As musicians we often take artistic creations which may be deeply important to us and unleash them onto the public for anyone to respond to. Another thread here got me wondering, how do y'all react when you get negative feedback? I know some people claim to treat their music like an island and ignore absolutely all outside commentary, positive and negative. I am sure it happens, but I am sure almost everyone listens to what others have to say about their music at some point.

Personally I enjoy feedback. It doesn't matter whether it is related to music or on something else, and maybe having to deal with it professionally makes more me thick skinned when it comes to music. It always interests me to hear what people think about something I have done. It seems obvious to me that when someone says something I disagree with that I will just take it as their opinion. On the other hand, I often find that sometimes people will point out things I did not like about my music and I can use it as an opportunity to improve. For example, In the last songwriting challenge here the user Ilwhyan mentioned how boring my song was rhythmically which wasn't something I realized while writing it. But as I kept on listening I was less happy with the song I wrote, and Ilwhyan's comment helped make me realize why. I find that a lot of feedback is genuinely helpful stuff that I agree with. It seems to me like a lot of people are more amenable to production/mastering comments and least responsive to genre, which makes perfect sense to me.

What about everyone else? Does anyone here feel bad or disappointed or is the "to each their own, De gustibus non est disputandum" sentiment more common? When I say disappointed I mean something more than just feeling for the other person not enjoying something.

I wouldn't say feedback is negative when it's actually criticizing in a proper way; having another point of view and understanding it can help to improve one's own music in a way which one wouldn't have noticed otherwise, so every kind of opinion matters here, as one can decide whether to incorporate or not that idea/concept for the future.

Negative feedback I'd say it's the type that doesn't help or go anywhere, when it's just mindless hate for the sake of it.

Yeah that is a really good point. I have seen people say stuff like go die in a fire/kill yourself because they didn't like a person's music but personal attacks like that are a far cry away from say calling something a train wreck/garbage but explains why it seems that way. Emotionally though I can see how some thin skinned people wouldn't understand the difference which is why you have bands like Rose Funeral assaulting people for playing Uno at their show, but maybe the people playing Uno were just being spiteful.

You should checkout my thread... :O

lol Actually one a few places where I post I get plenty of the 'go die in a fire, kill yourself, you suck and will always suck' Honestly it has never bothered me. I'm happy to have a reaction either way. Be it positive or negative. I like criticism be it constructive or pointless. I'm probably the thickest skinned person here which is why I'm pretty cut and dry in what I have to say about anyone else's work.

I guess the only thing that might be slightly annoying was something that came up in a different thread where someone compared one of my projects to another one of my projects and was saying it's not of the same quality. That I didn't quite get, I can understand not liking one thing more than the other but it's two totally different beasts and the creations behind each are totally different.

Hell I'm just appreciative that someone even bothered to give something I did a brief listen cause I honestly put this out soully for myself and if anyone else happens to enjoy it as well then that's just a bonus.


But if I was like someone else here(spoiled 15 year old kid) that just started a thread.... I would probably overreact and tell everyone they have no clue what they are talking about and generally act like a crybaby that everyone didn't kiss my ass and tell me i was a special unique snowflake like my mom always tells me.

As if you can't compare the quality of two very different bands. So I can't say Immolation is of a higher quality than Zarach Baal Tharaggh because the creative process was different? That's bullshit.

that's completely different. and honestly yea I would look at you like a retard if you came to me trying to discuss the two to me and why one is better than the other.

the difference in my projects is the material that was recorded. I still went through the same process of writing/recording/ and mixing it. So I'm not getting the quality issue maybe cause I actually spent more time on the project you don't like. I don't care if you didn't like it, it's just oddly worded for me as far as quality. You might as well just stuck with the comment about it being terrible which I was find with.

You have some serious child hood issues. And self esteem. And ego. Its really annoying, you must be a wicked pain in the ass for everyone that knows you, and has to put up with your shit.

