What is the point of a concert review? If I was not at the concert, why do I care what songs they played, whether they did a sick cover of MGMT, or how charming the between-song banter was? And if I was at the concert, I already know what songs they played, what covers they did and what the banter was like. So seriously, who is the intended audience? I guess there are people out there who need the “authoritative” opinion of some music writer to confirm their own, but that doesn’t really strike me as particularly justifying.
I’m confused as to how this format has reached such prominence. I guess I can see how concert reviews might be useful for posterity’s sake. For instance, many music historians have pored through reviews of the premieres of Beethoven’s symphonies. These reviews do provide some interesting perspective on how performance practices differed in those days. For example, unlike today, it was normal back then to clap between movements. The orchestra would sometimes even repeat a movement in response to particularly rapturous applause (as in the case of the second movement of Beethoven’s Seventh Symphony).
But clearly concert reviews are not being written today purely to satisfy the interest of future historians. Why then? Clearly, there are good concert reviews written. In my experience, a review only makes for compelling reading when it’s treated as a compelling, thoughtful piece of writing—when the concert is merely a foil for the writer’s own creativity.
Well, them’s my thoughts. As always, I might be wrong. What am I missing here? Let me know.
Ray Charles – I Got a Woman (Live) (YSI) (dropbox)
James Brown – I Don’t Mind (Live) (YSI) (dropbox)
Beethoven – Symphony No. 7, Mvmt. 2 – Allegretto (YSI) (dropbox)
3 comments:
What's the point of a recap of a sporting event? Or for that matter, what's the point of celebrity tabloids? Hyperbolically, couldn't the "Why should I care?" argument could be applied to fictional novels?
I think there are a couple reasons concert reviews are worthwhile. First off, we live in a voyeuristic society, a society in which we have come to enjoy being informed about all aspects of things even if we are not directly involved in them.
Secondly, I think you are unfairly treating concerts as if they are a once-in-a-lifetime event. Yes, that specific concert is over and done, but the chances that the band will be back in town in the next year or two are fairly high. If I read a review that says Tune-Yards is incredible in concert, I know to keep a lookout for the next time she's in town. If I hear that a show was disappointing, I'll save my money and pass on the show the next time I see them schedule a concert in my city.
I think concert reviews provide the opportunity to imagine being there, even if you weren't.
In this age of SportsCenter, youTube, etc. I'm not sure what the point
of a sporting event recap is (wouldn't it be cool if there were a
SportsCenter equivalent for concerts!?). I've never understood celebrity
tabloid culture. Hyperbolically, sure, the "Why should I care?" argument
could be applied to bad novels, maybe, but I'm not sure that it's a
particularly compelling comparison to make.
You're right, we do live in a voyeuristic society. Concert reviews play
into that. So do celebrity tabloids. But is that really a positive
comparison for concert reviews?
You're also right that concert reviews clue you in to what concerts you
should or shouldn't check out in the future. But in that case, to me,
the timing is all off. I read a concert review a day or three after a
concert, and think, oh, I should check out that band next time they're
in town. If the next time they're in town is a year or two later,
there's a decent chance I've forgotten that that band should be on my
radar. Maybe I have a bad memory, but it seems to me that writing about
a concert before it happens will do a better job of getting me to the
concert than a review after the fact.
Basically, I think the format is outdated. I think the format is tired.
I think the format is too reactive and not proactive enough. Too often concert
reviews fall into the same bland cookie-cutter progression. C'mon
people, let's do better. Let's use youTube clips. Let's be more creative
in our approach. Making the review "experiential" isn't enough--make it
interesting! English teachers always instruct you to "show, not tell." I
think that's advice we could all take to heart.
Why would we not want to know what someone else thinks?
I saw Regina Spektor towards the end of last year, and thoroughly emjoyed it. The next day I happened across a review of it in the local paper, and I read it. I just wanted to know what someone else thought about something I'd experienced.
You may as well say, why bother reading blogs? I found yours on Hype Machine, and was interested because you posted a track by James Brown. I already like James Brown, so what do I care what you have to say about it?
I'm just interested in other people's opinions, and other people's opinions on things I already may or may not like.
Post a Comment