“Look at this photograph. Everytime I do it makes me laugh. How did our eyes get so red and what the hell is on Joey’s head?” Let’s follow this genius song (insert laughter here) with some Chris Daughtry, Creed, and dare I say it, “Careless Whisper,” by Seether? Well I love variety, but I, like the rest of the Wausau, gets bored of their usual Midwest Communications and WIFC’s Top 40, so I then change it to one of Wausau’s ten other similar classic rock stations — okay put a barrel in my mouth and pull the trigger.
I’m just going to come out and say this — I hate the radio music selection that is provided my Wausau’s very own Midwest Communications. Though I love radio stations for what they do for a community, for example charitable events, (I will admit Midwest Communication radio stations do very well at this) I can’t stand radio stations that will take a song and play the hell out of it. I would compare it to a farmer overusing their cows to the point of exhaustion. Yes, to me what Wausau radio does to music compares to animal abuse.
I have recently moved from Wausau to Milwaukee (where the radio stations are beautiful and don’t abuse music like terrible farmers would with their cows), and though I live in a new city, I still have a place in my heart for the beautiful city of Wausau. However I would be lying if I said that I enjoy hearing the same Nickelback (which is a terrible band in general) song that has been played obsessively since 2001. I am sick and tired of the crap that we are forced to listen to on the radio in my sweet town of Wausau. I believe it is time to stop complaining about this and finally take action. I am calling WIFC along with Midwest Communications out. I am tired of listening to mainstream crap. Let’s face it, very few people like Nickelback, Hinder, Chris Daughtry, and hell, no one likes Seether.
I believe that there needs to be more radio variety in Wausau. The area has a surprisingly huge alternative music scene full of unique individuals who love the discovery of independent music. In order to please everyone, we need an alternative radio station that doesn’t follow the mainstream guidelines that Midwest Communications follows. I believe it’s time to stop complaining secretly and take action over this.
Debra Weiss
9:00 pm on December 9th
I hate to tell you this dude, but Dino did try a few years ago to get an alternative radio up and running, you’d have to ask him what happened, but I know it still exists and aside from being the area Hmong radio, there’s at least one dude on there that plays reggae. Hey it’s a start. But I completely agree with you. I was mortified when I first moved up here, many moons ago and was hearing things passed off as new that i had already been hearing for six months where I came from. And yeah they play the same songs over and over and over and over and, oh wait need to go pull out my hair:)
Dino Corvino
10:50 pm on December 9th
WNRB-LP is the radio station Debra is referring to. The station is in good hands, and I am very proud of all the work I did with NTC and the volunteers.
Community radio was a passion of mine for a long time, and I think WNRB is as good as anything.
The volunteers there, and the staff at the Hmong Association have something they should be infinitely proud of.
thedbc
9:46 am on December 10th
I’m not sure why they even bother having DJs either. Everything they do could be scheduled each morning and allowed to run automatically.
It’s not like the “morning shows” they run are entertaining. Those locals really aren’t funny and they say the same thing every single day and then laugh at their own jokes over and over.
I remember when you could request a song and actuall year it a few songs later. Now, if it’s not on the corporate playlist, it’s not being heard.
Mitchel DeSantis
11:22 am on December 10th
amen to all of these posts.
Debra Weiss
9:38 pm on December 10th
Yeah what is up with that canned laughter on the Bob and Tom show?
John H. Fischer
7:42 am on December 11th
On the other hand… there are those that actually like main-stream radio.
These stations are driven by advertising, if no one listened, then no one would buy ads, if no one bought ads, they would have to change to a format where someone WOULD listen.
In the car, WIFC is normally on (except for Open House Party on Sat eve, can’t stand that). When working in my shed or doing work at home in the basement, I prefer the “oldie” mix on 94.7.
As for bands such as Nickelback and Seether, someone must like them or they wouldn’t sell anything – and yes I am one of those someones.
When I heard that Tesla was going to be at the Marshfield Fair, I wanted to go so badly (unfortunately I have this “thing” where I really don’t like being where there are big mobs of people).
We each have our likes and our dislikes.
