Sunday Roundtable Discussion : Why don't the critics "get" it???

[woodstock854]

I was in the shower this evening listening to ATDW, of course,  and all I could think of is....why doesn't EVERYONE love this CD???  Many of the critics have been less than excited, and I don't understand why.   

Disclaimer : I KNOW that I am a little biased, being a Mega-fan like the rest of you.    But the question still gets to me.

AS Gladys Knight said, Clay's voice is "pure".  It is beautiful, and highly unmatched in today's market.  I get tremendous pleasure from listening to that voice.  As we have ALL said, it really doesn't matter what Clay sings. "He could sing the phone book..." I have heard so many times.  It is all wonderful.  And the more I have listened to ATDW, the more I love each and every song.

So........the question is.........why don't the critics GET IT?????  I don't understand it, to be honest.  Do they really speak their opinions, or state what they "think" we want to hear???  Are they looking for a certain genre that they don't believe Clay fits into???  When they write, are they really writing about Clay's music, or about Clay himself and what they perceive him to be, as he fits into the scheme of the music business???

I'd LOVE to hear your thoughts on this, because I am truly puzzled.  I cannot imagine anyone listening to this CD and not seeing the appeal.  OK, you don't have to love EVERY song.  But how can you listen to it and not see the tremendous talent there that leads to multi-generational appeal???

I know not all critics have been less than kind.  But enough to make me wonder.  I look forward to hearing what you think.
Woodstock

[ACcountryFan]

I happen to feel that Clay doesn't fit into the preconcieved idea of a rock star. If you look through history, any act that was male that had a largely female audience and one that relied on melodic songs instead of edgy, angst-driven songs were typically beat up on by the critics. A lot of the times Clay is being panned...not for his music...but by how he became famous or well-known...there are also critics who are just rock critics, plain and simple, and they will never say a good word about Clay's music because of the image, rightfully or wrongfully, that has been bestowed upon him. It sounds childish but i really feel that critics simply hate the style of pop music Clay sings...pop music isn't the preferred listening choice...it's usually rock and R&B/Rap...and when you have an act such as Clay coming along...standing opposite basically of everyone who's hyped as being cool and popular...you have Clay come along and have success. The more angry the critics get, if you notice, is because of how much success Clay is having. If Clay weren't successful and competing with the likes of all the acts who are heavily played on the radio, the critics would be quiet...but i've noticed as i mentioned, the more success Clay has the more angry and louder the critics are who do not want Clay's style of pop music to spread. I think it's a bit of paranoia too...some feel pop music will over-take "rock n roll".

[fhmmany2]

I really wish I knew the answer to this one. As I wrote on the Magazine Thread, I wish the Editors of the magazines would give some background on their music critics - what qualifications does a person have to have  to become a music critic? Are these people  who have studied music - people with a real knowledge of music - people with degrees - what?

Sometimes I think that it has become such a habit for the media to attack Clay during the last three years, that critics think they would lose some degree of "coolness" if they gave Clay a good review. I know there have been some really good reviews - at lot of them newspaper column reviews - but there have been many more bad reviews than good.

Sometimes I think that people are writing reviews without ever really sitting down and listening to the CD - how anybody could listen to ATDW and not love that voice is beyond me 

[GWENN]

I THINK WE ALL ARE HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING THE CRITICS.  I WILL ADMIT THAT MANY OF THE SONGS ARE NOT INNOVATIVE.  SO WHAT?  CLAY'S VOICE IS SO GORGEOUS.  THERE IS SUCH RANGE DEMONSTRATED THROUGHOUT THE CD.

WHAT BAFFLES ME IS THAT JOSH GROBAN AND MICHAEL BUBLE DON'T GET THIS KIND OF DISDAIN.  THEIR STYLE IS NOT A WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT THAN CLAY'S.  JOSH IS EMBRACED TO SAY THE LEAST YET I FIND HIM A BORING ENTERTAINER WITH A BEAUTIFUL VOICE.  CLAY IS A FABULOUS ENTERTAINER WITH A GORGEOUS VOICE.   

