The basic idea I have is that musicians, and artists in general, contribute their expressions to a larger public discourse, with the reasonable hope of being paid for their imaginative efforts. Crude as it may sound, the music they produce (or novels, paintings, plays, and even poems, to a degree) becomes a product, and the audience becomes a consumer, expected to pay real money to experience what the artist has put up for sale.I'd say this economic arrangement calls for a healthy amount of public discussion. Ideally, that means a battery of knowledgeable reviewers willing to offer fair, interesting, and occasionally provocative assessments of the work and its worth. Good? Bad? Grand? Rustic? Pretentious? Does the work express musical ideas and lyrical insights in ways that might broaden the listener's perspective, or does it simply browbeat the consumer with more attitude than inspiration? Or is the music just plain fun and engaging, for reasons a thoughtful writer ought to be able to explain?
It's all up for discussion, digression, apology, or condemnation, depending on how far a writer wants to take the critique. There's room for enthusiasm, skepticism, a little irreverence, and even the occasional change of heart. Readers, of course, are free to weigh in. Ideally, the whole thing becomes a real conversation, a give-and-take that keeps the wits sharp, challenges a few assumptions, and provides protection against swigging the snake oil.
If artists are going to put a price on their imagination, the rest of us are entitled to have something to say about what we're getting for our money.
