Review of Buffalo Springfield show by Bob Lefsetz w/ commentary on the industry.

[g6120]

I posted it in the Acoustic section because that's where I hang and know most people but thought you might be interested in reading this very thought provoking review.

 

I was also at that show last Wednesday and it was awesome!

Here's the thread:

 

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/showthread.php?2792836-OT-Review-of-Buffalo-Springfield-6-8-Santa-Barbara-show-by-Lefsetz

[TIMKEYS]

I am more of a loggins and macina fan.

[3shiftgtr]

Awww...hat dammit.

 

What a sentimental heap of happy horse{censored}. It was all about the music? Then in the review, why did he not say anything about THE FARKIN MUSIC????

 

I'm sure Buf Spring brought about a bunch of nostalgic feelings. I've been there. "Seeing a clear path to your past without forgetting who you are." Paying for $200 seats, the weak performance, the music of your childhood, and the feeble bastards sitting around you took care of that.

 

Meanwhile John McGlaughlin does his damndest to push his playing and the boundaries with every record of his life.

 

As does Allan Holdsworth. As does Pat Metheny. As do many serious musicians who never got in this thing for the fame in the first place. They got in it cuz they are SERIOUS ass musicians.

 

Typical rock criticism bull{censored}...it's all about the culture, NOT the music.

 

Not buying it, sorry.....

[Vito Corleone]

Then in the review, why did he not say anything about THE FARKIN MUSIC????

 

He did. He said Stephen Stills couldn't sing anymore. Which he can't. It didn't even SOUND like him on the video clip. Didn't even look like him either. Beyond that, there wasn't much else to say. Loose band sounding like a bad cover version of a great tune. He said something about hearing the great opening notes of their one hit and Stills playing guitar really well, but I thought most of that sounded pretty weak.

 

Too bad. I guess there's something to be said for getting up on stage and continuing to do it while you still can, but it's a pretty sad legacy when the only valuable thing these guys can bring to a performance any longer is the fact that they are still alive.

[drewl]

Meanwhile John McGlaughlin does his damndest to push his playing and the boundaries with every record of his life.

 

As does Allan Holdsworth. As does Pat Metheny. As do many serious musicians who never got in this thing for the fame in the first place. They got in it cuz they are SERIOUS ass musicians.

 

QUOTE]

 

Snoooze.....yawn.....

Last time I saw CSN, Stills played some acoustic jams that would have impressed Metheney and Mcyawn-on...

All four memebers of CSNY have constantly stretched out and done different things over the years, okay maybe not Crosby, but certainly Steven and Neil.

[3shiftgtr]

 

He did. He said Stephen Stills couldn't sing anymore. Which he can't. It didn't even SOUND like him on the video clip. Didn't even look like him either. Beyond that, there wasn't much else to say. Loose band sounding like a bad cover version of a great tune. He said something about hearing the great opening notes of their one hit and Stills playing guitar really well, but I thought most of that sounded pretty weak.

 

 

The article mentions music, but is not about music primarily. It is primarily about culture. He used waaaay more words on the culture surrounding the event than he did on the music.

[3shiftgtr]

 

Snoooze.....yawn..... Last time I saw CSN, Stills played some acoustic jams that would have impressed Metheney and Mcyawn-on... All four memebers of CSNY have constantly stretched out and done different things over the years, okay maybe not Crosby, but certainly Steven and Neil.

 

 

Look, this ain't about the type or style of music. I am certainly NOT hacking on work Stills/Young have done. I'm talking about the seriousness of them as musicians. Their continued output as artists. And the comparison to those who DON"T charge $200 {censored}ing dollars to see a lame ass performance, where some {censored}ing "critic" (who wouldn't know the 5 cannons of rhetoric if it bit them in the ass) who cuts them a pass for flabby musicianship.

 

But for you, I guess it is about the style of music.

 

So in your style of music, you don't have to pay $200 to see Bert Jansch suck, or Pierre Bensusan, or Richard Thompson, or Leonard Cohen....they and many others are just as old as B.S. and are KICKING ASS.....

[Nijyo]

 

Look, this ain't about the type or style of music. I am certainly NOT hacking on work Stills/Young have done. I'm talking about the seriousness of them as musicians. Their continued output as artists. And the comparison to those who DON"T charge $200 {censored}ing dollars to see a lame ass performance, where some {censored}ing "critic" (who wouldn't know the 5 cannons of rhetoric if it bit them in the ass) who cuts them a pass for flabby musicianship. But for you, I guess it is about the style of music. So in your style of music, you don't have to pay $200 to see Bert Jansch suck, or Pierre Bensusan, or Richard Thompson, or Leonard Cohen....they and many others are just as old as B.S. and are KICKING ASS.....

