The Americana and roots music authority

when my lips are sealed

If you have nothing nice to say, don't say it.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

If you don't like vanilla ice cream, we offer 27 other flavors.

All of the above sentences or phrases came to mind this morning as I listened to a very early advance copy of an album (I still call them that) from an artist that is known, loved and (most likely) advertised here at this site. It was delivered to me two weeks ago and although I sampled it a little, it wasn't until this morning that I listened to it from start to finish. I'm a big fan of this artist and own everything that has ever been recorded and released. And as it turned out, I don't like this new album at all.

While I often post here, I'm not apt to do music reviews. Too much work (for no pay), too much fact checking, too much pressure and too many writing and intellectual skill sets that I don't possess. If I find something I like, I share it. If I listen to something I don't particularly enjoy, you'll usually never hear about it from me. (Footnote...if you look hard enough you'll find a review I did on Bob Dylan's Christmas album where I just trashed the darn thing. I thought he could weather the blows. And it turned out I was wrong. The video for "Must Be Santa" is a classic.)

I've never been a fan of most music reviews...or maybe it's more accurate to say the actual process. And I'm not talking about the blogging community. I mean those published by folks who get paid for what they do and are serviced by record labels, publicists and promoters. And my criticism toward critics is not because they get free stuff and might be swayed (because most aren't), but by being awash in so much material I think it's hard for them to maintain perspective. Over time the process makes it easier for them to say thumbs up or down, yes or no, good or bad. Which in my opinion makes it unfair to both the artist and the reader.

Now here's the asterisk or fine print in all this:

Had Grant Alden not recently written about a little-known singer named Ruby Johnson, I'd never have learned about her or heard her. Ditto for Elizabeth Cook. If Adam Sheets didn't wax enthusiastically about John Mellencamp, I would have never bothered to check him out again. (And I'm still not a fan Adam, but you made me want to try.) And don't get me started about the writing and reviews posted here from Ed Karn...his taste in music is so much like my own I sometimes feel we were separated at birth. All I need to see is the name of the artist he is writing about and I just go to Amazon and start sampling it. And usually buy it. Kim Ruehl is another one who helps empty out my wallet whenever she writes about someone new. She's like E.F. Hutton to me.

In a world where any Tom, Dick, Harry, Jane, Sara or Katie can record music on their laptop, post it on You Tube and My Space, sell it on iTunes and Amazon, play at the local coffee shop or on the quad...how do we discover this? For myself, I don't need to know if someone is not talented or has made an un-listenable album. I do need to know if someone is talented or has recorded something that is special to not only them, but the writer and potentially me. And that's why I like to read blogs and also recommendations that people post...because more often than not they do it because they like something enough to want to share it passionately. And I like when that happens.

I've read many posts and articles about music (or film or plays or food or whatever) criticism and the importance it plays in our culture. I do "get it" but just aren't so sure I "buy it". And this community is a big enough tent to allow for whatever it is that you may desire. So it's not my intention to spark a debate about reviews or music critics. As I often do, I'm just thinking out loud.

Today, I'm happy to be clear of who I am and what it is I do here. I blog. I share thoughts. I share things I like. I share opinions. I share memories. I share my music library with you and tell you what I like. But I don't do formal reviews. (At least not all that often unless I'm in love with an album and have stars in my eyes.) And when I hear something that I really don't like, my lips will be sealed.

Comment by Kim Ruehl on July 9, 2010 at 10:20am: Funny - I was just having this coversation about criticism yesterday. My friend and I agreed that, anymore, taking time to put into print the fact that an album is no good, is entirely unnecessary. There's so much music available, it's likely people won't listen to or buy the record in question anyway. After all, people don't generally buy full albums anymore. What serves readers and artists is taking the time to point out music that's actually worth purchasing. Shining a spotlight on an artist just to say they're not worth your time seems like a waste of time. Like my friend noted, "I don't need someone to tell me not to listen to something I already wasn't going to listen to. Tell me what's worth seeking out."

Comment by Craig Young on July 9, 2010 at 11:57am: I'm not certain who coined the term but "the worst press is no press at all."

Comment by Jack on July 9, 2010 at 12:31pm: A negative, but thoughtful review by a writer who can articulate respectfully why he reached the conclusion he has is not altogether a bad thing, it can be instructive. But a sneering, sarcastic "this sucks" by someone with an inability to explain how they reached that conclusion is pointless. As with so much of life, the "how" and the "who" matters as much as the "what". That's why I think so many of these ND discussions are so useful and informative, most are, generally, by passionate music lovers focused on what's special with an ability to explain why.

