Critics and Technical Illiteracy

One compelling reason I've found to try and come up with a method of music writing that aspires to reportage is that it represents an attempt to eschew technical illiteracy that can bedevil critical writing. Critics with technical issues and a book recommendation after the jump.

When a critic writes, there's a danger they will allow the mantra "it's all subjective" to run wild. When writing about art and labelling your opinion as subjective, you should really be  doing so to strive for objectivity. Issues like frame rate in films and dynamic compression/ limiting in sound recording are not subjective. They are technical issues born of the media the critic encounters. Because these facts are not altered by our desires, it is very possible for us to be wrong from time to time.

Two examples of this have met my notice in the past week or so. First: Charlie Brooker's column . The primary import is to do with television and cinema aesthetics and is handled very well. Some of the detail, however, while not outright wrong is problematic in its lack of full explanation. (Deadlines, I get it.)

The 20s are speeded up in our heads because the cameras were cranked by hand, creating an unnaturally hasty frame-rate. 

My issue with this statement is that hand cranking the cameras itself did not make the recording frame rate too fast. On the contrary, the hand cranked cameras--when the picture is too fast, were cranking at too slow a rate. The effect of haste is not a direct product of a hasty recording frame rate but rather the combination of a slow recording frame rate with the standard playback rate (24fps). Charlie Brooker leaves the impression that the pathé camera men were cranking too fast.

For the sake of ease, let's explicate this with simple numbers. If a 5 minute film is shot at 12 fps and played back at 24, the playback will last 2:30 because the five minutes is played back at twice the rate it was recorded. This would be a rather extreme example.

The second example I came across is the review of My Bloody Valentine's remasters for The Times by Will Hodgkinson. Unfortunately I can't link to it as it's pay walled. While some of the impressions were interesting things to follow up on in a listening session, the bulk of the "review" seemed heavily dependent upon this interview. Suffice it to say, learn about dynamic range processing before you talk glib about it. I recommend Perfecting Sound Forever: An Aural History of Recorded Music by Greg Millner.

I'm not trying to do anyone down, I just think that we need to think more critically about our critics. As I said previously, all too many critics are reviewing My Bloody Valentine's (pertinent and current example) remastered back catalogue with a view to the music, not its sonic presentation.

While the reader's question is likely to be how does the remaster job affect sound quality (can they hold onto their old copy?), all too often the reviewer feels the need to argue the merits of the music. This is a settled score and revisiting it just demonstrates that many of them are either a) technically illiterate when it comes to the issues of music production, or b) using inferior playback equipment which precludes any possibility of sound quality appraisal, or c) both. Saying that my own playback stuff is nothing to write home about, I just know that a whole tonne of critics are currently revealing their flawed methodology through their MBV reviews of late.