BROKEN WINGS IS ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL YET I HAVEN'T SEEN ONE CRITIC EVEN MENTION THAT.  Everything I Have SHOULD BE A CLASSIC.  AND NO ONE, NOT ONE CRITIC HAS MENTIONED Lover All Alone.  IT MAY BE A BONUS CUT, BUT STILL, IT HAS GOTTEN A LOT OF PRESS.

CLAY HAS LIVED HIS WHOLE LIFE BEING BULLIED.  I GUESS HIS MUSIC IS JUST ANOTHER PHASE OF THE SAME.  HE PUTS OUT A CD AND PEOPLE TALK ABOUT HIS PERSONAL LIFE, NOT HIS MUSIC.  HOW ABOUT DISCUSSING HIS FIRST MAJOR WRITING PROCESS.  HOW ABOUT DISCUSSING WHAT IT IS THAT HE LOVES SO MUCH ABOUT A Thousand Days.  DOES HE FEEL  MORE COMFORTABLE IN THE UPPER OR LOWER REGISTER.  WHAT KIND OF SONG GIVES HIM THE MOST JOY TO SING.  THE LIST OF MUSIC QUESTIONS GOES ON AND ON.  NO ON EVER ASKS HIM ABOUT HIS MUSIC.  SO, HOW CAN CRITICS KNOW WHO HE IS MUSICALLY?

I DON'T THINK MANY OF THEM EVEN LISTENED TO THE CD WITH AN OPEN MIND.  I DON'T THINK MANY LISTENED TO THE WHOLE THING.  I THINK MANY JUST DECIDED THAT IT IS CLAY AIKEN.  BORING.  COVERS.  EEEEWWWW.  WELL, I CHALLENGE ANY CRITIC TO LISTEN TO THAT VOX AND FIND FAULT WITH ANY PART OF IT.

CRITICIZE THE SONG CHOICE.  CRITICIZE THE PRODUCTION.  BUT YOU CANNOT FIND ANYTHING TO CRITICIZE ABOUT THE VOICE.

GWENN

[woodstock854]

Thank you for your comments.  I SO agree with all of you.

AC - I don't think anyone is expecting Clay to be a rock star, but perhaps some of the critics are only used to writing about Rock Stars, and don't understand Pop.  Clay is supposed to be a Pop star, but he doesn't quite fit into that category, either, does he???  Because he has a unique style.  And to me, it crosses many boundaries, making him appealing to a LOT more people.  Maybe critics don't like how he became famous.  But do they do the same to Kelly Clarkson???  NO.

Frankie - Good point.   What qualifications do critics need???  I bet at a small paper, virtually none.  That's usually how it works.  And to me, they are probably the ones most likely to write what others are writing, and not even voice a true opinion.  Maybe I'm way off base, but I can't help but wonder.  Another good point.  Is it habit to bash Clay???  Maybe.  And that is not fair at all.

GWENN - OH, I SO agree with you.  Josh Groban and Michael Buble are not that much different from our Clay, and yet they get much more respect.

  CLAY IS A FABULOUS ENTERTAINER WITH A GORGEOUS VOICE.   

What more needs to be said????? 

[lorraine]

Thank you for your comments.  I SO agree with all of you.

AC - I don't think anyone is expecting Clay to be a rock star, but perhaps some of the critics are only used to writing about Rock Stars, and don't understand Pop.  Clay is supposed to be a Pop star, but he doesn't quite fit into that category, either, does he???  Because he has a unique style.  And to me, it crosses many boundaries, making him appealing to a LOT more people.  Maybe critics don't like how he became famous.  But do they do the same to Kelly Clarkson???  NO.

Frankie - Good point.   What qualifications do critics need???  I bet at a small paper, virtually none.  That's usually how it works.  And to me, they are probably the ones most likely to write what others are writing, and not even voice a true opinion.  Maybe I'm way off base, but I can't help but wonder.  Another good point.  Is it habit to bash Clay???  Maybe.  And that is not fair at all.

GWENN - OH, I SO agree with you.  Josh Groban and Michael Buble are not that much different from our Clay, and yet they get much more respect.

  CLAY IS A FABULOUS ENTERTAINER WITH A GORGEOUS VOICE.   

What more needs to be said????? 

