Are you qualified to critique music?

[Chrisklenox]

Well the gear that someone has for sure is relevant and one of the reference points of how I would consider their comments.

A number of the posters are way more picky over the quality of new vinyls than I am, and sending back their new copies for a replacement because of minor issues with the record pressing.

But I do find it a useful forum. I recently found myself with some Amazon Gift vouchers and decided to buy PF Pulse 4 LP set - an all analogue remastering and given praise by those Hoffman posters, so I pulled the trigger on what is a relatively expensive purchase.

That Pulse lp reissue is jaw dropping! Good choice!

I find the forum useful as well. For albums that I know I will listen to multiple times for the rest of my life, I seek out the best pressing I can find, and some of the users are really knowledgeable. After a while you start to read between the lines with those people and you figure out what the real good advice is, and what is just hot air… we’ll at least I have figured out how to tell who hears things the way I do. That’s probably a better thing to say. For example, if I see someone saying that x pressing is just to bassy, I have learned to ignore them, because I have never heard a record that I thought had too much bass. In fact, when we are talking about English rock bands like Yes or Pink Floyd, I want as much bottom end as possible.

All in all, the Hoffman forum helped me to dial in my Yes collection with great sounding records at low cost, because I knew exactly what I wanted to look for, and could wait to jump on things in good condition at a good price.

[Chrisklenox]

One of the things that is kind of funny about hi-if stuff is that it’s actually somewhat advantageous to have a solid middle of the road system in some ways since most recordings are mastered for a general audience, and not necessarily people with audiophile gear. I have even read some people over at the Hoffman forum say that. Sometimes a system that is “too good” can reveal flaws in a recording that are masked by the mastering on a more modest system. Tape damage on Fragile for instance.

You can put together a really solid system for pretty cheap if you are patient and if willing to make a few trips to thrift stores. People donate some really good equipment sometimes. Personally, every single piece of my system is hand-me-down or discards. I’ve been lucky enough to have never actually purchased a single piece of gear. Right place, right time I guess. Haha

[highfell]

Not in the sense of, do you have a doctorate in musicology? But...



Was just readin' a sticky thread over at Steve Hoffman Music Forum where the good sir asks people to fill out their "gear profile" so people can judge whether someone's opinion on a CD or a remaster etc should be listened to.

On the surface a fair enough request. Though in the comments followin' some said it was still a subjective experience even if listenin'to high end audio.

I had to laugh as I remember lovin' the experience of first hearin' the entire G4T1 on a sanyo AM radio in our kitchen one Sunday night.

So I've never been an audiophile. Walkman. iPod. Computer. Now smart TV. Bluetooth speaker. Have been good enough for me. I've heard great sound systems. Yep. They're great.

So. Do you think it is reasonable for Mr Hoffman to request those private details? Does it lean into a certain hi-fi snobbishness over there or is it bein' transparent and appropriate? Does it really help people trust someone else's opinion and help inspire or not a purchase?

Well the gear that someone has for sure is relevant and one of the reference points of how I would consider their comments.

A number of the posters are way more picky over the quality of new vinyls than I am, and sending back their new copies for a replacement because of minor issues with the record pressing.

But I do find it a useful forum. I recently found myself with some Amazon Gift vouchers and decided to buy PF Pulse 4 LP set - an all analogue remastering and given praise by those Hoffman posters, so I pulled the trigger on what is a relatively expensive purchase.

[Gilly Goodness]

Ok. To paraphrase Gwyneth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love. "It's a new day". "No. It's a new world!"

Just went outside and the son demonstrated the sound. Without promptin' he chose OOALH off his phone and my ears were assailed by the clearest and most powerful sound. Verily, it was like the band were in the boot. The air vibrated. The bass and drum "popped". I punched his arm with delight. I have seen the light. I may even upgrade the smart TV with a new big soundbar.

Have I become Hoffmanised?

Is this a start of a whole new journey?

You know what. It just might be.

[Gilly Goodness]

Found out it is a large PIONEER speaker in the boot and 2 smaller ones upfront. Asked him what the specs were. He just shrugged. Anyhoo plan to listen to it as he drives off to work this mornin'.

Hope this gear upgrade nudges me closer to HiFi status. Although the interior acoustics of an old Toyota carolla may play it's part.

[Gilly Goodness]

Everything in balance. Listening to a 128kbps mp3 on a laptop speakers can still bring the joy on a beloved song in a pinch. If its a personal favorite play it through any decent amp and speakers. I found a $200 fairly new Marantz on Craigslist a few years ago and it has brought all kinds of beautiful tones into the house. Some remasters sound better than others, but its so easy to make things sound the way you want them these days with a few settings. In the end its all about enjoying what it is for what it is. BTW, you know what most radio networks use? 192kbps mp3s that have been more processed than Jimmie Dean breakfast sausages! And sometimes all that Orban and Omnia processing in their airchain thingamajiggys can still sound pretty good.

As for taste? Guilty pleasures have their place, too.

Even my long lost friend WLS AM...The Mighty 890. With the skip phenomenon at night, you could hear this Tarney Spencer classic in 13 states.

