Christgau, Chusid, or DeRogatis: Which critic is the most useless?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

"Let's face facts here—what Robert Christgau does is write about his mail." Mike Doughty, Soul Coughing

I've always been incredulous of the supposed value of criticism, but I despise rock critics with a passion, most notably the ones who actually take themselves seriously.* Anyone who is convinced that their opinions (of rock & roll, for Chrissakes!) are so refined as to warrant them a living wage is delusional. In particular, the three I find most odious are Robert Christgau, Irwin Chusid, and Jim DeRogatis. Despite the latter two having produced a few good books (including Songs In The Key Of Z and Turn On Your Mind), they have nonetheless proven time and again to be both completely full of shit and utterly unaware of this fact. Which of the three is the worst? I await your perspectives.

*Chuck Klosterman therefore is above reproach.

― souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:53 (seventeen years ago) link

http://jhh.blogs.com/anthos/images/perspective_1.jpg

― nabisco, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:55 (seventeen years ago) link

god i miss old ilx so much

― strongohulkington, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:58 (seventeen years ago) link

Pyongyang is in the room.

― Mark Rich@rdson, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:00 (seventeen years ago) link

Chuck Klosterman therefore is above reproach.

― jim, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:01 (seventeen years ago) link

Question mark.

― souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:01 (seventeen years ago) link

Shoot.

― Mark Rich@rdson, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:04 (seventeen years ago) link

anyone who can make a living writing what are essentially more refined ilm posts has achieved some sort of small victory.

― rps, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:07 (seventeen years ago) link

As long as they're aware of their own bullshit, I agree.

― souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:09 (seventeen years ago) link

dude you are on a very large music webboard that has been around since ~2000CE. i know you're new but really, think about it.

― gff, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:13 (seventeen years ago) link

a world of chuck klosterman-esque critics is a world which is "dressing for it"

― rps, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:14 (seventeen years ago) link

"think about it" should actually come up after you hit "submit response" like the itunes "you really sure you wanna buy this?"

― strongohulkington, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:14 (seventeen years ago) link

uhmm

I like christgau because he's funny and he's a good writer. He sort of reminds me of Pauline Kael, who I also like a lot. I don't think all, or even many critics believe that their tastes are so refined as to deserve payment. They believe (and in my opinion some rightfully so) that their ability to articulate an opinion about music within a social/art history/or whatever else context is developed enough that they can write about it and that people will want to read it. And a lot of people do. This is why music publications and blogs exist.

By your logic isn't equally presumptious for someone to write their serious opinion about politics or sports? Or is it because rock and roll isn't serious, and thus to discuss it seriously is ridiculous? I don't know if I believe either of those ideas. I think rock and roll is serious some times and not at others. That's sort of irrelevent though isn't it? Do you get pissed off when you read a TV Guide review of Curb Your Enthusiasm?

― filthy dylan, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:15 (seventeen years ago) link

Trust me, I'm a vet to a number of other similar boards that have been around just as long, if not longer. I know the general mindset. Doesn't mean it's not worth stating.

― souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:15 (seventeen years ago) link

"dude. seriously, don't"

― gff, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:15 (seventeen years ago) link

lock thread

― Tim Ellison, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:16 (seventeen years ago) link

Haha Strongo otm.

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:17 (seventeen years ago) link

Is that a storyboard from a Jacques Tati movie, nabisco?

― James Redd and the Blecchs, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:17 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.sgbgraphics.com/veterans/thank-a-veteran.gif

― rps, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:19 (seventeen years ago) link

You realize that plenty of people make about as much of a living brewing coffee, answering phones, glazing lawn gnomes, writing press releases about new models of radio-controlled hobbyist gliders, designing Kleenex cosies, throwing rubber balls to one another, recruiting Amway sales force, and having therapy sessions with cats, right?

― nabisco, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:19 (seventeen years ago) link

the fact that christgau has been sandwiched between chusid and derogatis is making my bad headache way worse

― strongohulkington, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:20 (seventeen years ago) link

I do love that the two he shields are DeRo & Klosterman.

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:21 (seventeen years ago) link

Reviews that steer more toward synopsizing and less toward editorializing are more my preference, only because I'd rather know the facts than the critical musings of a self-proclaimed authority. This applies to criticism of any medium. But sticking to music for now: if you've ever read the 33 1/3 books, the best ones tend to be those which primarily relate the circumstances which led to the creation of the album (e.g., The Velvet Underground And Nico, Paul's Boutique) and don't devolve into proselytization (e.g., The Stone Roses, OK Computer). Lester Bangs might have produced the occasional tasty bon mot, but his opinions were no more valid than yours or mine.

― souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:23 (seventeen years ago) link

proselytization isn't a word

― strongohulkington, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:24 (seventeen years ago) link

And the only one I was "shielding" was Klosterman. DeRo's a tool.

― souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:24 (seventeen years ago) link

DESTROY NEW ILX

― Mr. Que, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:25 (seventeen years ago) link

proselytization

― souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:25 (seventeen years ago) link

Posts that steer more toward synopsizing and less toward editorializing are more my preference, only because I'd rather know the facts than the preferences and interests of online freaks who haven't figured out that criticism is less AUTHORITY and more PERSPECTIVE. (See post #1)

― nabisco, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:25 (seventeen years ago) link

more history papers, less creative writing

― rps, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:26 (seventeen years ago) link

I don't think any (good) critic honestly believes that his opinions are more "valid" than someone else's.