Comment by Shane on July 9, 2010 at 1:48pm: Well said, Ed.

Comment by Will James on July 9, 2010 at 2:47pm: I think I'd have to disagree about reviewing an album "that's no good." Do reviewers just exist to push what they like? For example, because I generally dislike almost anything labeled Southern Rock and from Alabama, I've managed to avoid Drive-By Truckers. My buddy in New York (and it seems everyone in this community) thinks they're the cat's pajamas. So I acquired their latest. Verified everything I thought. Then, only when I raised doubts about the album, did I hear from this community that, well, it's not their greatest by a long shot. My buddy visited and brought along a DVD; my opinion basically remains the same (except now I agree that Cooley is the man and Hood should break off and form his own rock band, which could be quite good), but I understand how good they can be. Had I read an honest (good or even just negative) review of The Big To-Do (was that irony?), I may have given their earlier stuff a chance.

Comment by Victoria Folkerts on July 9, 2010 at 3:57pm: Thoughtful and intersting posting.

Comment by Carol Rodriguez on July 9, 2010 at 4:09pm: I couldn't agree more Ed. To me music is sacred and just because I don't get something at one particular time and place doesn't mean it's not good. In another six months or six years it could be just what the doctor ordered and I could very well be listening to nothing else. That's not to say that when something truly captures my heart and soul I don't shout it from the rooftops - why not share the joy? I've also been known to discover, love and evolve from artists that others have yet to discover, and just because I'm "over it" doesn't mean the rest of the world shouldn't find them fantastic. Of course, I'm no reviewer - I'm just a music nerd with occasional opinions. It's all good, even the stuff I'm not into - I would never consider myself schooled enough to be a snob or exalted enough to judge (at least in a public forum.)

Comment by SoCalBert on July 9, 2010 at 4:50pm: Ed, was it the Alejandro Escovedo CD that disappointed you?

Good criticism, especially of music, is one of the things I most enjoy reading just for fun. (No coincidence that ND magazine was my favorite. Wish we had more from those writers in this ND "community.") But it certainly would not be interesting if the critics were not critical at all but just gushing all the time. I have reflected on why I so enjoy reading criticism and it occurred to me that you gotta be pretty good at what you are doing if you are gonna be picking apart someone else. So insofar as writing itself is an artform critics are just fune to read sometimes. If you look at the reviews in your major newspapers-- of anything: food, books, movies etc-- I think you'll find that some of the best wordsmiths can be found among the critics unafraid to produce the occassional scathing review. I'd venture that the critics who tend to only fawn over their subjects are probably not such great or interesting writers. (Yes, Pitchfork & Paste, I am looking at you.)

It is also somewhat educational to read the opinions of those with some claim of expertise. And I think there is more opportunity for interesting analysis in a mixed or a negative review than a glowing one. and if the analysis is clear enough you can point to a sentence and say "this is where you missed the boat"-- (I am recalling reading the LA Times negative review of Steve Earle's "Townes", my favorite of the year.)

Some negative reviews are simply well-deserved, e.g. most of the crap aimed for the lowest common denominator of pop culture; or when an established artist just goes through some contrived motions for the easy payday. I'll concede this though: if it is some struggling artist that's barely scraping by but not compromising their craft, I really don't need to read some journalist teeing off on them.

Comment by Will James on July 9, 2010 at 4:56pm: I think that gets back to my DBT example, as well as the different media. A well established artist should get the full wrath if the product is far below former efforts, as compared to some basically self-produced CD by Jane Doe. Online, there is no need to deal with Jane. However, due to column inches in the "old" media, there may be room or even a necessity to look at Ms. Doe. (Not to contradict myself, but just to offer some defense of the unknown, an serious online publication such as this should be open to the new, and, good or bad, take a swing at it, even if it isn't all good.)

Comment by Egon Danielson on July 9, 2010 at 8:12pm: Great discussion! Here's my two cents: For the artist, I think it's fairly simple; Good reviews feel good, bad reviews feel bad. If you really tried to do your best, and it gets trashed, it's painful. On the record sales side, it's not so cut and dry. I'd say reviews tend to hurt or help the unknowns the most. I am inclined to buy records from new artists that are highly praised by reviewers or publications that I've grown to respect. If the record is from an established artist I really dig, I read the reviews but buy it anyway, and make up my own mind.