When Jeremy D. Larson's deliciously savage takedown of Maneskin's LP Rush! for Pitchfork went viral recently, it prompted a familiar question: why aren't there more negative album reviews?
Back in 2017, Luke Turner of the Quietus suggested some answers in an article for Crack. These included websites' and magazines' increasingly ingrained aversion to risk caused by a concern not to wreck relationships with labels and PR companies, and a similar fear of upsetting rabid fanbases.
But fellow critic Steven Hyden, writing in the wake of Larson's demolition job, argues that both of these reasons are overstated: "What I never hear mentioned is the simplest and most logical explanation, which (in my view) is also the truest - it's about the decline of the general-interest music critic." For Hyden, "pure, uncut haterism also requires a certain distance from the topic".
It's an interesting contention, and - speaking from personal experience, at least - I suspect it's a valid one. Rightly or wrongly, I rarely offer to review/accept a commission to review anything (whether a gig or a release) that I'm not already predisposed to regard favourably. Bootings are as much a pleasure to write as they are to read - but all the same I'd rather spend time with a record or at a gig that's actually enjoyable, and write about an artist whose work I feel I can fairly engage with rather than someone operating far beyond my critical comfort zone.
This isn't to say that there's no place for negativity, though - far from it. There are always unexpected disappointments, and honesty dictates that I'll still call out the bad and the ugly, however painful, as well as lauding the good (this being a relatively recent example).
As music writers like JR Moores and Emma Wilkes have argued, reviews shouldn't simply be uncritical PR, and bravery is required - something that both writers and publications would do well to remember.
No comments:
Post a Comment