How do you go about critiquing music?

[atari]

I'm here with less of a question and more of a plea. I've found the practice of attempting to critique music in any conventional way almost impossible, in ways that I have with no other art medium (maybe performance art? idk). The standardised "vibe check" method can be hard for a very analytical person like myself to fully get behind.So I'm here to learn about the methods and thought that goes into your way of critiquing music ?
Kind regards, Atari @879.35

[ThunderPerfectWitchcraft]

Schönberg wrote in "Style and Idea" that criticizing music is always a lazy act: Whoever would hold a somewhat valid point could just write down the composition with the error fixed, he said  .

I don't think that criticizing music differs from any other art critique: You can either direct your critique at the message or central idea, at the conception that is based on this message or central idea, or at the realization of this concept - not much difference to criticizing a painting or a movie. The better your own knowledge about the medium you deal with, the more complex and thoughtful (but not necessarily more true) your critique will become. The "vibe" check you mentioned  is - in my opinion - always a rather subjective thing, and often a rather shallow way of talking about music.

So, if you want to criticize music (why do you want this? D:) I'd recommend of learning some fundamental things about music (notes, modes, basal theory, but most important: the historic context of different genres!), maybe even learn to play on an instrument yourself (it helps a lot). Listen to many different artists, and think about what you hear - what does it tell you?

[atari]

On the topic of criticize I mean more so analyze and critique it. I play music myself I personally just struggle with seeing my way of analyzing music as the "right way" I suppose it's more of an issue with imposter syndrome than the critique itself. Like I need to be doing something to "add value to the conversation" rather than acknowledging my analysis has inherent value if that makes sense 
ty for the input tho, it's been something I've grappled with for a while
Kind regards, Atari @435.02

[BlazingCobaltX]

Preface: I never do any sort of formal music critique, only the vague "this sounds bad lol", but I play music and have tried my hand at writing multiple times.

There are multiple elements to a musical piece that you can analyse, some of which are:

• Composition from a music theory standpoint
• Composition from a 'is this enjoyable to listen to' standpoint
• Arrangement (e.g. business)
• Instruments used and how they add to the complete picture
• Beat, groove, tempo
• Lyrics (quality, poetic nature, intent)
• How the song fits into the rest of the album (if there was a distinct theme)
• Playing technique (e.g. how tight is the drumming, how difficult is the solo)

All of these things you can analyse in two ways: 1) What is the objective quality of this from a technical standpoint? 2) Do I like how it sounds/makes me feel?

Let's pick a progressive metal song for example. This song is, from a technical standpoint, very advanced. It uses polyrhythms, has time signature changes throughout, and probably uses some specific chord progression that I have no idea about. Considering this, you can argue that this song took substantial effort to compose and play, thus there is an artsy nature to it. That can be appreciated on itself.

Now enjoyment-wise, you can argue that this song makes you feel weird. Time signature changes are not your favourite - you prefer to bob your head to the same rhythm throughout a song. Or you can say that the way the singer sings makes you feel queasy. That was probably intended, so the song is successful at making you feel a certain way. So despite acknowledging that this is a very well-made song with technical challenges, you don't necessarily like the way it sounds or makes you feel.

Any critique will benefit from distinguishing between judging the technical appeal of a song and your own preferences. Once you are able to recognise such objective and subjective judgements within yourself, you can critique anything IMO.

[MarcieBee]

A big part of my website is doing album reviews. It started as a way to share obscure or under appreciated albums with friends while sharing my own experiences with them. I think I've reviewed 30ish so far, and I almost never talk about the actual composition of the album itself. It's always about how the album fits into my life, the role it has, the context in which I first heard it. That's far more important to me than the actual compositional quality of an album, because I'm far from qualified to talk about the quality of an album in any objective terms.

[pixiez]

Besides seconding what everyone else has said, I think that (for me at least) another major factor is knowing at least a little about the genre or subculture the song you're critiquing is in. After all, a lot of different genres have different goals, and therefore probably different things they can be judged on. While personal preference and opinion are totally a thing, I think it's also valuable to know what folks are going for.
Like, you might judge a classical composition kind of like you would a realistic painting--is it cohesive/in tune/etc? Does it make sense?
Alternatively, some more experimental subgenres are kinda more like experimental art--maybe they don't want to be in tune at all. Maybe being in tune would be considered a failure!
Alsooooo, music is just REALLY weird because of how many different parts of our brain it lights up. I read THIS IS WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE a while ago, and I wholeheartedly recommend it as not just a way t learn more about music and what we enjoy in it, but also a way to learn more about your own tastes.
I dunno. New Wave is probably my favourite genre, but I've been big on Picopop and Bedroom Pop lately, and also was trained as a classical flautist haha.
Sorry if this is kinda rambling and incoherent, I'm about to head out for the night. :p feel free to ask about any of this if it doesn't make sense!

[villain]

I think about this kind of thing a lot as I do rapidfire album reviews every month. I think describing and measuring the success of various aspects of the work as others discussed in this thread is always useful, but also you should read others' music critique - music zines especially are great for this. I have a few larger a4 booklet sized ones for hardcore, death metal, and dungeon synth, and they really opened my mind to how evocative it is to use allegory to describe the feeling of listening to a work - death metal fans obviously like to describe their listening experiences as like having their faces smashed in with hammers (positive) which is entertaining but also descriptive. Analysing the listening experience both sensationally and emotionally is just as important as evaluations of technique and mastering etc.

[DiffydaDude]

So, if you want to criticize music (why do you want this? D:)..

Because I like being able to take my anger out on things that annoy me. Is it irrational? yes. is it fun, also yes. I dont go up to the artist and tell them their music sucks, im not a monster. I usually just tell about it to somebody else who will listen.