I spent this school year blogging about music one way or another, and I’ve always had this question on my mind: what authority do I have to talk about music? I don’t play any instruments and I have zero knowledge of any technical terms–I don’t know the first thing about chord progression, for instance. So basically, what I’m asking is whether or not you can write about music if you can’t even play music.
Film critics, for instance, aren’t expected to know how to make movies. They do, however, have an understanding of the “cinematic devices,” so to speak, that are used in films, stuff like mise en scene or voiceover narration or whatever. Film critics know the tools that are used by filmmakers, though they don’t necessarily know how to apply them themselves.
Many book reviews, however, are written by published authors, or some sort of professional writer. If you flip through the New York Times Book Review you’ll find that almost every review of a given book is written by an author who wrote a book on a similar topic. Two books on the importance of failure, for instance, were reviewed by the author of “Born Losers: A History of Failure in America.” A memoir written by a survivor of the Yugoslav civil war was reviewed by the Middle East editor of Newsweek. The Times does have professional book critics, though many of them have also published books.
But maybe I’m comparing apples to oranges. Music is different from movies, which are different from books, and writing about each of them requires different skill sets and levels of technical expertise. Regardless, I will continue to listen to new music, watch new movies, and read new books, so I guess it’s all okay in the end.
Although you may not be able to critique music in an artistic sense, you can still critique it on how appealing it is. As a listener of music, you are the audience. Music is made to express, and it is made to be heard by an audience. You are half the deal, so you do have a right to critique it.
I do not think you need to be an expert on music to write about it or appreciate songs/artists. You probably would get more out of listening to songs if you did understand the technicalities behind how the music is produced and why certain cords are pleasing, in the same way that people who have a firm grasp about figurative language and literary devices probably get more out of a book then people who do not (but maybe I am comparing apples to oranges too.)
I think that to be an actual music critic (a position I’m not sure actually exists), you should probably know something about how to play it, but I also think that in movies and in books, the “regular” people’s opinions are important too. It just gives a different perspective. But if you have equal say as someone who has been studying music for years, how will the music majors get to feel like they are better than you?
I don’t think you necessarily have to know all of the technical terms in order to be a critic of something (professionally maybe, but not in general). Most forms of art try to get a reaction from their audience and each person has a unique interpretation as a result (which entitles them to give a personal opinion).