So, am I a bad person because I enjoy ‘IFC, am I a bad person because I enjoy Nickelback? No. (I very well might be a bad person – but not because my musical tastes differ from yours).
The “indy” or “alternative” stuff you are looking for will of course be found in larger markets. However, as much as Wausau likes to think it is some huge metropolis with a happening downtown and fountains and all – the simple truth is, we are still just a northwoods community – and many of us in this community are just simple folk.
And to be simple folk is not an insult – there is nothing wrong with enjoying simple things.
If you came to Wausau hoping for the same things that you can find in Madison or Chicago or New York – then it is you that might have the problem – not the rest of us.
thedbc
9:16 am on December 11th
I REALLY like John’s post. Maybeit’s because he tied it in with other things in the area.
Such as people moving here and then wanting small town feel, but still having all the big city options just because they saw something they liked while there.
But, I still say I’d like the stations to change it up a bit. If you can tell what time it is by what song is on, it’s getting mundane.
and for the record, I’m known to crank it up to Sunday Polkas, then switch to 104.1 for some metal and even sing out loud to Lady Gaga on WIFC in the same hour.
John H. Fischer
11:18 am on December 11th
Trying to picture DBC doing his version of Poker Face….
I remember this girl I dated many many many moons ago who was serious.. I mean SERIOUS into her music…
and how truly mortified she was when I bought the Avril Laviegn (yes, I know I can’t spell) album after hearing 2-3 songs that I liked.
HOW CAN YOU LISTEN TO THAT TEENAGE ANGST CRAP she would litterally yell at me….
Ah.. the memories….
Brad Schjoth
12:50 pm on December 11th
I think it is unfair to blame WIFC and Midwest Communications for what they do. They are in the money-making business, and their goal is to ultimately make a profit. Unfortunately, they are able to do so on the backs of terrible, terrible music.
I think the most frustrating part, and what Mitch is alluding to, is that I truly believe an indie-rock/alternative station could sustain itself, survive, and make a profit broadcasting out of the Wausau vicinity. The listeners are there, and if the station based it’s business model on what their target demographic ACTUALLY wanted, they would be successful in my opinion. Why someone hasn’t tried it yet is a mystery.
tron7
2:09 pm on December 11th
I can’t imagine an alternative radio station working in Wausau. The audience just isn’t big enough to make money in the dying business that is terrestrial radio. I feel like the people that would be interested in the indie/alternative music are already getting that music from some other source whether it be ipods, satellite radio, or the interwebs. So there’s no real outcry(aside from this thread) to get an alternative music radio station out there.
I’m in Denver (Wausau diaspora) and the “alternative” stations here aren’t very stable and are rather dissapointing anyway. A station will start and maybe make it a few months and then it will die and one tuesday you’ll turn on your favorite station only to find it’s been turned into a stripper music station (which, incidentally, was pretty awesome just for the novelty. Alas, stripper radio only made it about a month and now it’s conservative talk radio).
If your into alternative music I would suggest giving up on terrestrial radio. It’s not for us, it’s for the masses.
“the record buying public shouldn’t be voting”
-Eddie Argos, Art Brut
tommichlig
11:01 pm on December 11th
First things first: that whole Nickelback genre is an awful mix of late-comer grunge (late 90’s) and Bon Jovi-caliber scmaltz. It doesn’t take a genius (or an out-of-towner) to tell you that it is downright deplorable. Pure opinion on my part, but I know I’m right :)
However, alternative and indy inherently defy categorization (in theory, at least), so to Brad’s point, what does that certain demographic ACTUALLY want? I think that’s the difficult question. Once you try to define it as a “genre”, then it becomes bland and mono-cultural, full of hipster posers. Empty pea coats and ironic t-shirts, if you will.
I’m a total bastard about music (just ask my wife). My playlists are complete freaking chaos. I think Pete Seeger is just as “alternative” as Trevor Dunn’s Trio Convulsant. Others disagree, and have every right to.
