LOCAL MUSIC CRITICISM 101 (ELLIOT ARMS CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE)

Reviewing albums is not as simple as one may think. All art is ultimately relative to the individual. And of course everyone has their own opinions--especially about music. Communicating your unique insights while tactfully addressing the prior musical knowledge or tastes you perceive your readers to have can be a delicate balancing act.

In short, a good music review is written in an objective style. Generally speaking, it is focused purely on the music or artist itself and is written for a defined audience. In other words, there is usually no reason for the writer to explicitly state his / her own personal tastes, expectations, or projections. It is of course possible for one to make a valid point using such statements, but in most cases doing so is unnecessary and simply lazy or sloppy writing. In fact, the writer should never have to use the first person and rarely the word "I".

As far as writing for an audience goes, one should always do their homework and consider how a given piece of music is perceived / likely to be perceived by their audience. A few general examples of what NOT to do would include:

• Writing about a release from a veteran, yet very obscure band without any background information, as if most people already know who they are. 
• Writing about the new Radiohead album like it's their debut release; providing a detailed overview of their career, as if your readers aren't already familiar with their work.
• Writing an intensely negative review about the new Radiohead album with no mercy or balance, as if most people will uniformly share your opinion. 
• Writing an intensely positive review about a critical flop (or over-hyping a promising, but unproven up-and-coming act) without providing reasonable justification.

I can say from experience that this process is also not made easier by a weekly deadline (or a maximum word count). Some albums simply take longer to absorb and fully appreciate. Deadlines can sometimes conflict with thoughtful criticism. Additionally, the pressure and eventual monotony of the weekly grind can eventually wear a music journalist down. The joy of creatively sharing one's passion & knowledge can sometimes be reduced to the jaded exercise of completing a predictable formulaic template (exhibit one: the satirical Radiohead review MAD LIB on Antiquiet). How many "comeback" album reviews must one write? How many times must one confront another "sophomore slump" album from last summer's indie darlings? How often should one attempt to put a positive spin on music that's popular, yet seemingly uninspired or blatantly commercialized? Continually seeking out inspiration that keeps the fire burning is crucial to any endeavor.

Most importantly, the task of writing a solid album review is much more difficult when the music you're writing about is made not by major label artists in far away cities, but rather by local musicians in your own community. In this case, praise must be warranted or earned. Tell a story that's relatable and enlightening. My rule of thumb is to stay positive without kissing anyone's ass. On the other hand, criticism should be constructive. Negative reviews can and do sting. Furthermore, it's quite possible that one day the band you decide to rip on (or members of that band) might become very good. And if you are seeking press access (and/or a free copy of their album) and they've heard what you've said, they might just tell you to go fuck yourself.