THAT JUST ABOUT SAYS EVERYTHING WOODY.  MY INPUT WOULDN'T BE ANY DIFFERENT THAN THE REST OF YOU GUYS.  WELL SAID.  WE ARE HERE FOR CLAY NO MATTER WHAT THE CRITICS SAY.  TODAY, TOMORROW AND FOREVER.  I SURE HOPE HE KNOWS THAT. 

[Marilyn]

While I am at a loss as to why the critics feel free to pan the singer and his personal life more than they do the song choice (tm AI) what is more disturbing to me is the lack of verbal or printed support from the label. From Clive Davis to the producers of the album to others involved from RCA, there is a resounding silence. In other press releases, Clive or the label have made nice comments about the artist- see Ruben, Daughtry, etc.

I do not understand the vitriol that pours forth from some of these critics. Its like open season on Clay. I do know that not everyone is going to like the covers concept or the songs themselves, but why turn a critique into a vicious verbal attack on Clay himself. The purpose of a critic is to expound the good and the bad on what they are reviewing, not to eviscerate the artist- and yet that is what it feels like to me in many of these instances.

We have seen snippets of what some OTHER producers/people in the industry think of Clay- and many of these are absolutely GLOWING at his talent, his work ethic, his personality. I do not understand the disparity between this and the polar opposite reviews. This also goes along with why many of the dj's will not play his songs. Surely Clay has not gone to each one of them and insulted them in some obscure way??

I guess no one will ever know the reasoning behind all this. All that I know is I admire and support Clay, and I will continue to do so as long as he travels this path. No one should have to bear with the indignities of the tabloids, the viciousness of some of the critiques.

I hope that he is happy- I know he makes me happy.

[Tammy]

You guys all have great points..   I have my CD in my car and I have been listening to it everyday to and from work... Today I put in another CD and had to take it out to put Clays back in because I have become so attached to it..  I do think that critics are looking for something new and edgy and  don't take time to listen to a CD with mostly covers.. If they did I am sure Clay would come out on top because IMO he has one of the best musical voices that I have every heard..    As far as the kids go I think most of them  want to hear upbeat music no matter what it sounds like..

[American Idol]

I guess its time I start posting again, I haven't been here for a while and figured I`d come see how things were going.
I also do not get why the critics don't get or why other people don't get it. I mean his voice is practically perfect. I also dont understnad why he gets no radio play when other singers who sing just as good if not worse and are horrible role models get tons of promotion and radio play.
I should stop talking now though or i`ll be mad all day. lol

[mrs. c.]

I actually wonder if a lot of these critics have listened with an open ear and mind to this CD Sure a lot of them probably feel that covers from Clay means he's not progressed very far from AI and have probably not been to open to the CD from the get go   I get goosebumps from his voice it is clear and beautiful and a joy to the ears, if they wuld only open them up and really listen, they would realize the talent in that tall, drop dead gorgeous man

[Tessie]

Perhaps the critics were disappointed in the CD.  Perhaps the expectations were much higher for Clay.  Perhaps they were looking forward to something new and innovative.  Perhaps just the idea of covers colored their opinions so much that they didn't give a good listen.

Perhaps it is good that people have higher expectations for Clay.  Perhaps it means that they recognize his talent and want to hear more.  I know that many in the fandom were disappointed.  Why would the critics be any different?

Who is Clay Aiken musically?  Where does he fit in?  An album of original material would have given a clearer picture.  Now critics are left wondering.  Here is potential talent....is potential all it is? 

The critics needed to hear something new.  They didn't get something new.  They are left wondering if what they know so far is all there is.  Is Clay Aiken simply a cover singer in their view?  If so, there are many cover singers out there.  It may be the fault of RCA, but in my opinion, Clay needs to show something different....and he didn't.

The critics did not like what they heard.  It may be simply that they did not like the song choices.  I would not expect them to write praise for something that they didn't care for....not even for Clay.

[wisconsinmaniac]

I strongly feel that lack of promotion of the CD by RCA and also lack of verbal/written support by RCA, Clive, etc. set the stage for a negative perception of ATDW by the industry.  Why did so many of us have to diligently search to find ATDW in major record stores during the first and second weeks of sales? THAT WAS UNACCEPTABLE!  With the lack of a solid promotion, did some of the critics feel "it just wasn't worth the time to really listen"?