Chusid is a weird person to toss into this thread, simply because he's a historian and journalist and not the same kind of graded-album-review critic as Xgau or DeRo.

― jaymc, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:26 (seventeen years ago) link

I've always been incredulous of the supposed value of criticism, but I despise rock critic critics with a passion, most notably the ones who actually take themselves seriously. Anyone who is convinced that their opinions (of rock & roll criticism, for Chrissakes!) are so refined as to warrant them a living wage is delusional. In particular, the one I find most odious is souldesqueeze.

Fixed.

― Mordechai Shinefield, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:26 (seventeen years ago) link

if we work hard, we can hit every half-assed point, joke, nasty remark, and considered opinion we've ever made on one of these threads guys. i know we can do it!

― strongohulkington, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:28 (seventeen years ago) link

Wow, the flames appeared before the smoke detector even caught a whiff.

You're partially right about Chusid not being as much of a critic as an historian. But he's no less an unctuous prick.

― souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:29 (seventeen years ago) link

ok in the interests of not being a complete glib prick:

the internet discussion board I Love Music has seen probably hundreds of Christgau, DeRogatis, and Klosterman threads at this point. Some people like Xgau, some don't. Nobody likes DeRo or Klosterman. Some of the threads discussing these writers have ended in board-historic flameouts.

I have never knowingly read a word of Irwin Chusid nor seen a thread on him.

Some of the writers of 33 1/3 books have and do post here, as well.

The poster "strongohulkington" is actually a very single and attractive marketing exec from Toronto, watch out for her (she is very pretty but kind of mean [sorry it's true!]). The poster "nabisco" works for said firm (I know, it's wierd).

Good luck and happy posting.

― gff, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:29 (seventeen years ago) link

And why we should we listen to the dude from Soul Coughing??

― Mr. Que, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:30 (seventeen years ago) link

I had a musician write me a letter once and thank me for a criticism I made that he thought was valid.

― Tim Ellison, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:30 (seventeen years ago) link

"I know the general mindset."

What the hell does that even mean? Is there a "general mindset" that pervades all music boards?

― Hurting 2, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:30 (seventeen years ago) link

anyway i would just like to say i love reading about awesome music.

― Mr. Que, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:30 (seventeen years ago) link

Is there a "general mindset" that pervades all music boards?

It's called "smarmy douchebaggery," and yeah, it's pretty common.

― unperson, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:32 (seventeen years ago) link

And why we should we listen to the dude from Soul Coughing

Soul Coughing is soooooooooooooooooooo much more useless than Christgau.

― Hurting 2, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:32 (seventeen years ago) link

Seriously, though, I can't work out what kind of blockhead you'd have to be to sit around sputtering at the GALL of critics to have freaking OPINIONS, as if you haven't noticed that healthy human beings are actually often interested in opinions that aren't their own, and kinda the whole point of criticism is how those healthy human beings are even willing to pay 99 cents or look at some ads in order to maybe find out and think about someone's opinions on a topic, maybe even someone with a track record of experience, attention, knowledge, and provocative thought w/r/t the topic at hand, whether the topic is music or politics or which desktop conference speakerphone design is the best value.

I imagine these blockheads wandering in a strictly utilitarian world of blank walls and Hannibal Lecter masks and their mothers call and go "hey, I saw that Diane Keaton movie yesterday" and they say "thank you for that factual information" and their mothers say "you know, I thought it was a little--" and they say "I have already formed an opinion of said film and your opinion is no more valid than mine, and if you think your opinion is SO GREAT that it's worth eating up my daytime minutes to share it then you've got another think coming, ho."

― nabisco, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:33 (seventeen years ago) link

What the hell does that even mean? Is there a "general mindset" that pervades all music boards?

I meant no disrespect. I've simply noticed that the majority of people who post regularly on such sites get extremely defensive when their own opinions are called into question, more so than is logical or necessary.

Why does everyone hate Klosterman?

― souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:33 (seventeen years ago) link

Is there a general mindset that pervades all new posters who start threads like this? Yeah, it's called "I have an original thought to tell you guys and it's going to blow your stupid minds"

― Hurting 2, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:33 (seventeen years ago) link

Does this site feature a search function that isn't powered by Google?

― souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:34 (seventeen years ago) link

I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives
I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives

― Matos W.K., Monday, 26 March 2007 20:35 (seventeen years ago) link

I can't blame you there. We lost our old search function when we switched over to the nu format, and the google search sux.

― Hurting 2, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:35 (seventeen years ago) link

we sold the search function to get t-shirts with our names on them

― strongohulkington, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:36 (seventeen years ago) link

I hate criticism. . . . I await your perspectives

Fair shot. ;)

― souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:36 (seventeen years ago) link

if you didn't get one, it means exactly what you think it means

― strongohulkington, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:36 (seventeen years ago) link

extremely defensive when their own opinions are called into question

so which reviews that you disagreed with caused you to start this thread

― rps, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:37 (seventeen years ago) link

where the fuck is my fucking t shirt

http://www.born-today.com/Today/pix/bangs_l.jpg

― Mr. Que, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:39 (seventeen years ago) link

None in particular. I'm less concerned with their individual opinions than with the regard in which they're held. I don't understand why critics are so revered, basically.

― souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:39 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.spikemagazine.com/reviews/lesterbangs.jpg

― strongohulkington, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:40 (seventeen years ago) link

they're not, really.

― gff, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:40 (seventeen years ago) link

i would suggest you try working for a daily or weekly newspaper. you'll quickly change your opinions about critics being "revered."

― strongohulkington, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:40 (seventeen years ago) link

by their colleagues much less the readership

― Matos W.K., Monday, 26 March 2007 20:41 (seventeen years ago) link

Why does everyone hate Klosterman?

souldesqueeze on Monday, March 26, 2007 3:33 PM (2 minutes ago)

Has Klosterman Gone Too Far?
Klosterman At It Again
Classic or Dud - Chuck Klosterman
Is Klosterman A Rockist?
[Removed Illegal Link]
Fargo Rock City by Chuck Klosterman
Killing Yourself to Live

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:41 (seventeen years ago) link

christgau is revered maybe by other writers and probably not very well known otherwise. chusid i am not familiar with. the only one who revers derogatis is (insert culinary proprieter)

― rps, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:42 (seventeen years ago) link

I only say that because I've noticed a general deference to their points of view as being somehow more worthy of evaluation than others'. Same with somebody like Roger Ebert. At least Gene Siskel seemed to have a sense of humor about his line of work.

― souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:42 (seventeen years ago) link

I don't understand why critics are so revered, basically.

saying that here is like walking into a gay bar and asking "why would anybody wanna kiss another guy?"

― m coleman, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:42 (seventeen years ago) link

the idea that "everyone" on ILM "does" anything is mindbending

― Matos W.K., Monday, 26 March 2007 20:42 (seventeen years ago) link

did wagemann get spellcheck?

― marmotwolof, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:42 (seventeen years ago) link

Part of why you're getting a snarky response to this thread is that critics are really not revered, and in fact there are approximately 300,000 people on the internet going around starting "clever" and "provocative" threads about how they're SUCH transparent dickwads, to the point where those threads get more predictable and irritating than any dumb thing most any critic can come up with to prompt them.

― nabisco, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:42 (seventeen years ago) link

I will say that I admire the hell out of David Fricke.

― souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:43 (seventeen years ago) link

ebert once wrote a garfield review from the pov of garfield

― rps, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:43 (seventeen years ago) link

did wagemann get spellcheck?

oh snap!

― strongohulkington, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:44 (seventeen years ago) link

I only say that because I've noticed a general deference to their points of view as being somehow more worthy of evaluation than others'.

You will also notice that George Bush's point of view is more often discussed and evaluated than that of my Aunt Nina. This is not necessarily because George Bush's point of view is deemed better.

― nabisco, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:44 (seventeen years ago) link

Does this site feature a search function that isn't powered by Google?

souldesqueeze on Monday, 26 March 2007 20:34 (4 minutes ago)

"Direct ILX search" shows countless searches with "Christgau"

― curmudgeon, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:44 (seventeen years ago) link

Just to go totally off-topic for a second, are you familiar with Garfield Without Dialogue?

― souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:44 (seventeen years ago) link

http://bokertov.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/sharon_head_in_hands.jpg

― deej, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:46 (seventeen years ago) link

Just to go totally off-topic for a second, are you familiar with Garfield Without Dialogue?

NO I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THIS BRAND NEW WHAT DO YOU CALL IT AGAIN "INTERNETS" OF WHICH YOU SPEAK PLEASE DO TELL US ALL ABOUT IT

― Matos W.K., Monday, 26 March 2007 20:46 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/character2.article.jpg

― gff, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:46 (seventeen years ago) link

HEY GUYS CHECK OUT THIS HILARIOUS ROBERT CHRISTGAU BOTTLE OPENER

― ghost rider, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:46 (seventeen years ago) link

colon p.

― souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:46 (seventeen years ago) link

omg

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:47 (seventeen years ago) link

I will say that I admire the hell out of David Fricke.

souldesqueeze on Monday, 26 March 2007 20:43 (3 minutes ago)

I admire the hell out of his teeth.

― Mr. Que, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:48 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.lizardfire.com/graphics_genIllus/Ozymandias_450.jpg

― bernard snowy, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:48 (seventeen years ago) link

JIM DEROGATIS VS NAS

― ghost rider, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:49 (seventeen years ago) link

CHUCK KLOSTERMAN HAS NEVER HAD SEX

― ghost rider, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:49 (seventeen years ago) link

CONTROVERSIAL CAT IS CONTROVERSIAL

― Mr. Que, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:50 (seventeen years ago) link

^^his next title

― m coleman, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:50 (seventeen years ago) link

oh many the lolz on this thread

― strongohulkington, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:52 (seventeen years ago) link

I love the "punch me in the face right now" quality of the thread title / original post. It's like something I would write. Except I wouldn't.

― Pye Poudre, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:52 (seventeen years ago) link

hey remember when david fricke had that whole rant about cellphones in the wilco movie? that shit was fuckin OTM. the dude really knows about life!

― Mr. Que, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:54 (seventeen years ago) link

haha you watched a wilco movie

― strongohulkington, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:55 (seventeen years ago) link

hahaha! you got me!

― Mr. Que, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:56 (seventeen years ago) link

rohnaldino on tipping, more @ 11

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:56 (seventeen years ago) link

souldesqueeze is just lucky louis jagger went off the net today

― ghost rider, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:59 (seventeen years ago) link

There is a direct ILX search, btw. You go to Search and then click on "Direct ILX Search." While I was there, I discovered 27 threads (besides this one) with "Christgau" or "Xgau" in the title, and 10 with "DeRogatis" in the title.

