“When I was working as a pop music critic, I tried not to think too much about quality—at least not directly. My belief, then as now, was that there was no useful difference between loving a song and considering it good, or between not liking one and considering it bad. (If it is possible for a song to be good without inspiring any affection in a listener, then what use is goodness?) But I knew, as all critics know, that successful criticism usually relies on finding a balance between personal taste and conventional wisdom. Stray too far from the judgments of the relevant musical communities—audiences, experts, fellow critics—and readers will think you’re a crank, out of touch with the world they live in. Hew too closely to those judgments and readers will think you’re a hack, saying the same things everyone else is saying. Either one makes you seem boring, and as a professional critic, your chief obligation, superseding any musical directive, is not to bore the readers.”
•
“One way that critics smuggle unexamined preconceptions into their writing is by using seemingly descriptive terms that function as covert judgments. When a song is described as ‘soulful,’ that is invariably a compliment. Is it possible for a song to be soulful but lousy, or soulless but excellent? If not, then ‘soulful’ is not a description at all—it is just a synonym for ‘good.’”
brettworks 