The problem lies in a simple sentence of Mr. DeSantis’ original post, “In order to please everyone”…
Roll up your sleeves and do some digging. See some shows. Talk to your friends and their friends. There’s a lot out there, you just won’t necessarily find it on terrestrial radio.
Papa Philbin
9:25 pm on December 12th
as a person who despises radio(i own an ipod) i must say that i quit listening to radio because of the recycled playlists and knowing what song was playing at what time. i pointed out to the programing director at wifc that i heard the same song 5 times between 7am and 7pm. not only that,but when i called the dj’s who were working, they had no clue what i was talking about untill i told them to check their logs and see that i was right! the program director just pawned me off on someone else. i love my ipod, sure it might not be all of what everyone would like to hear,but i know its what i want to hear. i got everything from nickleback to taylor swift to tom waits and tiny tim. and it is good….
Glenn Siegman
5:41 pm on December 16th
Chris Conley, Operations Manager for Midwest Communications, posted a response on his blog at http://new.wsau.com/blogs/post/cconley/2009/dec/16/opinion-radio-rant/
John H. Fischer
8:42 am on December 17th
Actually.. that is a pretty good response.
Any way we can get permission to have that post added to this comment thread?
Dino Corvino
10:38 am on December 17th
You can ask John. Chris seems like a pretty good guy.
I actually think that is a bad response, and one that indicates how far media in general has fallen away from being something that provides a service for the public good.
That blog post is almost entirely hinged on the idea of making profit, instead of the trust that the people put in the media by giving them the spectrum for free.
I am not going to say too much, but John you know how I feel about this. The government gives radio stations access and protection through FCC liscensing, and this protection comes with the common trust from so long ago. It is not simply an opportunity for a cash grab, but rather a sacred and important responsibility. To simply see it as profit based is to miss the inherent point.
John H. Fischer
11:01 am on December 17th
And you know me…
I defineately see the point you are making – however they are in business to make money.
Some radio stations are in business for the public good… I don’t know that Midwest ever indicated that was their business model or ever pretended that is what they were trying to do.
I won’t even listen to 550 (other than for packer or badger games) because of the ultra-conservative stance of many of their talk shows – however, enough people do listen that advertisers are willing to pay.
The original post complained of not enough variety. However, in this market, I believe that if enough people would be interested in the type of music the author of the original post wanted to hear that advertisors would be willing to pay for the air time to get that audiance, that a station (maybe even one of Midwests) would jump at that market.
So… is the discussion not enough varitety, or is the question of what is the true purpose of being able to access the airwaves…
As a response to the original post, I think the Connely statement is valid. As a response to your concerns – I think that is a different issue worthy of it’s own main topic posting and comment thread.
Barry Liss
11:44 am on December 17th
I like the radio options around here – lots of genres to choose from – rock, country, NPR. It’s a pretty amazing technology – if you don’t like what you hear you can just change the station. I think it’s cliche to attack radio for its commercial nature. I doubt the critics of radio know much about music anyway – to really know music one should play an instrument or at least understand something about music theory. But how often does that happen?
Dino Corvino
12:38 pm on December 17th
I am sorry, I do not understand that comment Barry.
I have a feeling that Mitchell has an opinion about music, since he works in it professionally.
I also think that the commercialization of radio destroys the public trust.
tommichlig
1:03 pm on December 17th
Mainstream radio is over-commercialized? Wait, when did that happen? (Feigns outrage…)
Crappy commercialized radio is everywhere, small towns and big cities alike. Milwaukee has plenty of bad radio stations and Nickelback fans, too, but the number of alternative options is proportional to the number of interested folks who will support them.
And again, try to nail down “alternative” as a genre. That takes us into the realm of taste.
Minneapolis had a wonderful train wreck of a station back in the ’90s, I believe it was called Revolution Radio or something. You were just as likely to hear Hank Williams, Sr. as you were to hear Beck or Ministry at any given time (remember, it was the 90’s.)
They were bought out and ruined by Disney or some other conglomerate (again, feigns outrage…).