― jaymc, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:01 (seventeen years ago) link

wagemann hasn't found google, yet, obviously.

― Mr. Que, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:02 (seventeen years ago) link

louis jagger is gone off the net??

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:03 (seventeen years ago) link

fraid so

― gff, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:05 (seventeen years ago) link

http://ilx.wh3rd.net/ILX/ThreadSelectedControllerServlet?boardid=56&threadid=1596#unread

― Mr. Que, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:05 (seventeen years ago) link

BECAUSE OF YOU

― bernard snowy, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:05 (seventeen years ago) link

you never him now, dog

― ghost rider, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:06 (seventeen years ago) link

calum got the sack?? didn't know that, rad

― gff, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:11 (seventeen years ago) link

oh shit wrong thread. well maybe not

― gff, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:11 (seventeen years ago) link

I like the random-talking-amongst-selves direction this thread is taking. Carry on.

― Matos W.K., Monday, 26 March 2007 21:12 (seventeen years ago) link

did any of you guys hear that the village voice got bought???

― ghost rider, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:13 (seventeen years ago) link

BOUGHT BY YOUR MOM

― Mr. Que, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:15 (seventeen years ago) link

Jesus. Poor Louis.

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:16 (seventeen years ago) link

i can't believe my mom fired xgau ;_;

― ghost rider, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:20 (seventeen years ago) link

huh, didn't see that LJ thread until now. apparently his Cambridge education hasn't taught him enough about the classics, because this whole thing is on some greek tragedy shit.

― bernard snowy, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:24 (seventeen years ago) link

"thing is, dude was fucking his mom"

― gff, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:25 (seventeen years ago) link

(Beat me to it.)

― jaymc, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:27 (seventeen years ago) link

Reading LJ thread like getting kicked in the nuts by a horse. Except without the horse. Makes me feel bad for the whole damn universe.

― Pye Poudre, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:37 (seventeen years ago) link

"arcade fire? two thumbs up!"

http://www.calvin.edu/news/photos/faculty/herzberg.jpg

― scott seward, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:37 (seventeen years ago) link

But, yeah, rock critics. Go figure.

― Pye Poudre, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:37 (seventeen years ago) link

I thought that was Gene Wilder at first.

― jaymc, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:38 (seventeen years ago) link

"kelly clarkson? surprisingly underrated as a songwriter!"

http://www.calvin.edu/news/photos/faculty/hettinga.jpg

― scott seward, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:39 (seventeen years ago) link

"i don't know who the bloc party think they're fooling. not me, that's for sure!"

http://www.calvin.edu/news/photos/faculty/hoekema.jpg

― scott seward, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:41 (seventeen years ago) link

yellowteeth OTM

― Mr. Que, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:41 (seventeen years ago) link

"marah are sublime."

http://www.calvin.edu/news/photos/faculty/hplant.jpg

― scott seward, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:42 (seventeen years ago) link

denim shirt lolz eclipsed by scary face beard

― Pye Poudre, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:44 (seventeen years ago) link

"i have heard the arctic monkeys. i guess i just don't "get" it."

http://www.calvin.edu/news/photos/faculty/holstege.jpg

― scott seward, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:44 (seventeen years ago) link

"i dunno, is it just me or are the arcade fire like listening to a kidz bop cd...only less fun."

http://www.calvin.edu/news/photos/faculty/lderooy.jpg

― scott seward, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:48 (seventeen years ago) link

"what was rjd2 THINKING?"

http://www.calvin.edu/news/photos/faculty/laura_smit.jpg

― scott seward, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:50 (seventeen years ago) link

"Reviews that steer more toward synopsizing and less toward editorializing are more my preference, only because I'd rather know the facts than the critical musings of a self-proclaimed authority. This applies to criticism of any medium. But sticking to music for now: if you've ever read the 33 1/3 books, the best ones tend to be those which primarily relate the circumstances which led to the creation of the album (e.g., The Velvet Underground And Nico, Paul's Boutique) and don't devolve into proselytization (e.g., The Stone Roses, OK Computer). Lester Bangs might have produced the occasional tasty bon mot, but his opinions were no more valid than yours or mine."

http://www.calvin.edu/news/photos/faculty/monsma.jpg

― scott seward, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:54 (seventeen years ago) link

"Trust me, I'm a vet to a number of other similar boards that have been around just as long, if not longer. I know the general mindset. Doesn't mean it's not worth stating."

http://www.calvin.edu/news/photos/faculty/nyhoff.jpg

― scott seward, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:56 (seventeen years ago) link

"think about it" should actually come up after you hit "submit response" like the itunes "you really sure you wanna buy this?"

http://www.calvin.edu/news/photos/faculty/oselles.jpg

― scott seward, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:57 (seventeen years ago) link

Having fun?

― souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 22:07 (seventeen years ago) link

scott's pretty much in his own little world, yeah

― strongohulkington, Monday, 26 March 2007 22:07 (seventeen years ago) link

Who are the people pictured?

― souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 22:08 (seventeen years ago) link

"Having fun?"

http://www.calvin.edu/news/photos/faculty/pauley.jpg

― scott seward, Monday, 26 March 2007 22:09 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.musicobsession.com/Pictures/f/l/flipper46222.jpg

― souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 22:12 (seventeen years ago) link

They appear to be photographs of Rbt. Christgau, Irwin Chusid and Jim DeRogatis, at various points in their careers.