Terrible = a description of it's quality.

it's more of a description of your enjoyment of it. But we are splitting hairs. Esp since you didn't even say what project of mine you were comparing it to since I was curious.

I don't think SLK is bothered by negative feedback about its quality, or even by the comparative judgment to his other work. The issue is that it's odd from his perspective to hear someone make the comparative judgment about his work: From his perspective, the work had the some effort, dedication, and time, and came from the same writer, just with different intentions. So, it seems plausible that if one really likes something that writer has done before, they should defer to him a little bit with his other work, and try to understand what he's up to rather than just making immediate judgments. Of course, one might do all that and still think that he succeeds in one case but not in the other -- that's fine. But it does seem appropriate to give it time and thought if evidence suggests the artist is good at what he does. This is sort of like why those monochromatic paintings are subject to such dispute: Outsiders see a black square (or whatever) on a canvas and think it's ridiculous, but the artist behind it may have put the same exact thought and dedication into it, so be puzzled why people don't try harder to discover the significance of the painting.

Anyway, I don't mean to put words into his mouth, so sorry about that. Just an interesting topic.

That sums it up very nicely, thank you awheio.

That makes more sense, fair enough.

but you still leave me curious to what you were comparing it to.

Yzzorderrex (however you spell that) the only project of yours I've enjoyed.

K ,thank you for clarifying. You'll be happy to know the next full length has already been started one for it. I had planned on doing a split and an ep next but with my harddrive dump.. I'm still up in the air to that so I did the next best thing and started on all new material.

Far out, looking forward to it.

Music is subjective. There's rarely I say something flat out sucks!
It's like someone will tell you their favourite food is tomato soup and you tell them their taste sucks because you like pizza.

There's no such thing as negative feedback.

Bashing/trolling is another story.

It's not even close. It's like telling someone their food sucks because they had no idea what they were doing, failed to achieve even their mistaken goals, and ended up with a product that lacks redeeming qualities for you. Nothing to do with pizza, certainly.

Artistic/aesthetic criticism is an extremely tricky issue, and straight appeals to subjectivity are unlikely to be fully accurate. Though they may be socially useful, to prevent needless, mind-numbing arguments... But there are many dimensions along which to accurately, and somewhat objectively, make evaluative judgments about music and other forms of art, although perhaps nothing conclusive.

Anyway, how do I react to negative feedback? If it's from people who don't know/understand my approach to music or the traditions within which I'm working, etc., I usually just ignore it and proceed to do my own things. If it's from people who are familiar with e.g. dbm and are more competent than I am, I guess I'll often just acknowledge that they're right. Usually this causes me to be a bit more self-critical each time, listening more and more closely to my own parts, taking it more seriously. So it's often beneficial, but still can be a bummer to hear, especially when they've pointed out flaws that you missed initially, but come to agree about.

I think about fair criticism but ignore silly ones. For example my band's debut got reviewed by autothrall and I reflected on a lot of points he mentioned. But locals in the scene who criticise it because they "don't listen to death metal", pfft. Obviously if someone says that a black metal song has no clean vocals or a groove-based song has too much groove parts you can safely ignore it. On the other hand if they say some of the grooves are uninteresting, you might reflect on that a little bit for future songwriting purposes.

In the end it's always good to hear everything, even if you don't listen to/obey everything that people say about the music.

Just swallow it.

It depends on the focus and the way the critics are done. Some people can say my music is total shit and that's fine for them, but if they don't provide any solid argument, I just take it as people who have other tastes.

I usually look for feedback to fix things that I can't see or I don't know how to correct (like production issues).

Criticism and feedback are interesting because they say as much about the critic as they do the material. iamntbatman reviewed "Domination Liberation Purification" and gave it a 65% for ADD songwriting and way too much genre hopping. While I intentionally used the genre hopping to elicit moods and tell the story, the review indicated that he understood this and I didn't pull it off very well. Listening to the album again, I can see that he is right. The idea is there, the execution almost makes it, but it doesn't really hold together in the same way that I had wanted. This sort of thing is helpful because I know that the critic understands what I am aiming at and can see how well/poorly I hit the mark.