Barry Liss
3:57 pm on December 17th
I’m making two arguments:
a) To say something is commercial is saying absolutely nothing at all…it merely means that money was transacted. Almost every work of art is somehow commercial in the sense that money changes hands somewhere in the line of production-distribution.
b) Working in radio doesn’t qualify one to opine about music – and neither does passively listening to it. Authentic music criticism comes from an active understanding of music…and the ONLY way to understand music is to study it either theoretically or to experience it practically (by playing an instrument).
Dino Corvino
5:33 pm on December 17th
wow
Barry Liss
6:01 am on December 18th
yep – no better definition of nihilism than to say that everyone is qualified to speak about anything and there are no hierarchies.
John H. Fischer
8:09 am on December 18th
I will agree that not everyone is qualified to speak on everything, which is why there are often topics that I stay away from.
However, how do you define “music critic”
We are all, each and every one of us, music critics. Music transcends entertainment and touches your soul – each person knows what kind of music moves them, knows what kind of music offends them, and know what kind of music has no effect whatsoever.
Each of us knows.. what in our souls.. is good music, each of us knows.. what in our souls is bad music… and we don’t need to have studied music or played an instrument to know this.
I have made some comments on some of the type of music that and bands that I like in this and other threads. Dino has made it no secret the kind of music and bands that he likes.
Those two groups seldom overlap. For Dino, my music does nothing for him. And Dino’s music does nothing for me. We both have opinions on what specific music does for us, and that makes us both qualified music critics.
tommichlig
8:36 am on December 18th
I don’t think Mitchel was trying to play music critic in the first place (remember, there was a point to this post originally). Nowhere in his post did he say anything about working in radio or that he was an expert. He voiced his opinion on a community blog, for crap’s sake.
Barry Liss
8:43 am on December 18th
I appreciate your post John. But what you’re describing is simply preference. We all have a naive penchant for liking one thing and disliking another, but that’s very different from the ability to cogently articulate the reasoning behind why we should like or dislike something as opposed to another. In the realm of practices, one opinion is not as good as the next. So if I want to know about football, I seek out what John Madden has to say; chess, I’ll read a book by Bobby Fischer; and music I’ll ask a musician.
matthew
8:56 am on December 18th
John essentially proves Barry’s point. He says that each of us, in our souls, knows good music. If he is correct then, as Barry suggests, that means there is no ‘good’ music or ‘bad’ music. And any discussion is meaningless. What everyone basically says is that good music is what I think it is. If that is correct then no standard exists – so any statement about the ‘goodness’ or ;badness’ of music is nothing more than opinion. On the other hand, if Barry is correct, then objective external standards exist. And, somehow, people who have studied the theory of music – which, if John is correct, doesn’t really exist – or played an instrument are more in tune (pardon the pun) with these standards than are others. But he will have a difficult time explaining exactly how studying or playing an instrument makes a person more an expert on the aesthetics of music instead of merely of the technical aspects of it. What exactly are the standards by which to objectively judge a piece of music or a performance? Unless John, on the one hand, and Barry, on the other, can agree on a set of objective measurable (or at least debatable) criteria the discussion goes nowhere. Example – “good” music is more popular than “bad” music, and music people will pay to hear is better than music people will not pay to hear. If that is accurate than the argument that music played on the radio is better than music not played on the radio. That is an objective, measurable standard. Of course, people will not agree if it is accurate. So, John must, to be consistent, admit that the concepts of ‘good’ music and ‘bad’ music don’t really exist if everyone can determine what it is. That’s like saying that there is a speed limit, but everyone has the right to decide what it is. In essence no speed limit exists. Barry, to be consistent, should be able to identify the external standards that exist to judge the ‘goodness’ or ‘badness’ of music much more specifically. His position, as he has expressed it, is simply an appeal to authority. People who study it and perform it are better to decide what is ‘good’ music than people who actually experience the effect that music has on them. A dubious proposition unless he can get others to agree on what are the measures that these experts are able to apply. And, that these measures are appropriate. Until these are agreed upon, Barry and John are essentially both arguing that the concepts of “good” music is undefinable. John says an individual’s opinion is good enough. Barry is saying an ‘expert’s’ opinion is necessary. But it is an opinion nonetheless. Here’s two other opinion: Keith Richards was asked about good music. He responded that good music appealed not to the head but to the crotch. And, a few years ago, the WDH interviewed local people about good music. One of then was identified as Dave Capritsa. He simply and probably accurately replied that “music is a personal thing”.
tommichlig
8:58 am on December 18th
I think Mitchel was expressing a matter of preference in the first place.