― Pye Poudre, Monday, 26 March 2007 22:13 (seventeen years ago) link

Except for that last one. I don't know who that is.

― Pye Poudre, Monday, 26 March 2007 22:14 (seventeen years ago) link

You will also notice that George Bush's point of view is more often discussed and evaluated than that of my Aunt Nina. This is not necessarily because George Bush's point of view is deemed better.

But by saying this, you are actually suggesting that rock critics have a great deal of power and authority, beyond just being people sharing their opinions like anyone else. And I think they do have some influence amongst people who take a serious interest in the music and have played a large role in shaping how people perceive things like popular music history, in shaping how people perceive what's worth talking about and in which terms, in forming a canon.

So I also sometimes wonder why journalistic rock criticism has taken on this cultural position. I might be a snobby academic, and this is kind of a half-formed thought, but I can at least understand why e.g. formally trained music theorists and historians have this role in classical music.

On the other hand, I can see why there's something great about the fact that someone can become a tastemaker without needing any formal music-related qualifications.

― Sundar, Monday, 26 March 2007 22:18 (seventeen years ago) link

hah the idea of academics being the alternative cultural gatekeepers makes the current situation seem a bit better doesnt it.

― deej, Monday, 26 March 2007 22:20 (seventeen years ago) link

Haha okay Sundar, substitute "Maureen Dowd" in that zing.

― nabisco, Monday, 26 March 2007 22:21 (seventeen years ago) link

Well, I'm not saying that would necessarily be better but why do you think it is better that journalists are the cultural gatekeepers?

― Sundar, Monday, 26 March 2007 22:22 (seventeen years ago) link

more democratic

― deej, Monday, 26 March 2007 22:22 (seventeen years ago) link

i mean i'm certainly not defending the 'state of things' as it is ...

― deej, Monday, 26 March 2007 22:23 (seventeen years ago) link

wait, the capitalist workplace is more democratic than academic institutions?

― Tim Ellison, Monday, 26 March 2007 22:24 (seventeen years ago) link

Lester Bangs might have produced the occasional tasty bon mot, but his opinions were no more valid than yours or mine.

But he's a better writer about music. Or me. That makes him more valid, o young one.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, 26 March 2007 22:36 (seventeen years ago) link

*better writer about music than you.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, 26 March 2007 22:38 (seventeen years ago) link

No, Sundar, I think you're right, and I chose the analogy a little lazily -- a president, once elected, has concrete authority over certain matters, whereas the authority of critics, editorial-writers, and pundits works via audience and persuasive argument and whatnot. That's not necessarily any less powerful a way for influence to work, but obviously a president has a few powers beyond that.

There's certainly stuff to judge there about the function of major critics as gatekeepers (and maybe our desire to make them gatekeep in a certain way, which still seems to be at stake when people get mad at a critic for liking the wrong thing -- people don't just care about the critic's taste, they care that the critic is convincing other people of it, on the record, gasp), but my main point was that there's always a common center of importance that we pay attention to and discuss, not because we deem it somehow authoritative and worth discussion, but just because it's in a position of centrality, and that makes it somehow inherently notable. (E.g., the news will cover Major League Baseball first, but that doesn't mean the minor leagues didn't have a more eventful game that day.)

― nabisco, Monday, 26 March 2007 22:38 (seventeen years ago) link

Actually I think what I'm circling around there is the difference between our respect for institutions and our respect for individuals: people who care if there's crap in the Voice music section care because they have a sense that the institution of the section itself should be good. People care about top-rank critics (when they do) in large part because those critics either occupy or ARE institutions that people have some stake in seeing be good.

― nabisco, Monday, 26 March 2007 22:41 (seventeen years ago) link

That and "other people are paying attention to this, therefore it has importance whether I want it to or not, and therefore its content is important."

― nabisco, Monday, 26 March 2007 22:42 (seventeen years ago) link

a.k.a. "the reasons for you starting this thread are the same reasons that make critics meaningful"

― bernard snowy, Monday, 26 March 2007 22:56 (seventeen years ago) link

OMG HI 5Z WE DID IT

― nabisco, Monday, 26 March 2007 23:08 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.levity.com/corduroy/images/doughty1.gif

M. Doughty (1970 - )

Onward to Victory, mule,
with a subatomic glimmer of rage
humming a hot inch below the cheekbones

moving down Water Street like an ox
hound in fleshy lumber, muscles and lumps
pouched up and numb like insect bites

Inside the contours of veins blown up
by mosquitos into tidek balloons,
a single radiowave transmits itself
into loose bits of metal scattered around;
Keys. Beltbuckles. Scissors. Headphones.

Streetlights sizzle like bees being taken to slaughter.

On Water Street, two legs
are the chick of drills
spearing into the blacktop

in the light further down
what you can only hope will be
some Imperial China is actually
the orange noise
at the ends of cigarettes
glowing at your approach

T H E I N C R E D I B L E
M A G N E T I C M A N

Looking for a guy who�s done it? M. Doughty�s the dude. Once, a million years ago (like, in 1994) he was like, ticket-taker at a jazz club, moonlighting as a poet who dared to work with bongo accompaniment, OK?. Now, he leads the hit band Soul Coughing, touring the world and laying out the map for poetry�s Crossover Revitalization Program.