On the other hand, a review of "Alas, Tyranny" by windsofwar represents the other sort of criticism: shitty and unhelpful. His review start off critiquing the demo for being modern metal, having harsh vocals, and fast drums. Well, there we go, these are all true, but are they really a bad thing? He includes factual inaccuracies: "Backed by rarely-changing 32nd notes on the bass drum," the drums change constantly and beats are very varied, "and most often a major third harmony," I use third harmonies pretty regularly, but so does ALL music, and I used fourth/fifth/wandering harmonies in the demo more than many artists, "the majority of the songs are hardly progressive, despite the fact that "progressive" is listed under Mr. Parsons' genres on his myspace page." One song (Defiance) has a relatively standard song structure (ABACDEFA if you can call six distinct parts a standard structure) all of others are progressive either in structure (Prometheus, Breath of Deliverance) or music (The Dragons).

He proceeds to review "Defiance" as his least enjoyed song, stating that the song introduces ideas exactly as the listener expects them and the guitar solo is uninteresting. The song begins with the chorus (no vocals), does a verse, another chorus (with vocals), a verse, another verse, a symphonic bridge, guitar solo, then final chorus (2x). All of the parts do introduce musical tension and resolve it in a way that the listener can anticipate a new part; is 'the listener expects ideas' a bad thing here? Or just an indication that the critic wants something more progressive? Granted, the guitar solo sucks.

His review of Prometheus has the main criticisms that the intro synths sound like an N64 game (they do, not gonna lie), and generic song structure. The song intros with the chorus (no vocals -- hey that is similar!), then goes into a verse, chorus, verse... and then goes into a bridge, and goes in a completely different direction to bring the EP to a close with a melody in the symphonic introduction. Maybe I'm mistaken, but that isn't a particulary generic progression. Again, we see that the guy isn't really critiquing the music for what it is, but for what it isn't. The close of his review proves it -- "Maybe Matt should listen to more Helstar or Yngwie Malmsteen?" The guy very simply either does not know or like what I am trying to accomplish, and his review isn't helpful at the outset. Furthermore, he doesn't even seem to listen to the music correctly, as he is flat out incorrect regarding factual matters of the music. This sort of criticism is just irritating, because it is published next to other criticism with no disclaimer as to its validity.

I find Mattp's examples really illustrate what a lot of people have been discussing, i.e. how different types of feedback could be afforded different weight in how seriously they are to be taken. I read each of the reviews Mattp mentioned and also noticed how bare-bones the "Alas, Tyranny" review was. When a person can not articulate why they feel a certain way it is not very helpful, but I think that even mistaken feedback could provide some insight. Using those same examples take ""Backed by rarely-changing 32nd notes on the bass drum" it is obvious even if the review is factually incorrect that something did not work there for that person.

At the same time I wouldn't pay as much attention to someone who says things which indicate the listener may not know what they are talking about or how to express it. It is also a good point that it says a lot about the reviewer's own tastes. Its not really the same thing when a person is talking about their expectations versus discussing the music itself.

I like and welcome "constructive criticism", and take it into account. But sometimes I get a negative feedback that I just don't get where the guy is coming from at all. And I guess the reviewer just doesn't "get" what I am doing, and may not understand the style. Like in the latest review of my band Astrum's CD, Tales of Witchlore. It' just seemed the reviewer did not understand it is early Venom, and Motorhead, and Discharge influenced punk metal. Which does have some lighthearted songs, a simple punk vibe, etc. But no one ever said the solos ruined it, or it was out of tune. So, while I am glad(I guess) to get feedback for my material, I don't see where he is coming from at all, and how I can take anyof it as constructive criticism to grow with. I realize feedback is just people's opinion, and everyone has theirs, as well as not everyone will get what one is doing. So, sure, I like positive feedback, and criticism I can use, but sometimes that just doesn't happen, so what can ya' do?