Clay has done everything possible to promote the CD.  It may not have been the CD that he truly wanted, but he stepped up to the plate and delivered his very best on each and every song. The CD is absolutely beautiful.  On the TV shows, the CD signing, and the "promo bits" on Yahoo, Sound Check, etc., he again delivered with his voice, enthusiasm and charm. 

Why was Lover All Alone not on the CD?      Clive vs. David Foster ???

Didn't it seem like there never was a clear-cut "first single" on ATDW?  Without You was the song that Clay sang on TV appearances at first, but then A Thousand Days became the "sample".  The promotion never seemed solid!

Why wouldn't somebody take "Broken Wings" and promote, promote, promote!  It is a masterpiece.  It may be a cover . . . . .but Clay's version is so original.  (I admit I have so many more questions and not many answers).

I cannot even guess at why many critics have chosen to add personal attacks to their less than glowing critique of the CD.  I agree with so many of you that some critics (when they knew it was a CD of mostly covers) did not even bother to hear Clay's voice and interpretation of the selections.  Since it was Clay's "sophomore CD", did the critics expect something other than mostly covers ~ even though the CD was so very well done?

I just proof read what I wrote ~  I have to admit that I have loads of questions  . . . and basically, no answers.  However, today's "roundtable topic" is excellent and all of your comments are truly thought provoking.

Personally, I cannot wait to hear Clay sing these songs in concert!   

[quynn]

Perhaps the critics were disappointed in the CD.  Perhaps the expectations were much higher for Clay.  Perhaps they were looking forward to something new and innovative.  Perhaps just the idea of covers colored their opinions so much that they didn't give a good listen.

If critics are consciously doing a good job, preconceived opinions about an album's genre or concept  (ie. covers concept) should play a minimal  role in the critiqu.  IMO, the vocalist's interpretation and voice quality, and the instrumental production should play a greater role in the critique than the concept of the album, the identity of the singer and the behaviors and demographic of the singer's fans.  I do believe the cover's concept should be considered, but maybe it should have played a much smaller role than it did for some of the critics. 

The likes and dislikes of song selection is so personal and may need to play a lesser role in a critique as well.  If you are a food critic and are given a plate of spaghetti to taste and review, you probably shouldn't do a critique based on the fact that you hate spaghetti and would much rather be sitting in front of a plate of ravioli.  Suck it up and critique the texture, blend of spices, aroma and technique used to prepare the dish and hope that next time it will be your job to taste the ravioli.

The critics needed to hear something new.  They didn't get something new.  They are left wondering if what they know so far is all there is.  Is Clay Aiken simply a cover singer in their view?  If so, there are many cover singers out there.  It may be the fault of RCA, but in my opinion, Clay needs to show something different....and he didn't.

There are probably a thousand different ways to prepare spaghetti, some old, some new, some innovative.   Many old recipes are out there waiting to be rediscovered and tweaked with different ingredients.  I believe Clay did follow a new recipe and breathed new life into most of the old songs, and by doing that he did show "something different" with this CD.  ATDW and MOAM seem to be different in comparison.  Maybe some of the critics just didn't listen.  Because, if they did, they would have discovered those differences as well as several original songs that also showcase a variety of Clay's strengths.  So, in that regard I have to wonder how much of an impact "showing something different" has on the reviews for ATDW.  Maybe they were expecting MOAM2, something not so different?  Who knows what type of album will resonate with the critics.  They receive money to express their opinion and get paid whether they are fair, unfair, mean spirited, derogatory, uplifting, complimentary or flattering in their final drafts.  Seems like a dream job. 

Why wouldn't somebody take "Broken Wings" and promote, promote, promote!  It is a masterpiece.  It may be a cover . . . . .but Clay's version is so original.

 

[ACcountryFan]

If you are a food critic and are given a plate of spaghetti to taste and review, you probably shouldn't do a critique based on the fact that you hate spaghetti and would much rather be sitting in front of a plate of ravioli.