― rps, Monday, 26 March 2007 23:12 (seventeen years ago) link

Since learning that I had some favorite records/ groups in common with X'gau I've followed him pretty closely. He has turned me onto more good music than i care to go into. In my meager opinion he generally has great taste, that is, it coincides with my likes (which are radically different than almost everyone i know). And he can say more in fewer words than anybody. A+

― outdoor_miner, Monday, 26 March 2007 23:12 (seventeen years ago) link

Streetlights sizzle like bees

― rps, Monday, 26 March 2007 23:13 (seventeen years ago) link

If you don't like rock critics, DON'T FUCKING READ THEM!! You think I waste my free time browsing Robert Christgau's piece of shit website?

― Mr. Snrub, Monday, 26 March 2007 23:26 (seventeen years ago) link

yes

― m coleman, Monday, 26 March 2007 23:27 (seventeen years ago) link

Erm... bad english. Sorry about that. How do you "read" a rock critic?

Anyway, I hope you get my point.

― Mr. Snrub, Monday, 26 March 2007 23:28 (seventeen years ago) link

as always

― strongohulkington, Monday, 26 March 2007 23:32 (seventeen years ago) link

But he's a better writer about music (than you). That makes him more valid, o young one.

I disagree. It may have made his opinions more eloquently or cleverly expressed, but his writing skills bore no relationship to his taste. I can see what you're going for, but I think the argument is misguided.

I've got nothing against Lester Bangs. And I'm the first to admit that my own opinions are no more valid than anyone else's. The point is that any kind of artistic appreciation is wholly subjective, so criticism is basically an exercise in futility, no matter how much intellectual credence one may wish to lend it.

― souldesqueeze, Monday, 26 March 2007 23:50 (seventeen years ago) link

Christgau is the only person I've ever found who's as passionate about the Archers of Loaf as I am, so that alone endears him to me.

― bernard snowy, Monday, 26 March 2007 23:59 (seventeen years ago) link

Lester Bangs knew a hell of a lot about music and one might argue that he was an insightful thinker.

― Tim Ellison, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 00:03 (seventeen years ago) link

GRRRRRRRRRRR okay I'm sorry but I get REALLY sick of that fucking argument, and will not countenance it except maybe from well-meaning 16-year-olds who just had their MINDS BLOWN by the cool English teachers they're going to get their college-app recommendations from, or MAYBE stoned college freshmen just learning the wonders of the Stoner Solipsism Bubble, because at least that's preferable to their getting their Mind Blown Explanation to the Universe(TM) from Ayn Rand or Macro-econ 101.

Our opinions are subjective, no shit; if this makes talking about them an "exercise in futility," then you are claiming that ALL HUMAN COMMUNICATION IS POINTLESS, yes, no point sharing our subjective impressions and comparing them and being interested in other people's and maybe letting other people's subjective impressions influence our own, etc. etc.

And we know for a fact you DON'T BELIEVE THAT, because you've bothered posting to a message board and trying to communicate with other people, beyond which you're STILL ALIVE, and if you honestly believed in such a bullshit anti-human fake-logical position, you would be so much better off just killing yourself and not bothering the rest of us in our alleged Solipsism Bubbles.

P.S. All those caps are not just textual emphasis and are literally me YELLING AT YOU.

― nabisco, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 00:04 (seventeen years ago) link

"snrub otm!"

http://www.calvin.edu/news/photos/faculty/rooks.jpg

― scott seward, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 00:04 (seventeen years ago) link

I mean, WTF, is it the INTERNET that's causing this ridiculous explosion of Solipsism True Believers who go around bothering you and (of all fucking things) TALKING TO YOU about how communicating with other people is totally futile??? This is the most ridiculous, pathetic, and (if you SERIOUSLY believe it) patently evil position a human being could possibly take, and yet here go people thinking it's some kind of brilliant idea.

― nabisco, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 00:08 (seventeen years ago) link

Well, he was also arguing that critics are full of themselves.

― Tim Ellison, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 00:10 (seventeen years ago) link

nabisco is yoga flame for all time

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 00:10 (seventeen years ago) link

"the musings of a self-proclaimed authority"

― Tim Ellison, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 00:11 (seventeen years ago) link

http://cache.bordom.net/images/cb38cb5004473ea6ba5e8f8c2f602940.jpg

― NYCNative, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 00:48 (seventeen years ago) link

Don't worry, I'm not debasing the value of human communication. Jesus, people need to chill.

All I'm saying is that I don't believe in there being a heirarchy of opinion with regards to artistic media. People with a wider palate of a certain medium—by which I mean, those who have seen more films or read more books or listened to more records than the average person—can parlay that background into a potentially more comprehensive perspective, but that in and of itself does not make their opinions any more valid than those of your regular popcorn moviegoer. Even the most well-versed music lover has his or her own likes and dislikes, which are bound to skew their interpretation of a certain piece. No one's opinions should be taken as gospel; that's all I meant.

― souldesqueeze, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:09 (seventeen years ago) link

BRING BACK LOUIS JAGGER

― Dom Passantino, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:19 (seventeen years ago) link

Let's face facts here—what M. Doughty does is generate mail.

