Steve Almond, you're a little pitchy

I wrote a quite positive review of a Bobby McFerrin concert for today's Globe: http://bit.ly/cozfj2. Meanwhile, Steve Almond has a piece on the op-ed page in which he says music criticism is just worthless and self-aggrandizing negativity: http://bit.ly/aiAt2H.

Awesome.

Accepting the slings and arrows is something you have to do when you write for public consumption, of course. And Almond was making a general point, not slinging at me in particular. So I only thought of a few NSFW headlines for this post - most involving anatomically impossible acts - before I calmed down. I actually met Almond a few weeks ago, when he appeared in a reading series run by friends of mine; he was hilarious and so filthy there's no way I could offend his sensibilities anyhow.

But what about his larger point?

Almond's piece is upfront about the fact that he was a crappy rock critic, employing a "standard template" full of cheap jokes that made him "feel like a big shot." And then at an MC Hammer concert, he had a revelation that what he was snarking about was making a lot of people happy. Therefore, criticism is "pointless."

"After all, you can’t rescind the pleasure someone derives from a particular piece of music," Almond writes. "All you can do is deride that pleasure, which strikes me as a fairly stingy way to make a living."

If I bought his narrow definition of criticism - "all you can do is deride the pleasure" - then I might agree with him. But Almond says he still writes about music a lot, he just devotes himself to spreading the word about bands he loves. Yeehaw, Steve, you're great, but spreading the word about bands you love is part of being a critic too. I've always tried to adhere to the old maxim - Was it H.G. Wells who said it? Orwell? The Internet is not finding it for me - that our first duty is to praise that which is praiseworthy.

I've certainly done my share of snarking, too. And there have been times when I've gotten angry letters for liking a show that some felt was disappointing. It's all part of the job description, which asks a reviewer to do several things at once, including provide an honest reaction to a show, describe it vividly for those who could not attend, take note of the audience reaction, and yes, offer some sort of artistic scorecard. (Others will add to or subtract from that list.) A review like the one I had in the Globe today can be a keepsake for someone who was there, a goad to someone who wasn't (to get tix the next time McFerrin is in town), or simply an enlightening read for someone not otherwise interested. It's information for music consumers trying to decide where to spend their hard-earned dollars. And maybe, sometimes, it becomes part of the record by which an artist is judged.

The rise of the Internet's participatory culture makes awfully clear suggests that people want more opinion, not less. Of course, it also seems that they care as much about their own opinions as mine or Steve Almond's. We are, like the judges on "American Idol," as much conversation starters as anything else now. The open market determines whether our opinions are esteemed or ignored.

Like Almond's, my own musical skills proved meager - way back in junior high, in my case - but I like to think my ears are good. As only a part-time critic, I've still attended many more concerts, and a wider variety of them, than all but the most devoted music fan. Of course somebody who only attends one show a year is going to love it, even if it's Justin Bieber; perspective is something else critics provide. More than a few times, I've written that the audience liked a show but I didn't, and tried to explain the disparity. 

Not that there aren't critics who do it to "feel like a big shot." But no good critic takes the job because they hate music or theater or whatever. They do it to share their pleasure and their knowledge, in the perhaps optimistic belief that knowing more = more fun.

Knocking down a crap show from time to time can be a consumer service, given ticket prices these days. And I bet Almond was pretty funny back when he did it. It's just too bad he didn't get the job after his epiphany. Even criticism can be rewarding if you care about your work.#

Comments

[JeremyDGoodwin]

Thanks for the link and for your response! I think you have it right: Steve Almond doesn't seem to understand that he's not attacking music criticism, he's attacking *bad* music criticism. The epiphany he described was that he was a bad music critic. Rather than seek a new way of going about his job, he quit...and now, 20 years later, suggests that everyone else quit too.

Http://jeremydgoodwin.tumblr.com