 

 

It depends on if you think that the only proper way to be a performing musician is to always try to do something different and new.

 

Also know as the "we're not AD/CD" school of thought.

 

It's really only one way of looking at it. Another way is "I like doing this style and form of music, people seem to really like how I do it, so I stick with it."

[3shiftgtr]

 

It depends on if you think that the only proper way to be a performing musician is to always try to do something different and new. Also know as the "we're not AD/CD" school of thought. It's really only one way of looking at it. Another way is "I like doing this style and form of music, people seem to really like how I do it, so I stick with it."

 

 

People don't go to see B.S. for the amazing quality of the musicianship, vocals, etc., much less for a display of their creativity. Nope, they go to see a nostalgia act. But if you are going to charge $200 a ticket...."I like doing this style..." etc. doesn't hold water because then it becomes about value. And if anyone pays $200 to see sub par musicianship by a bunch of guys that can't perform to professional expectations, well then.....

 

Using your AC/DC example, it'd be like paying $275 to see them 10 years from now, and all they do is stand there, the singer barely able to cop it, and Angus sitting on a stool for the gig.

 

My point is that the REVIEWER cut these guys way too much slack when there are tons of musicians their age and beyond, delivering the goods at a fraction of the price. And these guys get a pass why? It has nothing to do the style of music, who they are or what....it has to do with WHY do they get a pass?

[Nijyo]

 

People don't go to see B.S. for the amazing quality of the musicianship, vocals, etc., much less for a display of their creativity. Nope, they go to see a nostalgia act. But if you are going to charge $200 a ticket...."I like doing this style..." etc. doesn't hold water because then it becomes about value. And if anyone pays $200 to see sub par musicianship by a bunch of guys that can't perform to professional expectations, well then..... Using your AC/DC example, it'd be like paying $275 to see them 10 years from now, and all they do is stand there, the singer barely able to cop it, and Angus sitting on a stool for the gig. My point is that the REVIEWER cut these guys way too much slack when there are tons of musicians their age and beyond, delivering the goods at a fraction of the price. And these guys get a pass why? It has nothing to do the style of music, who they are or what....it has to do with WHY do they get a pass?

 

 

I see. So your main issue is that you believe that critics have ever had any sort of objective goal in their reviews, as opposed to reality, where they're simply being paid to give their opinion.

 

 

But if you are going to charge $200 a ticket...."I like doing this style..." etc. doesn't hold water because then it becomes about value.

 

 

If you can sell tickets for $200/ea and do it consistently, there apparently is value in that performance. I don't what to tell ya.

[Matximus]

Yeah. I don't know what was more depressing. That video. Or that review. I mean... Neil Young was obviously {censored}ing bored out of his skull... But, hey, I kinda woulda probably had a pretty good time at a high school reunion... If I'd ever gone to one of those.

 

But power to em. They should be out there rocking it like that. I mean, there's {censored}ing money in it... Hello? Buncha douchebags ready to line up and write ham-fisted reverent reviews... those people buy tickets too..... And, you know, playing music live is fun. I'd be doing the same god damn thing if I were lucky enough to have ridden the lightening like those cats did when they were young. But let's not pretend it's anything more than what it is.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Yeah. I don't know what was more depressing. That video. Or that review. I mean... Neil Young was obviously {censored}ing bored out of his skull... But, hey, I kinda woulda probably had a pretty good time at a high school reunion... If I'd ever gone to one of those. But power to em. They should be out there rocking it like that. I mean, there's {censored}ing money in it... Hello? Buncha douchebags ready to line up and write ham-fisted reverent reviews... those people buy tickets too..... And, you know, playing music live is fun. I'd be doing the same god damn thing if I were lucky enough to have ridden the lightening like those cats did when they were young. But let's not pretend it's anything more than what it is.

 

^^^ THIS

[3shiftgtr]

 

I see. So your main issue is that you believe that critics have ever had any sort of objective goal in their reviews, as opposed to reality, where they're simply being paid to give their opinion. If you can sell tickets for $200/ea and do it consistently, there apparently is value in that performance. I don't what to tell ya.

 

 

SIMPLY paid to give their opinion. Yeah and a carpenter simply builds a house. Well, you are WRONG!

 

A critic is supposed to get paid to use critical thinking and critical skills to interpret the work of an artist. That is why it is called criticism not opinion. When someone reviews an art event, they must use educated rhetoric, or else it is just opinion. HUGE DIFFERENCE!