John H. Fischer
9:18 am on December 18th
“That’s like saying that there is a speed limit, but everyone has the right to decide what it is. In essence no speed limit exists.”
For anyone who has ridden with me, or tried to keep up with me…. I found that statement ironically interesting.
LOL
Mohawk Matt
10:32 am on December 18th
So Barry….what qualifies you to have an opinion about who gets an opinion? I think only people who make opinions get to opine about opinions.
Makes as much sense, in my opinion. But I can’t have an opinion, because I’m a musician.
Barry Liss
11:25 am on December 18th
That’s the point MM – anyone can opine – in fact, the definition of an opinion is to assert without proof or knowledge. But whether or not that opinion has merit and is worthy of its breath (or pixels) is a different story. That’s why authentic and intelligent criticism is so important, and so very rare.
Dino Corvino
12:00 pm on December 18th
OKay, I shall jump in a little bit.
If someone plays piano. Took some lessons, learned some theory, did a bit of studying.
And they understand the tools of song writing, melody, harmony, bridge, chorus, etc.
At what point, and by whom are they granted this access to being a member of the hierarchy. Seems like an exclusive club, with objective critieria that must be fulfilled. I ask, what those are criteria, and who determines them?
At what point is someone, as both a player of, and listener to, granted this next level of acceptance for criticism of music?
tommichlig
12:08 pm on December 18th
Art is subjective.
Erik Cieslewicz
12:19 pm on December 18th
I hate to be the guy that jumps in the middle of the conversation and says something completely different, but apparently not enough to not post this.
This posts is suspiciously familiar to another post that was on Citizen Wausau this year: http://citizenwausau.com/blog/2009/05/20/stockholm-syndrome-more-musings-on-a-town-without-a-theater/
The lack of choice in Wausau’s radio stations, is just another sign of Wausau wanting to be a “franchise town.” It’s not good, or bad. Like I said in my post, franchises are safe and reliable.
I’ve had this same problem with Wausau radio stations that Mitchel has for years on end. I attended UWMC for two years, I worked in the city for another three years later. During that eight year span between when I went to school and when I came back to work nothing had changed. It was the same songs, the same stations, the same DJs almost entirely.
Sad state of affairs for people like us that want more than the franchise music that’s produced more like SUVs than art.
Barry Liss
12:32 pm on December 18th
A hierarchy is a gradation of rank order – an inevitable aspect of social life. It’s not like membership to a club – we participate in hierarchical ordering everyday. For example, height, weight, level of education, socio-economic status, and the degree to which one has straight and/or white teeth – or any teeth at all.
Credibility on a subject is a function of two factors: expertise and character. Maintaining an opinion and being credible are very different phenomena.
To suggest that art is only subjective is a vacuous half-truth – art is both subjective and objective, as it entails both a subjective interpretation and an object to interpret.
You ought go read Stan Rosen’s book Nihilism – as it is the philosophy you seem keen on defending. You want to pretend there are no standards or rules to art/practice and so anyone can act as a legitimate critic. That is a very dangerous sentiment.
Dino Corvino
12:54 pm on December 18th
You clearly assert that the only people who can have a credible voice on musical theory is someone who is either a student of theory, or a musician. That has not been the case in this country for the longest time. Some of the greatest music critics of modern times are not musicians.
Why is your critieria for what is acceptable or credible from someone asserting themselves as a music critic anything other than an opinion?
Barry Liss
12:34 pm on December 18th
Hey Erik – my post is not a response to yours…hope all is well.
tommichlig
1:00 pm on December 18th
Good god, can someone else chime in and get us back on-topic, kind of like Erik’s comment (thanks, man!)