Writing for a mag myself, I always make sure WHY I give negative feedback. That's what reviews partially are for, right?

The review that 54R got for one of their ep's is pretty hilarious since it was that idiot Bonged who didn't like me cause I argued with him over some stupid whatever was incorrect about.

The main part I thought was hilarious was him saying that I never or rarely ever did rolls in my drums.... when literally every fourth repetition of a riff as a roll...sometimes even single riff repetition all the way through the album. I'd understand if he couldn't hear them but he just said they didn't exist.

Everything else I didn't have a problem with since that's what he felt as he listened but when things are stated as fact aren't simply true... I'm more bothered by.

Oh and I thought it was funny that his personal prefrence to single kick drumming is far superior to double bass drumming as a negative to my release though it varies up between the two quite often throughout every song.

I quite enjoy criticism. I enjoy writing music and the feedback is like the climax of it, even if what's said is negative.

I've never actually recorded any music but this is what I can say about feedback in general. I can take harsh criticism all day long, but only if it's legitimate and reasonable. If someone criticizes something because they lack knowledge in the subject, if they're criticizing something that is either not there or different to what they claim, if they use generic feedback so general that it can't really apply, or if they don't give it a proper chance, then I am going to say something. I usually just write these people off as unreasonable, judgmental, and over-hasty.

I don't give criticism unless I'm asked to, and I expect the same.

That is kind of a vague statement to me. Do you mean that no one should review or discuss music unless requested or something more like people shouldn't interject their critique in places it is not welcome? I don't mean to be a hard-ass and put words into your mouth, its just that I can see how some musicians might not care for any commentary at all. Frank Zappa said that rock journalism was mostly people who couldn't write and I know I have heard the sentiment that criticism is for people that can do the thing they are criticizing (mostly with respect to cooking though). I think its fair that people do things like write reviews for this website or post commentary on youtube without being asked. Although, something like writing a letter to Kerry King about his technique or approaching someone after a show to negatively critique them would be inappropriate. The way I see it once I make the decision to release something publicly its fair game.

I absolutely welcome constructive criticism. I'm a writing major at Uni, and a big part of the course is having the other people in the class go through your work and pick it apart. It is great, how else are you going to improve?

I used to play with a guy who would write riffs that weren't bad, but would often sound a lot like something - and I'd tell him "That sounds like The Trooper", "That sounds like Master of Puppets", etc. He didn't get up in arms about it, but I can tell it ticked him off. Honestly, I probably could have given better feedback than that.

I don't understand how anyone could perceive that as bad. If I wrote a kickass riff that unknowingly sounded almost the same as another famous riff, I would want someone to tell me.

Well that was the thing. I realise myself when I write riffs that sound like others - I've found a couple of riffs I've done recently are quite Sabbathy, one sounds probably a little too much like Heaven and Hell, but yeah, it isn't really a negative thing to bring up. Ahh well, maybe it is because whenever he would try and play a riff that he had learnt from a famous song I could never recognise it because he often buggered it up a bit, haha.

Well, unless someone asks me for an opinion, I don't give it. And if I need your advice/opinion, I'll ask for it.
Now, most places I have my stuff on, don't have an option to comment, simply because I don't give a shit if you didn't like it. If you do indeed like the music, send an email and order a demo/cassette. Simple as that!

Hahah..

I find this difficult to relate wholly to, seeing as I feel I've never composed anything abhorrently bad.

But at the end of the day, if the majority says it sucks, then you need to go back to the drawing board, and keep churning out things until they become acceptable to you and just as importantly the listener.
If you have all the structure and direction there, then you just need to work on more minor, specific critisms, and unless you're autismal that shouldn't provoke any kind of butthurt.