What is music criticism?


There are two basic ways in which one may approach the criticism of a musical event. These related approaches may be termed criticism according to equivalence and criticism according to super-equivalence.

Criticism by equivalence focuses on the technical aspects of music—the virtuosity of the musician, the complexity of the composition etc—and judges a work based on the extent to which it conforms to, and is in this sense equivalent with, a standard of virtuosity. In making this kind of judgement, the music critic effectively reduces the work to an assemblage of its component parts. In other words, a work is only as good as the contribution of its individual components, from which the work cannot be separated.

By contrast, criticism according to super-equivalence emphasizes the overall aesthetic image suggested by the component parts of a music-work considered as an integrated whole. In this kind of criticism, less emphasis is placed on classicist assumptions of technical virtuosity, and greater emphasis is placed on the generation of musical form as a response to social and political context.

In other words, super-equivalency, while not denying that music may be legitimately interpreted and assessed in terms of the degree to which it equates with proficiency and virtuosity, nevertheless points to the fact that all music is premised on the construction of a non-musical image in order to fulfill its aesthetic promise. It is this non-musical surplus, and the way in which it interfaces with the musical component of a work, that constitutes the object of super-equivalent music criticism. It is the belief of this writer that this latter form of criticism is the only basis according to which thoughtful and considered judgment of a music-work can be achieved.

Indeed, if one were to attempt criticism while striving to remain merely at the level of equivalence, one would quickly find it difficult to explain how the discreet musical moments are related to one another in an overall music work. Once such an assessment is attempted, one quickly falls back on to super-equivalent considerations in order to explain and understand the relationship between discreet musical parts.

I believe the following comments by Miles Davis summarize in a much more direct manner the thinking expressed above:

“Don't play what's there; play what's not there.”
“Anybody can play. The note is only 20 percent. The attitude of the motherfucker who plays it is 80 percent.”
"It's not the notes you play, it's the notes you don't play."
"Music is the space between the notes."

Super-equivalent criticism thus judges a music work in terms of the aesthetics of how, why and when musical moments are combined in the way that they are, and what the particular patterns and combinations under consideration mean.

Perhaps the most interesting implication of music criticism according to super-equivalence is that anyone and everyone is capable of making aesthetic judgments about any music-work and may thus be conducted without any formal background in music notation or theory.

While each form of criticism has its merits, it is the view of this RYMer that the latter account of music criticism—super-equivalency—is the more interesting way in which to consider and talk about music.

In order for constructive discussion of music to take place however, a basic framework of assessment should at least be in place.

--------------------------------------------------------

Ratings in the 'A' range indicate a work which thoughtfully and creatively assimilates and engages with the aesthetic form presented, yet does so in a way which intelligently challenges and confronts the assumptions of the listener.
Gradations within the range are determined by the variations in overall focus, coherence, and consistency across the work.
All works within the 'A' range offer worthwhile listening.
--------------------------------------------------------
Ratings in the 'B' range are strong works which often propose to the listener intriguing arrangements and formulations, albeit in an inconsistent and uneven manner.
--------------------------------------------------------
Ratings in the 'C' range are generally lacking a compelling organizing theme, uninspired, overly stylized, and ultimately superficial. There may nevertheless remain minor moments of notoriety on an album.
--------------------------------------------------------
Ratings in the 'F' range fail to present any worthwhile qualities.