Thoughts On Music Critics (No, I'm Not One)

Although Bloggerhythms spends the bulk of its web space offering its opinions on music, I don't consider myself to be a real critic because I mostly write about music that I like. It's much easier and a lot more fun to write about the good stuff.

I get numerous requests from artists and publicists to review new releases, and I only reply back to them if I want to feature their work. I also don't have a desire to trash or destroy somebody's up-and-coming career. Just because I dislike an album or a song doesn't mean others won't think it's the greatest thing they've ever heard.

I'm currently reading a 2006 biography - Billy Joel (The Life & Times Of An Angry Young Man) by Hank Bordowitz that spends more time than most books of its kind discussing how music writers/critics influence - or try to influence - the public's tastes. It's probably because Joel has always been more sensitive to their words than most musicians are. Unlike many performers, the classic rocker has never let the criticism roll off his back like others have - or at least pretend to. It also hasn't helped that he has spit some venom right back in their faces, and that just seems to fuel the fire even more.

To the critics, Joel's biggest sin was having a gigantic hit record with a love song. While they and alternative FM radio readily embraced the struggling piano player before "Just the Way You Are" the press completely turned on the Long Island native - labeling him as just another crooner and a middle-of-the-road balladeer - after the song became successful.

When The Stranger - Joel's most popular album - was on the charts in 1978 rock critics were championing punk - the latest rage from Britain - and they actually used his classical piano training against him. In the book, the famous pianist said, "I had never realized that one of the prerequisites for being critically acclaimed was not being able to play your instrument."

Howard Bloom - a Joel publicist and friend - said the following, "If you go back in his career to the first couple of albums, which the public didn't pay any attention to, the press did, and the press took him to their heart, because the press works on a very simple basis: 'If I can make you a star, I have demonstrated my power. This pleases my ego no end. If you are already a star, and I haven't made you a star, then I can demonstrate my power by destroying you.'" 

It's true, Joel wrote love songs, but they weren't what his career was about. Think about the wide range of topics that populate his work. He exhibited social concerns ("Allentown"), or items that were in the news ("We Didn't Start The Fire" and "Miami 2017"), or songs about common people living their daily lives ("Piano Man," "Captain Jack," "Scenes From An Italian Restaurant," "Downeaster Alexa" and "Anthony's Song") - even tributes to America's fighting men ("Goodnight Saigon").

I remember reviews that appeared in Rolling Stone that never even discussed the music they were supposedly reviewing. Instead, the writer would publish something similar to this, "This record will only appeal to those listeners who..................." and the remainder of the review would consist of nothing more than making fun of those fans without ever discussing the actual album.

Things have changed. There appears to be less obnoxious critics today than there used to be, but there are still musical acts some of them love to hate. I wonder what the writers would have said about major hitmakers like Beyoncé and Taylor Swift back in the day. Would the two mega-stars have had too many hits to keep them happy? Was their success too mainstream to be valid? I think we know the answer.