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.

So with the difficulties of being a published music critic in mind (and at the risk of being told to fuck off), I must publicly comment that the local music reviews that have appeared in the Second Supper this year are just one example of the sort first person, non-contextual stuff I've mentioned here. Again, I don't want to put down anyone's creative efforts, but I think the column could be more consistent or self-aware, particularly since we're talking about local music.

The March 3rd issue of Second Supper included a glowing review of La Crosse folk act Elliot Arms' self-titled EP; complete with hyperbolic statements like "When I want to listen to the pop equivalent of the Fleet Foxes, I just put in their [Elliot Arms'] new release" and "What Bon Iver became for Eau Claire and winter-inspired folk music, I think Elliot Arms could become for La Crosse and spring."

Now don't get me wrong, Elliot Arms is certainly a talented and engaging local group. They really don't deserve to be caught in any crossfire here--check them out yourself in the video below from their performance at my Driftless Music Showcase in Minneapolis on March 18th. Talking with them at the show, both Ben and Ryan reiterated to me the idea that art is relative and encouraged me to simply "write what I want."

So, the point is that this unmeasured review was proceeded and followed by reluctantly positive reviews of music by much more experienced local acts like Michelle Lynn (2/3/11), Porcupine (3/10/11), and T.U.G.G. (1/27/11). All of those reviews were prefaced with some variant of "I really expected / wanted to hate this, but hey..." That sloppy, gonzo-style of writing can be amusing, and is more or less fine, in-and-of-itself (from the T.U.G.G. review: "I don’t particularly care for reggae. I mean I like it; I’m just not in love with it...It’s probably because I don’t smoke pot"). Again, the moral here is that a sustained lack of consistency and objective approach caused this column to drift from its self-created "center". And after all: credibility, integrity and context are a few of the major things that compel people to read music reviews and visit websites like Pitchfork or Brooklyn Vegan in the first place.

Furthermore, claiming the Elliot Arms' EP (and its relationship-oriented tracks) "...[are] never crippled by the overdramatic tendencies many [sic] guitar-driven music suffers from" isn't doing the band any favors either. It probably actually hurts them by giving potential listeners false expectations. Likewise, wasting space and allowing preconceived projections to cloud a review of an established local act simply makes the writer seem out of touch, the band seem more ordinary, and distracts the reader from the story or music at hand.

Once more, I'm willing to give any creative person the benefit of the doubt. People can/will get better (its been a joy to see the Second Supper evolve over the years). There is also no substitute for effort, thoughtfulness, and passion. I experienced that first hand writing a weekly album review column for the "Teen Beat" section of the Rochester Post-Bulletin when I was 18. Click the following links to check out my contextual, positive-yet-grounded reviews of:

• "Diorama" by Silverchair 
• "Greendale" by Neil Young
• the self-titled independent follow-up to local band Rearview Mirror's major label debut

Very interested to hear any responses to this blog post. I realize I'm probably over analyzing all of this...and a month or so too late to boot. Doing what feels right, despite whatever criticism is encountered along the way, takes courage. And I respect that. One last thought: during my stint writing for the Post-Bulletin, I was once recognized in public by a total stranger who immediately (and very pointedly) told me that she thought my negative review of Fuel's 2003 disc "Natural Selection" was way off the mark. Of course the album still stinks, but her comments stung nonetheless.