Should music critics also be audiophiles?

I can enjoy a crappy recording of a really great piece of music.

I can enjoy a fine recording of a song that is just okay otherwise.

Just like anything else that has various measures of quality it is the masterpiece that encompasses them all.

A music critic could and should be able to discuss all the aspects of what makes a piece of music bad, good or great.

Yes as Tom says above most Audiophile mags, print and online, do music reviews and grade on sound quality as well as performance. To me great music is great music but great recording certainly helps a lot. Likely these days most critics use headphones and it’s a bit easier to put a competent headphone system than a speaker fronted system.

When films are screened for film critics, I imagine that they are good quality renditions (used to call them "prints") on good/big screens with proper sound, etc. If a director or composer has made an effort to include something in the film, the playback should not obscure it. And a good film critic would know the optimal playback conditions for a film.

I see no reason the above argument doesn’t transfer without loss to the music critic. Now, whether an article of music criticism *should* discuss the audiophile technicalities is an interesting one. I’d love to see it, but I could imagine that for reviews with word-limits (i.e., all of them) it could displace important critical remarks about more central considerations.

Most audiophile magazines give recordings they review a grade for sound and performance and often discuss the sound in their review.  Many music magazines don't because people who care about sound are a tiny minority of their readers.

Paul McGowan of PS Audio posted about how he recently recorded a string quartet and had this experience:

What a great experience and I can’t wait to share with you the recording in a future Octave Records release. This particular recording will be on the upcoming Audiophile’s Guide setup SACD.

What caught my attention for the subject of today’s post was the little introductory speech I gave to the ladies before they began to play. Our producer, Giselle Collazo, asked me to brief them on what we were hoping to achieve with this recording. Soon I found myself explaining who audiophiles were and what makes us different than someone with a Sonos speaker or a Bose radio. Their blank stares were really telling.   

 Our world of high-end audio is so far removed from what people consider good home music reproduction as to be mind-boggling.

https://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/relative-better/

It should still be secondary to the actual performance and writing. A great sounding performance doesn't overcome the issues of terrible writing and playing.No amount of shining can disguise crap and some great songs have been destroyed by too much shining

The quality of the recording, at least in modern music made with modern means, should be more of a factor in music criticism. Compression, for instance, should be discussed as ain important factor that enhances or diminishes the enjoyment of a recording.

It's because they get more than their fill at work.  They get to be professional musicians because they practice way more than they feel like.  

Let 'em rip.  Loving music to the point where you make a living listening to it is a natural companion to being an audiophile. I've also always been kind of at a loss concerning musicians that don't seem to give a whit about the quality of the recorded sound they let themselves be assaulted with. Is it because their ears are so brilliantly tuned and their sense of aesthetics is so august that they consider all recorded music to be nothing more than a shadow of the real thing? Is it because they've all gone deaf because of the noise?

Would be nice....audiophiles; not just gear jocks which often call themselves “audiophiles”.

“Nice“ because better reproduced sound CAN improve one’s ability to hear deeper into the performance. However, this assumes that the audiophile’s sense of what is “better” relates to the sound of live music. Otherwise, all bets are off; and, in a misguided attempt to make one’s system sound more “accurate” one can actually reduce the ability to hear deeper into the music and not just deeper into sound.

“Nice” and not necessarily great, or necessary, because anyone who has any business being a “music critic” doesn’t really need anything beyond acceptable sound to make a good assessment of the musical merit of a performance. How well he is able to communicate this is a different story. Listen to the music on an old scratchy 78 rpm recording of Jascha Heifetz or Louis Armstrong. No problem whatsoever hearing the brilliance of their playing and how it might hold up compared to others’.

Still, great sound is a beautiful thing.