but I'm doing a Minor in Writing, and am a frequent user of music websites. I read music articles all the time, and would just love to start a conversation about the current rating systems and ranking systems that are in place in a lot of them.

 

I have tried my hand at writing promotional style music reviews, but found that I ran into a lot of trouble when trying to come up with the right breadth of words and adjectives to describe sound. I was just writing and sitting and thinking, and it doesn't seem like there are enough words in the English language to accurately portray what something sounds like on paper. But I realized that the reason I was so hung up on these sound adjectives is because the sound of this particular band I was writing about is what stood out to me. I loved their sound, and it's what I wanted to highlight in my review. This brough up questions for me, because I realized that all critics have bias. People interpret music in very different ways and there are infinite elements that you can choose to capitalize on. There's the sound, there's the context, there's the content, there's the substance, there's relevancy to what's going on in modern times, there's how good they are at performing, the list just goes on.

 

In light of the fact that it is impossible to be an unbiased critic, I thought, what is the purpose of reviews at all? I concluded that it is to provide information, and an analysis of this information in such a way that it points the reader in the right direction in terms of sound, so that he or she will get a sense of what the artist was going for, and also to provide some thought on the substance and significance of that song, album, performance, whatever, in a greater context.

 

For the purposes of illustration, I'm going to read a quote from a music review that exemplifies compelling writing.

 

"The vocals are often just vampy flow experiments, but at their best, these verses exhibit the weightless exhilleration of a technitian at work. Drake's never more formidable than when he's shadowboxing, and at it's flashiest, If You're Reading This It's Too Late feels like his rocky run. Inspired by these gauntlet tosses from adversaries high and low, Drake uses the mixtape to toast and taunt a rogues gallary of industry frenemies."

 

So this review, which is from pitchfork.com and is written by Craig Jenkins, basically exemplifies what I find to be awesome music writing. Not only does Jenkins talk about sound in a very interesting way when he talks about "vampy flow experiments," but also talks about what Drake was really saying in this album. A lot of it was a commentary about his rocky relationship with his record label, and foreshadows the end of his work with them. And this is all addressed and analyzed in Jenkins' review. However, the substance of this review is completely opposed by the accompanying rating right next to it of 8.3/10. This is not a perfect rating, but in the article, Jenkins does not once address it. His review is full of praise and analysis, and it's very unclear why Drake wouldn't just be given a 10. This phenomenon is not unique to Jenkins' review. It's all over music journalism and he's just one example. Because the purpose of music journalism is to inform and to offer opinion and inspiration, it seems very counterintuitive that they would so often be accompanied by these numbered labels that don't offer anything except for rogue and unclear opinion.

 

Curious to discuss this with someone with an educated perspective, I sat down with Nick Boyd, who writes music reviews for the Michigan Daily. Here's a little bit of our conversation.

 

(Start excerpt of recorded interview)

 

Kaitlin: Do you think your taste in music affects at all your opinions about things you're reviewing?

 

Nick: Yes, absolutely, 100%. I think I'm totally biased and anything I write should be taken with a grain of salt, and I would never want to give the impression that I have the final say on anything. As a music critic I'm just trying to inform rather than condemn or anything like that.

 

(End of excerpt)

 

So here Nick points out that music reviews are meant to inform, and not, as he put it, to condemn or give the impression that anything is pure fact. We also discussed the rating system at the Michigan Daily.

 

(Start excerpt of recorded interview)

 

Kaitlin: The Michigan Daily, as we understand, has a standard in its reviews where it ranks things from A-F. Is it difficult for you to put a letter on it?

 

Nick: Definitely, because there's a lot of potential ratings between A and F on an album or a single or anything like that. I think it's hardest for a single...well in some ways it's actually easiest and hardest actually because there's no context. But yeah, sort of like I was saying in the previous question, it can sort of take away from the listener's ability to judge for themselves. I can offer my analysis and things I liked and didn't like, but at the end of the day it's not for me to say whether a new Drake song is an A+ or an F.

 

(End of excerpt)

 

Many times during our interview, Nick brought up that he believes the purpose of writing reviews is to point the reader in the right direction. He does this by offering an analysis and opinions that are backed up by evidence. But the fact that there's a letter accompanying his analysis undermines the reader's ability to decide for themselves. However, he did bring up a point that I hadn't thought about before.

 

(Start of excerpt of recorded interview)

 

Nick: The rating system is almost just a way to stir the pot to inspire interest. I don't think the rating system is of much value, and if I'm just writing on my own then I'm not going to give something an F, but I think mainly it's a way to create dialogue, and I think if you look at it from that perspective it's not always a terrible thing.

 

Kaitlin: Okay. I guess in addition to that, do you think there's anything else it brings apart from bringing readership and inspiring dialogue?

 

Nick: No, I don't think it's of massive value. I think it's just completely the author's taste being portrayed in the most subjective manner possible without really any substantial reasoning, especially if the article's about what he had for breakfast. But I do think that the dialogue thing can be interesting. You can give something a grade that other people disagree with and then you have continued discussion about things that the writer may have missed too, so I think it can be interesting in that regard. It can also hold the writer accountable to a certain extent, which can be interesting.

 

(End of excerpt)

 

I think Nick makes a good point that part of what these ratings are meant to do is to attract attention and bring people to the article so they'll actually read the substantive parts. However, when music websites have sections that are titled, "Best 100 Albums of the Year, Based on Our Ratings," it gives off the wrong impression. What about a list of the reviews that are most commented on or most controversial? I think that would still succeed in attracting readers without pushing their buttons by slapping an ambigious number over something that can only be very subjectively analyzed.

 

To reiterate, music journalism has a certain job. It is to analyze sound and substance and context, and point the reader in a certain direction musically. Ratings do just the opposite. They label art in a way that opposes all analysis, which is even honestly further enforced by the idea that they exist to promote readership. There are websites out there that have abandoned ratings completely. This includes Pigeons and Planes, and LA Music Blog, both of which are relevant and respected.

 

The point is, music journalism and journalism in general is meant to inform and explain, not to slap an ambigious label on something that's actually very complex. So for all these reasons, it has come to be my firm belief that ratings do not have a place in journalism, and certainly not within the realm of art and music. Music invites analysis. It invites opinion and discussion, and it deserves better.

 

 

 

 

Music Used in the Podcast

In chronological order

 

Afternoon Soul by Gramatik

 

Energy by Drake

 

Know Yourself (Instrumental Version) by Drake

 

The Journey by Tom Misch

 

Waves by Imagined Herbal Flows feat. CYN