― deusner, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:19 (seventeen years ago) link

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/rcmerritt/images/web/captain-obvious.jpg

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:19 (seventeen years ago) link

DAMN YOU PASSANTINO XXPOST

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:20 (seventeen years ago) link

"Jesus, people need to chill."

http://www.calvin.edu/news/photos/faculty/stapert.jpg

― scott seward, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:20 (seventeen years ago) link

Soulde, honestly the only person you're proving useless with this thread is yourself. You're spouting a bunch of cliched tripe about music criticism to a bunch of people you don't know, many of them music critics who have spent way more time thinking about this stuff than you have and have already encountered everything you're saying a million times.

If it's any consolation to you, new posters do this sort of thing all the time. In fact, I did it in some form by first defending "rockism" without really knowing what it was and then starting a thread where I was going to show all these 80s-lovers why they were actually wrong and the 80s were a crap decade for music.It's a little like sitting in on someone's second or third-year philosophy class and interrupting the professor in the first ten minutes by saying "But how do we really know anything?"

― Hurting 2, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:21 (seventeen years ago) link

It's a little like sitting in on someone's second or third-year philosophy class and interrupting the professor in the first ten minutes by saying "But how do we really know anything?"

This is one of the most otm things on this thread.

― max, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:25 (seventeen years ago) link

Damn, everything I'm saying is both clichéd and ignorant. Oh, but wait, it's okay, because other people have made similar asses of themselves here before. What a relief.

What percentage of users here get paid to review their mail?

― souldesqueeze, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:28 (seventeen years ago) link

well I can only speak for myself here, but sometimes I soak the stamps 'til the postmarks come off and then reuse them

― bernard snowy, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:30 (seventeen years ago) link

Isn't it spring break? Go out and do something disreputable.

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:30 (seventeen years ago) link

I really hate loan offers that are made to look like official documents from a lender you're already using.

― Tim Ellison, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:31 (seventeen years ago) link

Thanks, but I'm long out of school.

― souldesqueeze, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:31 (seventeen years ago) link

Thanks, but I'm long out of school.

Ask for your money back.

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:33 (seventeen years ago) link

Thanks, but I'm long out of school
souldesqueeze, are you Paul Edward Wagemama?

― James Redd and the Blecchs, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:33 (seventeen years ago) link

Ned Zings: Rare but Mighty.

― g®▲Ðұ, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:34 (seventeen years ago) link

"Thanks, but I'm long out of school."

http://www.botany.utexas.edu/facstaff/facpages/mbrown/Mbrownhome/elaine/reflections/photo1.jpg

― scott seward, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:37 (seventeen years ago) link

Answer me this: do you take my opinions as a personal slight? If not, why such an outraged response? It would be easier to just ignore them than to fire back.

― souldesqueeze, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:42 (seventeen years ago) link

http://seriocomic.com/images/20050828122229_bored.jpg

― scott seward, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:43 (seventeen years ago) link

We're a little bored, souldesqueeze- it's easier to throw peanuts at trolls than to think of something interesting to say.

― James Redd and the Blecchs, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:44 (seventeen years ago) link

souldesqueeze, which is the bigger insult: that you started a thread here not expecting to get flamed (showing that you've clearly never read a thread on ILX), or that you got flamed?

― Mordechai Shinefield, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:45 (seventeen years ago) link

http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/15984/bored.jpg

― scott seward, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:45 (seventeen years ago) link

Hey, did I say to stop with the peanuts? I need to eat somehow.

― souldesqueeze, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:45 (seventeen years ago) link

Which is why, even though many of us have indulged in tearing down a sacred cow critic or two, maybe we've come to appreciate them for at least presenting an opinion for us to think about, as opposed to a message board newbie who's too cool for school.

― James Redd and the Blecchs, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:46 (seventeen years ago) link

the latter being an expression not necessarily having to do with actual school

― James Redd and the Blecchs, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:47 (seventeen years ago) link

You took it as an insult that I expected a casual discussion of a subject that I thought was totally inconsequential?

― souldesqueeze, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:47 (seventeen years ago) link

http://images.travelpod.com/users/darkstar/africa_05.1127286720.bored.jpg

― scott seward, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:48 (seventeen years ago) link

souldesqueeze is just lucky louis jagger went off the net today

ghost rider on Monday, March 26, 2007 3:59 PM

There's seven people dead
On a South Dakota farm
Somewhere in the distance
There's seven new people born

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:48 (seventeen years ago) link

Trust me, I have neither the hope nor inclination of ever being cool. But it's nice that you'd insinuate as such.

― souldesqueeze, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:48 (seventeen years ago) link

Look, at least 30% of the posters here are either Robert Christgau or Irwin Chusid, and some of them are both!

― Hurting 2, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:49 (seventeen years ago) link

No, it's an insult that you went onto a board filled with music critics - professional or otherwise - and then dismissed everything they do in your title post. "I've always been incredulous of the supposed value of criticism, but I despise rock critics with a passion, most notably the ones who actually take themselves seriously." Of all the places to post this, you chose to post it on a rock critic message board, where a lot of the posters take themselves seriously. So basically you despise everyone here, and notably the ones who take themselves seriously. How could you have expected anything besides being completely flamed?

― Mordechai Shinefield, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:49 (seventeen years ago) link

You took it as an insult that I expected a casual discussion of a subject that I thought was totally inconsequential?

souldesqueeze on Monday, March 26, 2007 9:47 PM (2 minutes ago)

You've gone from grappling with strawmen to grasping at straws.