 

Ever read a movie review where the majority of what the critic wrote about was the "scene" the director came from and the color of the shirt an actor wore on the red carpet? No they talk about, plot, script, acting, storyline, subtext. Do music reviewers in Rolling Stone, Spin etc., write about the chords, scales, rhythms, timbres, used in a peice of music. No. They don't. They might quote a line, and mention the 'pounding drums' or 'raging guitar' but the rest is about culture. Here a random review of Owl City's latest by Jon Dolan from Rolling Stone. First one I found.

 

By Jon Dolan

June 14, 2011

 

Listening to an Owl City song is like speed-eating a box of Girl Scout cookies: You go from tasty to pukey in minutes. Like his 2009 hit, Ocean Eyes, Minnesota native Adam Young's third disc is all syrupy Ben Folds-meets-Ben Gibbard vocal moves, gushy poesy and synth melodies like pink fireworks. "My rock-candy passion is bittersweet and armed to the teeth/'Cause she would rather fall in chocolate than fall in love," he sings. Young is especially fixated on romance as space travel - "Kamikaze" has a clip of Ronald Reagan speaking after the Challenger crash. It's fitting: The Gipper would get this pillow-brained romanticism.

 

See what I mean? There is no CRITICAL THINKING. They aren't talking about the tones, chords, rhythms, or THE MUSIC...it is all about where the singer is from, a Regan sample, and what color fireworks the synth sounds like to the author. Oh yeah, and the obligatory lyric quote.

 

He does NOT get a pass for flabby music journalism.

 

And as far as them making money, fine. I don't begrudge anyone trying to make an honest buck. But would a SERIOUS musician go out in front of lots of people, and hack at their tunes? The reviewer said the performance was weak. From what I've seen and heard it was. Fine if people pay. Not fine if they get a pass from someone who is supposed to know better and why.

[3shiftgtr]

 

I'd be doing the same god damn thing if I were lucky enough to have ridden the lightening like those cats did when they were young. But let's not pretend it's anything more than what it is.

 

 

Agreed that it is a nostalgia show. Doofus reviewer was trying to romanticize it.

 

But would you really go out there with 1/2 ass product? If you KNEW it could be better? Knowing That you are going to stand out in front of a HUGE crowd, and kinda suck? Speshilly if you have been doing a pretty good job of not sucking in front of crowds your whole life? And be contracted to do it for the rest of the summer. Not to mention the fact that you are in your 60's, have a prostate the size of a grapefruit, a bad back, and gas.

 

Easy for us to go "Yeah, I'd do that." if you've never done it.

[drewl]

I wouldn't pay $200 to see any show, but how often does BS perform?

How often do they tour?

I don't feel it's worth it, but yeah, aside from the music a concert is an "experience" to be with others who feel the same way you do, it's an event.

That's what seperates Rock and Roll from other forms of music.

So maybe for a few hours some old hippies can be transformed back to '66 on the "Strip"reliving their younger days.

That is also the power of music, to take you somewhere else.

[richardmac]

To this day I do not understand the point of music critics. Do people listen to music critics? If so, why?

I think that drewl hit it on the head - people are trying to relive their youth. It's the same reason people try to rebuy their childhood, collecting old stuff.

[Nijyo]

 

SIMPLY paid to give their opinion. Yeah and a carpenter simply builds a house. Well, you are WRONG! A critic is supposed to get paid to use critical thinking and critical skills to interpret the work of an artist. That is why it is called criticism not opinion. When someone reviews an art event, they must use educated rhetoric, or else it is just opinion. HUGE DIFFERENCE!

 

 

The difference is between theory and reality.

 

In reality, no matter the flowery language and the seemingly complex interpretations that might make it to media, a critic simply gives their opinion of the subject at hand.

 

But please, continue shaking your tiny fist at the Internet in rage.

[kurdy]

In this case, the article seemed more a commentary on the state of the music industry than a critic of that particular performance. I think he was attempting to tie together two subjects that are arbitrarily connected at best: a recent performance by a band from his youth, and the current music industry. Considering this guy seems to be more of an music industry blogger than a music critic, that would make sense.

 

I admit, I like to read music criticism. I find it interesting to hear how other people’s opinions on music may differ or compare to mine, be it critics, or fans, or whatever. Typically, I’m more inclined to read reviews on music I’m already familiar with than stuff I’ve never heard of. Occasionally, they may make me aware of a band that I otherwise wouldn’t have known about. But I don’t recall a review ever affecting my like or dislike of the music. A couple of years ago, critics were falling all over themselves in praise of a band called Fleet Foxes, which made me feel as though they were a band I should like. So I listened to their CD. Twice through. But I just found it boring. So does that mean I am not enlightened enough? Should I listen to it twice more in order to “get it”?