That is what i've attempted to say for years! A lot of these critics personally dislike Clay or else there would be no personal attacks and jokes made about him amidst a so-called CD review. When attacks come into play, the legitmacy of the review is gone. Rock music critics are not gonna like a Clay Aiken CD...that's the bottom line. His CD needs reviewed by critics who are more favorable to Clay's style...soft rock/easy listening. However, there are no Soft Rock music critics. It's either a Rock or Country music critic's world...and Soft Rock is caught in the middle. Maybe that's why decades ago it was called Middle of the Road music...it wasn't 100% rock or 100% country...it was in the middle...and harder to critque because it was ecclectic.

[woodstock854]

 

I feel like quoting each and every one of you.....it would take up pages....but I SO agree with what you are all saying, and I  you.

Clay deserves more.  He is out there doing his best, and it is FAR better than the majority of the music out there.  He can sing anything, and he proved it with ATDW.  He put his spin on each song and they are masterpieces. The originals are great songs, but Clay's voice adds that magic to each one that makes it untouchable.

The critics may never "get it".  I'm not sure if an original CD would have made a difference.

But WE "get it".  And that is what is important. 

I hope someday the critics will put aside ALL the other things that are clouding their judgement, and TRULY listen to Clay's music for what it is.  But I don't believe that will happen anytime soon.  They write what they must, not what they "feel", IMO.  Thank goodness Clay has fans like us that don't care at all what the critics say.  After all, when it comes down to it, all that matters is what each one of us thinks.  We will listen to what we love best, no matter what "they" say. 

And we love Clay best.   

Thanks SO much for all of your thought provoking comments.  I have enjoyed reading all of them. 
Woodstock

[clayharmony]

Hello you all, 

I found your contributions to this thread quite thoughtful and a great read.  After an reading another exasperating review about a month ago, I posted the following on the defunct album thread at the OFC.  As I also posted here,  running the risk of musical snobbery, I am finding that less musical knowledgeable persons have the most issues with this CD.  Of course, I recognize the disappointment of a covers album from such a new artist, and I share it.  That being said, this CD is superbly produced, Clay's vocals are outstanding...and anyone who has a formal education in music seems to get that.  To me, assigning a rock/R and B expert to review Clay, is like asking a cartoonist to review a sculpture at the National Museum of Art.  It simply a matter of aesthetics.  Some are just not evolved enough to appreciate the depth of the beauty.  I apologize in advance for the elitist overtones that have crept into this post.  As a trained musician, I'd like to invite a number of these critics to my classroom for a cram course in music appreciation.  A waste of time, ya think?   

I agree with the posters here that Clay seems to possess an inner excitement of late...and I too am so hopeful that it means he leaves his current label to affiliate with the Warner label, David Foster's 'home'...

After being dismayed at the disturbing absence of substantial supporting musical knowledge for opinions rendered by some of the pop critics, I 'googled' a couple of them to learn more about their formal education. This is what I found out about Erlewine:


Quote:
studied at the University of Michigan, where he majored in English and was music editor (1993-94) and then arts editor (1994-95) of the school's newspaper, the Michigan Daily 


And Jim Farber, 'chief' pop critic, NY Daily News:


Quote:

I was writing regularly in 1976 for Good Times, the give-away music publication from Long Island. Good Times needed a Westchester correspondent and I think I was the only person they knew who lived there. I was about 18 and ready to graduate from high school. ...Then the editors asked me if I wanted to be a staff writer. Just like that. I was starting college so I knew I couldn't take a full time job. But they said I could just contribute to each issue ...
 


What this brief research reveals to me, and confirms what I have long surmised, is a lack of a formal music education. It seems their musical criticism is based on taste formed in their teens. Couple that with their obvious preference for 'edgy' music, well at least their bias becomes much more evident. In the case of Farber, who has written frequently for The Advocate, perhaps other influences creep into his reviews, as well.

How many pop critics today have roots in traditional popular music? Do they have even a remote appreciation for the adult contemporary genre? I think most do not. With the cost cutting measures so many daily newspapers have undergone in recent years, it seems they have resorted to a 'one size fits all' musical criticism and it is probably safe to assume that the 'rock' expert is anointed head pop critic and is required to review anything other than symphonic concerts/CD releases.