No one here, including Mitchel, is asking to be treated as a “legitimate” critic. This is a forum for opinion. People have opinions. Opinions (when civil) are fun, interesting. Yes, there are experts on subjects, but especially in music, public sentiment is a powerful thing.
Saltpeter
1:16 pm on December 18th
I think we’re making a mountain out of a mole hill. Everyone is a critic. And…anyone can “act” as a legitimate critic. Like beauty, credibility is in the eye of the beholder. All the rest can be dambed. It’s only dangerous when you believe a critic without knowing the credentials behind the criticism.
Barry Liss
1:28 pm on December 18th
You cannot be a legitimate critic about any practice (all art is a practice, but not all practice is art) unless you understand it. There are no great music critics who don’t understand music – the only way to understand music is to play an instrument or have a knowledge of music theory…that is, there are only two paths to understand a practice: practical and theoretical.
I wish I could take credit for the two-fold criteria of credibility (that’s Aristotle) or the nature of criticism and practice (that’s John Dewey, Lewis Mumford and Erich Fromm).
Public sentiment is a touchstone for popularity…not quality.
John H. Fischer
1:32 pm on December 18th
The thread is officially hijacked from over-repetative mainstream radio to the ability to be a music critic…
And, although hijacked off its original course, the new course chosen is fun and entertaining, so who am I to try to storm the cockpit.
I was once told that the only real qualification you need to be an elected official, is to be elected.
In that spirit, the only real qualification to be a critic of anything is to have an audiance who respects your position (regardless of qualification)
Barry Liss
1:42 pm on December 18th
Then again, Frank Zappa:
“Most rock journalism is people who can’t write, interviewing people who can’t talk, for people who can’t read.”
chughes
1:43 pm on December 18th
As someone who both plays music and writes/teaches about it, I have to say that I disagree with you, Barry. Not only is Dino correct that many of the era’s best and most profound music critics/scholars/thinkers not had either formal theoretical training, nor have they played an instrument, but I think Barry’s making two incorrect assumptions:
1) Barry invokes the “inevitable” presence of hierarchies as a reason why his suggestions are correct. The problem is that simply because a hierarchy exists in a society doesn’t make it legitimate. (Race, gender, disability, sexual identity, socio-economic status and religion have all been used as a basis for hierarchies. Does that make them right?) Let’s use a more relevant example. A hundred years ago , for example, there was a common societal perception that African-Americans made inherently inferior music to those of Europeans, because of a supposed lack of musical intelligence. The PRIMARY evidence used by those who forwarded this racist position was that Blacks didn’t have formal musical training. That was an accepted, music-related hierarchy, based on many of the same criteria that Barry uses. Does that mean it was right?
2) Barry also assumes that to have a “practical” understanding of music, you have to be a player. I would argue that experiencing music “practically” encompasses far more than playing. For example, what about dancers? Dancers often don’t play music or have formal music-theory training, but they know an awful lot about rhythms and musical textures. Disc jockeys – the good ones, at least – often don’t play, or have musical training, but their skills and expertise comes from their ability to discern similarities and differences between songs, styles and audiences. Moreover, I would argue – for reasons that I won’t go into here, but which I can if anybody would like – that listening, far from being a “passive” exercise as Barry defines it, is a very “active” pursuit that has as much to do with how we perceive and understand music. I say this as someone who devotes much of my life to thinking about music, whether as a player, writer, or a teacher.
I agree with some of what Barry says, but I ultimately must side with those who question his rigid definition of who is qualified to provide “authentic music criticism.” We are all listeners, and – in that way – we are all critics, deciding for ourselves and debating amongst ourselves. I don’t find that nihilistic. I find that democratic.
Barry Liss
2:35 pm on December 18th
Thanks much Charles! I’m thrilled you joined the discussion. Now everyone should ask themselves this – does Charles’s arguments carry more or less weight than the average Joe walking around on the street – the answer is of course they carry more! Why? Because Charles is an authority with both theoretical and practical knowledge. And the proof, Charles, is in your extensive credentialing of your personal expertise. You clearly and HIERARCHICALLY mark yourself as an expert multiple times in the post: “As someone who both plays music and writes/teaches about it…”; “I say this as someone who devotes much of my life to thinking about music, whether as a player, writer, or a teacher.” If all opinions carry the same rhetorical force, why assert your qualifications? I’ll tell you my why brother, because it matters who says what and why.