Where does all this lead, if its good to us, perfection can be the enemy of good

Didn't understand some of that but like the cut of your jib. Welcome. Post often 😀


In BREAKIN' NEWS my "gear profile" has changed.
Was makin' do with a bluetooth speaker about the size of a grapefruit in the car. But now the son has bought a large speaker that takes up most of the boot. Don't know the specs. Brand. Haven't heard it yet but you best believe will crank up TQ when I drive it next. Down the highway.

[Frumious B]

Yeah. Havin' slept on this I agree with much of the above. Hoffman is a forum for audiophiles that are concerned with sound quality to a degree I would never wish to be.

Some over there thought it was an invasion of privacy.

Can believe though that some over there buy music after good reviews from people they have grown to trust. You would not pay $100 bucks on a YES Union Japanese remaster if some blow-in thought it was "fantastic".

So let the babies have their bottle. Means a lot to them. All those 3000-Sonix with Italian blue cable and hunnweiser doodle-wackies.

Actually reading that forum has saved me some money over the years. I used to assume that the newest remaster of a given album was the best. What I learned is that often the big difference is the new remaster is just louder and more compressed. So now I mainly only buy reissues based on the strength of the bonus material.

[Amy C.]

Another discovery I made recently. I could not figure out for the life of me why in the world most of the music made since around 2000 just wasn't grabbing me. I mean there was nothing wrong with it from a technical standpoint. Everyone seemed on key, the percussion was perfect. At first I thought the music lacked good "hooks." Well, there were still plenty of those. Was it the instruments? Or lack of certain instruments? Certainly there did not seem to be enough guitar. But that is not a requirement to me liking a song. I was more confused than ever. Then Rick Beato made it all clear: It's too perfect! Sterile as an autoclaved scalpel.
The TLR version - a personed tuned to analog will find music quantified and gridded to software like ProTools to sound unnatural.

And then he posted one about the blues influence and how the blues does not mesh well with quantitazation.

[Amy C.]

Yeah. Havin' slept on this I agree with much of the above. Hoffman is a forum for audiophiles that are concerned with sound quality to a degree I would never wish to be.

Some over there thought it was an invasion of privacy.

Can believe though that some over there buy music after good reviews from people they have grown to trust. You would not pay $100 bucks on a YES Union Japanese remaster if some blow-in thought it was "fantastic".

So let the babies have their bottle. Means a lot to them. All those 3000-Sonix with Italian blue cable and hunnweiser doodle-wackies.

Everything in balance. Listening to a 128kbps mp3 on a laptop speakers can still bring the joy on a beloved song in a pinch. If its a personal favorite play it through any decent amp and speakers. I found a $200 fairly new Marantz on Craigslist a few years ago and it has brought all kinds of beautiful tones into the house. Some remasters sound better than others, but its so easy to make things sound the way you want them these days with a few settings. In the end its all about enjoying what it is for what it is. BTW, you know what most radio networks use? 192kbps mp3s that have been more processed than Jimmie Dean breakfast sausages! And sometimes all that Orban and Omnia processing in their airchain thingamajiggys can still sound pretty good.

As for taste? Guilty pleasures have their place, too.

Even my long lost friend WLS AM...The Mighty 890. With the skip phenomenon at night, you could hear this Tarney Spencer classic in 13 states.

Where does all this lead, if its good to us, perfection can be the enemy of good

[luna65]

Some over there thought it was an invasion of privacy.

Well, I mean, some people are going to think any number of inquiries as invasions of their privacy. Like, whatever!

[Gilly Goodness]

Is Barbie Girl compositionally or arrangement wise exceptional? Hell no. But was it fun then? It was. That's what guilty pleasure was coined for.

Heh. Barbie is gunna rock our world!

[Gilly Goodness]

Yeah. Havin' slept on this I agree with much of the above. Hoffman is a forum for audiophiles that are concerned with sound quality to a degree I would never wish to be.

Some over there thought it was an invasion of privacy.

Can believe though that some over there buy music after good reviews from people they have grown to trust. You would not pay $100 bucks on a YES Union Japanese remaster if some blow-in thought it was "fantastic".

So let the babies have their bottle. Means a lot to them. All those 3000-Sonix with Italian blue cable and hunnweiser doodle-wackies.

[soundchaser09]

This is an interesting question, on which I could expound at great length, but maybe not in the way you'd expect (or, let's be honest, want…).

The original question as it relates to the Steve Hoffman ones is maybe different, in the sense that a gear profile, maybe more than determining whether your "opinion" is valid, is more about reproducibility: if you're reviewing specific sonic changes in multiple versions of albums (as they certainly do there), it's helpful to know if someone's equipment has its own known biases or adjustments that might change what they're hearing. Like, if I'm reviewing new remaster, you'd, uh, probably want to know that I'm playing everything back through a $20 pair of Sony behind the neck headphones… A-and that I ripped the CD to 256kbs to play through my iPhone…

But! The better question is, are you qualified to critique? At all? What does "critique" even mean?

