The Role of a Critic

In response to “The Pernicious Rise of Poptimism” by Saul Austerlitz

Check out this thought-provoking article in last week’s New York Times Magazine. It’s about the rise of consensus-driven coverage in music criticism. Austerlitz explains that there has been a shift away from critical thought caused, in part, by the fact that music is essentially free to consumers. Critics embrace “poptimism” as a means to stay relevant and are now driven by human-interest, “descriptivist” stories (and the millions that will Google Justin Bieber’s recent arrest rather than his latest album). In the age of free information and essentially free access to music, he is trying to make the point that the role of the critic has been downgraded from “telling consumers what to purchase” and arguing and pleading for the “underappreciated” to cheerleading for pop stars. 

I definitely agree that the platform for music delivery and music criticism has changed. Mass distribution of music and music criticism, like radio or even MTV, allowed fewer producers/critics to have more influence over a broader population. Across all aspects of information and experiences (not just music and not just online), we now have a proliferation of curated delivery channels that are customizable down to our target age/location/personality/and mood. Niche genres are reinforced as decidedly niche in those dark corners of the Internet (and in-person Meetups facilitated by the web) that allow specific groups to congregate in ever more insular circles. Conversely, what’s popular is what rises in Google optimization --- the most votes, the most shared, the most likes.

So for music criticism, what will it take for “honesty, curiosity, diligence, and pluralism” to cut through the noise? How can critics play their role and not come off as “snobbish” or out of touch? Here is where I think Austerlitz misses the point. The role of a critic is not tell people what to buy or root for the underdogs; it is to help people think for themselves and make informed decisions.

Austerlitz explains that other disciplines like books, film and restaurants still uphold a rightful place for critics because people still have to pay to for the products. But I would argue it has less to do with the price tag and distribution, and more to do with the way these industries have empowered consumers. They have maintained a role for curators because they have done a better job of fostering amateur movements and ownership among fans. Blogs are to Books, as YouTube is to Film. In music, Myspace fell flat as an amateur music platform.

In the realm of informed decision-making and criticism, AllRecipes.com, Yelp and Iron Chef are the three new Michelin Stars. At dinner parties, people are more likely to speak freely about umami and the presentation of their last meal out, rather than out themselves with more than a passing comment about the last show they saw. I actually applaud “American Idol” and “So You Think You Can Dance” that helped put the vocabulary of experts in the mouths of the American masses. But I think they fell short with only a binary judgement mechanism. It still came down to whether you liked or disliked it. 

Why is it that we have wine tasting parties where hosts hand out a tasting wheel, giving us the power to fully appreciate and discuss the complexities of our experience, but when it comes to music, critics keep the tasting wheel to themselves. Where was the Siskel and Ebert of music growing up? If critics want a role in music, step it up. Give listeners a toy chest of vocabulary, an ARENA for loudly expressing their own critical opinions, and a new playground for a music makers movement. Leave cheerleading and the buyers guide to the corporate producers and Billboards. Critics have bigger fish to fry.