Further Charles, the assumption about hierarchy is misunderstood my friend. That the social order is expressed through hierarchies which differentiate people into ranks, classes and statuses is factual. The morality of the hierarchy is always susceptible to debate – but that doesn’t mean there aint hierarchies. I don’t like it that tall people tend to get paid more than short ones…but I have to live with it because it’s a socioeconomic fact. Another example, if you want to be a history professor at UW Madison, you better go get a PhD and be a voracious writer because that place is the top of the academic food chain.
As to your second contention regarding players, you make excellent arguments. However, if dancers “know an awful lot about rhythms and musical textures” they fall on the theoretical end of continuum. The practice is dance, yet their understanding of music is abstract and theoretical. Same with your point about DJs, one doesn’t need a formalistic training to have a theoretical understanding of music. And listening to music may or may not be a passive experience (this is a very interesting point of discussion). My sense is that for most people, it is much more passive than you contend.
In any case, thanks very much for the response – I always value your ideas about music because you have both a theoretical and practical understanding of the art form, which makes you a credible authority and your arguments hierarchically superior to others…
tommichlig
2:50 pm on December 18th
That’s your opinion, Barry.
Dino Corvino
2:52 pm on December 18th
I am sorry, but doesn’t this all simply come down to who BARRY is willing to hear these things from?
I could very well discount Charles expertise, because I differ with his position in substantial ways.
Is this not all about who you, Barry, are willing to accept as a valid critic, and by extension pressing that forward into a rhetorical position you would like us all to accept?
matthew
3:33 pm on December 18th
“I could very well discount Charles expertise, because I differ with his position in substantial ways.”
If you do Dino, you do at your own peril. You may discount the points that Charles makes but you do not have the right to discount his expertise. What a person brings to a discussion adds or detracts from what the person posits, For example, Barry is right that there are people whom are seen to be experts by a lot of people. In the field of music criticism there are people that have achieved a certain status based upon what they have said or done. In Madison, on WORT, Dr. Bill Malone has a three hour radio program that celebrates old time country music. During the show he will make a number of statements of opinion. Now, if I’m sitting in a bar and an old guy down the bar from me makes some statement about an old country singer I can attach whatever value I choose to to the comment. The same for Bill Malone. But when you factor in that Bill Malone is generally seen by academics and non academics as the foremost authority on the topic in the United States today I would be foolish to discount his expertise when evaluating his statement. (If I were in Madison perhaps the old guy down the bar could be Bill Malone, but I would have no way of knowing that.) Another example, there are people who provide music criticism that make factual errors. Would I be wrong in factoring a lack of factual knowledge into an evaluation of the opinion. A while back, Dino, David Alan Coe played in the area. Both you and Keith Uhlig made the claim that he had written “You Never Even Called Me By My Name”. You even went so far as to claim that it might be the greatest country song ever written. Not only is it very well known that Steve Goodman wrote the song – Coe even gives him the songwriting credit on his cd where he sings it – it is easily verifiable. So, in evaluating the opinion part of your writing am I wrong in factoring in the fact that you made a factual error regarding an accomplishment that you made a significant part of your piece? Anyone can function as a critic, burt not everyone has the right to be taken seriously. Barry makes the assertion that expertise is a prerequisite for a serious critic. Charles, I’d suggest, agrees with Barry on that idea, but disagrees with what exactly that expertise consists of. But to merely discount someone’s expertise because you don’t agree with the position he takes isn’t appropriate. Would it have been right to completely discount everything in the piece you wrote about David Alan Coe because you made a factual error? Or would it be right to disregard the error – and the resulting possibility that this guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about – because you agree with the ultimate opinion you express in the piece? If you accept the notion that criticism is legitimate – and you must because you do it – how can you suggest that a person’s expertise in the topic is so easily dismissable?