Unfortunately, "critique" is often mean pejoratively, and to be "critical" is seen to be negative — don't be so critical! — but I don't think that's right. It's not about opinion (which, indeed, everyone has, although some are better than others), and it's not about taste (for which there's truly, as anyone perusing a Yes fan site [and/or their significant others] knows, no accounting), and it doesn't mean we either like a piece of music or not, which is a personal and yes subjective experience.

What "critique" should mean, is, can you offer a coherent range of thoughts about a subject that opens up someone else's understanding of the subject in question, in any number of ways? Critiquing is inherently social, and an exchange between two or more individuals. I can listen to a song and enjoy it all I want, but to critique it, I'm hoping to shape or inform your understanding of it, far beyond "this sucks" or "this rocks", neither of which are ever especially helpful*. To be critical is to understand how something "works", and for whom, and within what contexts, and to aim to communicate that to someone else. Part of what can make a professional critic helpful is the range of experiences, influences, and knowledge they can bring to the discussion — a good film critic helps you understand the vocabulary of film, of acting, of the choices a director can make; a good restaurant critic might help you understand, again, the choices being made in the preparation and presentation of food.

Now, if you're more versed (which is to say, at all) in music and musical composition than yrs truly, than you may indeed have a lot to offer in the form of a critique, if you can help me understand why CTTE works; but part of that critique may (in fact, is almost certain to) be well above my head if you start talking about semitone notation or something, but that's part of it as well: different critiques can work in different contexts, with different audiences, and that's ok — a key part in a critique is knowing who you're talking to.

So yeah, if you're able to cohere a thought or two and say something interesting about a piece of music, you're qualified to critique it.

*When I was at art school, there was a common misunderstanding that criticism was either positive or negative, but I tried to think of it as useful or not: is what you're saying in a situation helpful to the artist or audience? Helpful should lead to a better understanding of what's going on. "Your painting is amazing!" is good for the ego, but it isn't helpful, and doesn't help me develop as an artist. Something like "When this happens, this over here is seen differently, because reflects that" would be helpful, because both the (student) artist and audience get a better understanding. It's not positive or negative, it's informative.

thats well reasoned!

[Homemade Parachute]

This is an interesting question, on which I could expound at great length, but maybe not in the way you'd expect (or, let's be honest, want…).

The original question as it relates to the Steve Hoffman ones is maybe different, in the sense that a gear profile, maybe more than determining whether your "opinion" is valid, is more about reproducibility: if you're reviewing specific sonic changes in multiple versions of albums (as they certainly do there), it's helpful to know if someone's equipment has its own known biases or adjustments that might change what they're hearing. Like, if I'm reviewing new remaster, you'd, uh, probably want to know that I'm playing everything back through a $20 pair of Sony behind the neck headphones… A-and that I ripped the CD to 256kbs to play through my iPhone…

But! The better question is, are you qualified to critique? At all? What does "critique" even mean?

Unfortunately, "critique" is often mean pejoratively, and to be "critical" is seen to be negative — don't be so critical! — but I don't think that's right. It's not about opinion (which, indeed, everyone has, although some are better than others), and it's not about taste (for which there's truly, as anyone perusing a Yes fan site [and/or their significant others] knows, no accounting), and it doesn't mean we either like a piece of music or not, which is a personal and yes subjective experience.

What "critique" should mean, is, can you offer a coherent range of thoughts about a subject that opens up someone else's understanding of the subject in question, in any number of ways? Critiquing is inherently social, and an exchange between two or more individuals. I can listen to a song and enjoy it all I want, but to critique it, I'm hoping to shape or inform your understanding of it, far beyond "this sucks" or "this rocks", neither of which are ever especially helpful*. To be critical is to understand how something "works", and for whom, and within what contexts, and to aim to communicate that to someone else. Part of what can make a professional critic helpful is the range of experiences, influences, and knowledge they can bring to the discussion — a good film critic helps you understand the vocabulary of film, of acting, of the choices a director can make; a good restaurant critic might help you understand, again, the choices being made in the preparation and presentation of food.

Now, if you're more versed (which is to say, at all) in music and musical composition than yrs truly, than you may indeed have a lot to offer in the form of a critique, if you can help me understand why CTTE works; but part of that critique may (in fact, is almost certain to) be well above my head if you start talking about semitone notation or something, but that's part of it as well: different critiques can work in different contexts, with different audiences, and that's ok — a key part in a critique is knowing who you're talking to.

So yeah, if you're able to cohere a thought or two and say something interesting about a piece of music, you're qualified to critique it.

*When I was at art school, there was a common misunderstanding that criticism was either positive or negative, but I tried to think of it as useful or not: is what you're saying in a situation helpful to the artist or audience? Helpful should lead to a better understanding of what's going on. "Your painting is amazing!" is good for the ego, but it isn't helpful, and doesn't help me develop as an artist. Something like "When this happens, this over here is seen differently, because reflects that" would be helpful, because both the (student) artist and audience get a better understanding. It's not positive or negative, it's informative.

[pianozach]

Absolutely.

I could write 3 reviews for album any piece of music or theatre or film or television as 3 different people. I could write one review panning it, one adoring it, and one with a more balanced assessment.

The 'bad' review is actually the easiest of the three; one can find fault in ANYTHING. Almost as easy is seeing the good in ANYTHING.