 

I think one of the problems with music criticism is that it really is relic of the past, back when people thought rock music was a serious cultural force that had potential to change the world. These days, everyone has figured out how crazy a notion that really is. These critics might as well be writing about reality TV (which sadly, is probably more culturally relevant these days.)

 

I’ve found much of the time, the music that tends to win the favor of critics is the stuff that really isn’t all that enjoyable to listen to (such as the Fleet Foxes example). It’s all about being artistic and clever, perhaps interesting on an intellectual level, but not necessarily entertaining. The entertainment part can be a bonus, but it’s never the main attraction. Which is the opposite of how most regular people judge and listen to music. (That said, I can’t quite grasp the popularity of Coldplay, either, yet the general public loves them and the critics don’t. So who really knows how this stuff works?)

[richardmac]

Good point about the past - it seems like people were more likely to listen to critics back then. BTW, I don't like the Fleet Foxes either. They ARE boring.

[3shiftgtr]

The difference is between theory and reality. In reality, no matter the flowery language and the seemingly complex interpretations that might make it to media, a critic simply gives their opinion of the subject at hand. But please, continue shaking your tiny fist at the Internet in rage.

 

No, it is the difference between stupidity and delusion. Go ahead accept stupidity as long as it fits your needs.

 

You want them to be opinions so you can justify your point. Then don't call it criticism or review. CALL IT OPINION. But they don't do that, do they?

 

If you give your opinion and call it criticism, it's like burping in a mic. You might say it's music, but that doesn't mean it is.

 

And I have a normal size fist...I think....no wait....it is my opinion that my fist is normal size....THEREFORE IT IS NORMAL SIZE, RIGHT? As long as I don't have to think, then I'm right....right? upon

[richardmac]

Not 100% sure what you all are bickering about. 3shiftgtr is correct - a music critic should, in theory, use a logical approach in analyzing and criticizing music. And as he pointed out in his example, they don't. Which is why I find just about all music critics useless. However, I might add that I also believe that using a logical approach to analyze and criticize music is almost totally useless - I've got more formal education in music than 3/4 of the music critics out there and I can't imagine trying to come up with some type of rubric that we could judge music by. You figure that out, you're worth millions of dollars, because that could be the elusive "filter" or "gatekeeper" that we all seem to want.

 

Rolling Stone used to put out an annual book of rock album reviews (not sure if they still do.) They had The Doors albums rated very low until "No One Here Gets Out Alive" helped create a huge amount of interest in the band, and then the Doors albums were suddenly rated very high. Like 3shiftgtr said, that's not legit criticism. That's "Let's sell a lot of copies of this book" or "People seem to think the Doors are cool again, so I guess they are." (I am a Doors fan BTW.)

 

Side note - When it comes to movies, isn't it interesting how many people, including myself, play both sides of the fence? If I like a movie the critics hated, I'll say "Critics are useless." If I like a movie and the critics somehow surprisingly like it too, I'll say "See, even the critics liked it!" Weird.

 

But here is the really funny part - Bob Lefsetz is not a music critic in his blog. Bob Lefsetz is essentially a music blogger. He writes a blog (which originally started as an email) called Lefsetz Letter, in which he talks about a lot of the same stuff that we do here. He will often talk about concerts or new CD's (or old ones) to hammer home his personal agenda about how the music industry should be. I read his blog sometimes when I'm bored. He's a grumpy old man who pisses people off and tells it like he sees it. I sort of mostly agree with his take on things, though he goes over the top far too often. And when he does point out some new act and raves about how good they are, I'll check it out and it will usually end up boring me.

 

I say the market IS the music critic. If people like what you're doing and are willing to pay for it, you can make some money. If no one likes your music then you won't sell any, nor will you have a lot of people at your gigs. That's why I'm not at all opposed to 8 kabillion songwriters out there flooding the Internet with their "albums" that they recorded in GarageBand using loops. They're expressing themselves. Some will give up, some will continue but not get better, and some will get better.

 

To make a long post longer, there's a big BUT in all of this. I think there definitely is a place for music criticism for amateur and hobbyist musicians. Music is an art but also a craft, and we can definitely apply a rubric to the audio production of a song, as well as the performance, and to some extent the lyrics. If you use the same two bar drum loop throughout a song as a beginner, then it's good for someone to point out that the drums need more variety. If the vocals are distorted then it's good for someone to give engineering advice on how to avoid that. Predictable rhymes in music are also pretty easy to point out. Singing flat or sharp, botching a note in a guitar solo, all the "craft" stuff, can and should be pointed out. People can improve their craft.