Barry Liss
3:37 pm on December 18th
No Dino, that’s the not the case at all. I value dialogue. I think it’s a wonderful thing to argue with intelligent people who make cogent points. I’m open to persuasion and receive gratefully those ideas which require contemplation.
Having said that, I find it difficult if not impossible to attend to what you say because you evade serious arguments. Take for example when you write this “I could very well discount Charles expertise, because I differ with his position in substantial ways.” Huh? As a reader, this baffles me on multiple levels because: 1) it seems you’re in far more agreement than disagreement and 2) given what you’ve written previously you obviously grant Charles authority. So it’s difficult not to come to the conclusion that I take what you say more seriously than, in fact, you do…
Barry Liss
3:41 pm on December 18th
sorry matthew – I was writing at the same time you were, so I responded to Dino without reading your excellent post…
John H. Fischer
3:42 pm on December 18th
great discussion folks – but a request…
line breaks now and then in some of the longer posts??
chughes
4:11 pm on December 18th
Barry,
My listing of my credentials was only to point out that I am someone who has a great deal invested in the belief that there are such things as “authentic” critics, versus those who are not. My professional training is designed, in some way, to protect the existence of that belief. Nonetheless, I refuse to believe in such rigid divisions (or hierarchies, if you like). At the end of the day, I listen with the same ears that anyone else does, and I’ve learned a whole lot about music from “untrained” students and everyday folks who, by your criteria, don’t have valid opinions on the subject.
And another thing about this: you keep saying “music theory” as being the arbiter. I have very little knowledge of music theory, far less than – say – most of the students currently studying at the Wausau Conservatory of Music. (I used to go there, but I’ve forgotten a lot over the years.)
You can’t use terms like “music theory” – which is a specific kind of language – interchangeably with other kinds of abstract/theoretical knowledge. If I had realized that you were referring to a broader spectrum of abstract/theoretical knowledge, I would’ve responded to you differently. I still don’t agree that you need a mastery of any specific language – for example, the kind I’ve learned over the years in music criticism and music history – but that is a more defensible position than the specific invoking of “music theory” as the arbiter.
The point about hierarchies is this: the existence of hierarchies doesn’t automatically mean that they are valid. It’s one thing for you to say that tall people get paid more than short people; it’s another for you to say it SHOULD be that way. Similarly, it’s one thing for you to say that people who play music or know music theory are more respected than those who don’t. It’s another thing to say that it SHOULD be that way. Get my point?
chughes
4:22 pm on December 18th
There’s one more thing I want to add to this thought-provoking discussion. For me personally, the only thing that validates someone’s opinion on music is that they *listen* a lot. Most people do this, and doing so requires no formal training or experience with an instrument.
Expertise is a tricky thing, and I don’t want to claim that everyone is automatically an “expert” on music simply because they listen. But I would say that, just because individuals might *know* more about a particular topic, or have *thought* more about a particular kind of music, doesn’t mean that their *reaction* to that music is more valid. I guess that’s what I’m ultimately getting at.
I’m glad to hear the chorus of dissenting and agreeing voices on this topic, since I think about it a lot.
Charles U Farley
4:51 pm on December 18th
I suppose I should preface this by saying I took 7th grade choir and I do a mean version of “Groovy kind of love” in the shower, so I meet BOTH of Barry’s requirements to be a music critic. I also spent a good portion of the 90’s and a good portion of my disposable income at the local independant rock club hanging out with musicians and discussing music, but I guess that means nothing under Barry’s guidelines, unless he’s willing to grant that that is the theoretical study of music in a socratic manner.
I should also note that the hits played obsessively for years and years after it comes out has been going on for literally decades. I still can’t get Stevie Nicks’ Edge of Seventeen out of my head due to all the air play it got on WIFCin the 80’s.
Ultimately, this is like the Networks vs. Cable only now it’s local radio vs. satellite radio. And while Chris Conley’s argument is technically correct, history teaches us he will experience the slow steady march to oblivion that the networks have experienced as TV watchers choose programming that actually want to view.