Given these conditions, do you think that Clive Davis' lack of interest in the opinion of music critics may have merit? For me, it gives me some pause, and for certain, context in which to weigh Clay's recent reviews.

[Pamela]

Johanna, that's interesting. It seems most music critics have backgrounds in writing, not music.  But, in a way I can understand how that would be appropriate.  They are after all, critics, not musicologists.  On the other hand, how refreshing would it be to actually read a "review" of an album that doesn't include personal bias and preferences formed as a teenage boy.  What a concept!

Speaking of boys, are all music reviewers male?  Just wondering.

It seems that many of the more informed pop and A/C reviews I read are written by Billboard's Chuck Taylor.  I thought this one, for Barry's new single, a "faithful" cover of the Four Seasons' "Can't Take My Eyes Off of You," was interesting.  And by the way, I don't know a single 50 yo woman who "adores" Barry Manilow. I'm sure there are some, and that's great.  But there are just as many 50 yo women who "adore" Eric Clapton, Rod Stewart and Elton John. I hate stereotypes.

What do you get when you mesh Barry Manilow with an inspired set of retro songs perfectly suited for 50-year-old women? Massive nirvana. Fans already lapped up the master interpreter's "The Greatest Songs of the Fifties"—an album not even particularly attuned to his primary fan base. Upcoming "The Greatest Songs of the Sixties," conjured by longtime mentor Clive Davis, makes its presence known just before its retail release with Manilow's fun, faithful cover of the Four Seasons' "Can't Take My Eyes Off of You." Yes, the song reeks of old-school Vegas, where the enduring entertainer has a sold-out, open-ended run at the Las Vegas Hilton, but it is also wildly entertaining. Perhaps too soft for current-day AC, but assured as a successful entry port for Manilow's adoring public. —Chuck Taylor

I wonder if you know anything about Chuck Taylor, and his background. His review of MoaM was very complimentary, but for ATDW, not so much.

I don't worry too much about reviews of any CD really, and especially Clay's. I've seen far too many so called "reviews" that go on and on about everything but the music, including rants about American Idol, the Claymates, Clay's hair and other physical appearances. 

Not all, but too many "music critics" are about the hip factor moreso than the actual music in my opinion. For people who actually enjoy pop music, there is a dearth of well written, informed reviews from which to base an opinion.

The only real way for pop music lovers to find out about new music is on the radio.

Oh, wait.  Never mind.

[lmatheson]

So my suspicions about those critics who can't seem to understand what music is all about is confirmed in more ways than one.To me music and good songs go together...... the instruments theguitars the piano the violin everything that accompany the soloist makes the music. Some of you Claymaniacs are thousand times better  than those reviewers who are just doing it because it's a job. And no wonder they will be just that....forever.

[ClayHeart]

The critics can't understand why Clay still has such a following of devout fans, and people tend to be critical of what they don't understand.  They refuse to see what we see, to hear what we hear, and to understand a man and a performer who isn't an illusion of prepackaged goods that we're told we should like.   Clay's a man of substance with principles, which is rather unusual with many of today's "stars".   We know he's not perfect and that he has a few little eccentricities, just like the rest of us, and we love him.  What seems to be a little unusual is that Clay's fan's usually get criticized too.  It seems like the critics want to make us feel foolish for being fans, as well as unfairly judging Clay.  Wrong, wrong move critics.  Ever hear of the phrase, beware of sleeping giants.
-- Debbie

[woodstock854]

WOW!!! It's good to see this thread still going.

I have enjoyed reading all of your comments.   

Johanna - I really agree with you.  People with backgrounds in music ought to be doing music reviews.  And hopefully, with a wide background in music, and an open mind.  But I guess that is in a perfect world.     If I was asked to critique rap, well, I just couldn't do it, and it wouldn't be fair. 

I guess that is what it boils down to.  Are the critics fair to Clay???  Not if they are expressing some preconceived notion, and not their true opinion of the CD. 

I fear it will always be an uphill battle for Clay, and I truly don't understand why.  Thank goodness for the support he DOES get from some critics, and from TV personalities that love to have him on their shows.  It keeps him out there.  It will be interesting to see what the critics think when Clay comes out with another CD of original songs.  I hope that will happen in the not too far future.
Woodstock