― Hurting 2, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:51 (seventeen years ago) link

Are you the Questionizer? Did you finally decide to swallow your pride and register?

― James Redd and the Blecchs, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:51 (seventeen years ago) link

The most unfortunate thing about my former housemate M. Doughty is that his band was actually pretty good, which makes the task of separating his dumb-ass stonerisms from the wheat that much harder. On the other hand, before he hooked up with every aspiring poet's dream backing band, we pretty much dismissed him completely, and maybe we were on to something.

Since his own career as a music critic was defined early on by being called out as a nattering idiot by Oren Bloedow, I can understand his urge to take oblique shots at critics who actually know what they're talking about. Can't imagine why anyone would care, though, and I truly dread a future where people quote Doughty-isms as zen nuggets of wisdom.

― dlp9001, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:52 (seventeen years ago) link

I thought it was just a discussion board for music lovers, not necessarily critics (professional or otherwise). I didn't realize that the board was populated by such ilk, or I would have certainly thought twice. (Although the outcome would have likely been the same, critics in general being largely deserving of taking the piss every once in a while.)

― souldesqueeze, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:52 (seventeen years ago) link

Probably not. Over the years I've come to appreciate the Questionizer.

― James Redd and the Blecchs, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:52 (seventeen years ago) link

glazing lawn gnomes?

― m0stlyClean, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:58 (seventeen years ago) link

Rope-a-dope

This is a full body game that will test your stability, proprioception and cunning. Get yourself a rope about 10 feet long and square off with your partner. Each person will grab the rope at about the one third position; this leaves about 3 feet of rope between the two of you. You can grab the rope with either hand or both, it makes no difference.

Now stand on one foot. The object of the game is to get your partner off balance. If you hop or step down with the other foot, you’ve lost the match and you'll have to start over. The basic strategy is to use some combination of pulling–as in tug of war–and letting slack slide through your hands. This makes it a yin-yang challenge.

Obviously, you can only do the slide trick so many times before you run out of rope, so you'll have to be wary; if you let the rope slide to the end, you’ll run out of options. Similarly, you should try to reel in slack whenever you can. As you will soon discover, strength doesn’t help much in this game; speed, abdominal function and whole-body coordination make the difference. Be sure to switch partners frequently. Everyone seems to have their own strategy and surprises.

― If Timi Yuro would be still alive, most other singers could shut up, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 01:58 (seventeen years ago) link

Souldesqueeze, no offense, but -- seriously, straight up -- the reason people are annoyed is that most of what you're posting is either nonsensical, blindingly obvious, or somehow both at the same time. I'm not even trying to be mean here. Seriously:

All I'm saying is that I don't believe in there being a heirarchy of opinion with regards to artistic media. People with a wider palate ... can parlay that background into a potentially more comprehensive perspective, but that in and of itself does not make their opinions any more valid than those of your regular popcorn moviegoer. ... No one's opinions should be taken as gospel; that's all I meant.

See, here's the thing: no shit! People have been saying this since back when people spoke Latin ("de gustibus non est disputandum"), and still say it, like, every day, just as a commonplace ("hey, there's no accounting for taste"). Do you seriously think anyone here disagrees with that? Do you seriously think anyone here believes Jim DeRogatis (of all people) is magically, authoritatively RIGHT about matters of taste? That we get up in the morning and go "man, I really like the Smiths, but ... oh crap, Christgau doesn't really like them -- how embarrassing, I was completely wrong?"

In other news, it turns out that not everyone can do every single job in the universe. For instance, we can't all be music critics, because who would, you know, farm, or collect garbage? So we've come up with this revolutionary system where certain people try writing stuff about music, and ideally, if they have interesting stuff to say, stuff that people enjoy reading, then people will ready their stuff, and maybe they'll get to try and do it for a living. Ideally. Not because they're "right," but because people are interested in what they have to say.

(P.S. just so you know this is how most art and business and jobs work.)

So those of us who aren't insane tend to be aware that music criticism is not really about being "right" or constructing the "heirarchies" you seem to think we all believe in. Normally we look to music criticism just to see if someone has anything interesting to say about music, and if we're lucky we find critics whose tastes we "get" enough that they're really useful in terms of figuring out if we personally will like something or not. And then sometimes, since all of us here like talking about music, we'll talk about what other people said about music. (This is called a "conversation," it's this thing where one person has an idea, and then other people comment on the idea, and then do this thing called "discussing" the original idea and their own ideas -- it's really cool and highly recommended.)

Like I said, this is all painfully obvious to anyone who's not being a weirdo, right?

― nabisco, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 02:41 (seventeen years ago) link

P.S. Also when we like or respect critics it's usually because we've read their stuff and thought (wait for it) "hey, this person has interesting things to say; I enjoy following this person's ideas and opinions."

― nabisco, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 02:44 (seventeen years ago) link

All right, that's cool. Well stated.

― souldesqueeze, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 02:46 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.altmanphoto.com/images_sixties/holding.hands.sm.jpeg

― scott seward, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 02:58 (seventeen years ago) link

where do you find this shit scott

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 02:58 (seventeen years ago) link

He knows how to rock the image searching, is all.

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 03:00 (seventeen years ago) link

I'd like to teach the world to sing ...

― Binjominia, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 03:05 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.coca-colastore.com/coke/images/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/b2cm580167_410000335345_L.jpg

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 03:06 (seventeen years ago) link

What's missing from this train wreck is what a reader should expect from a well written piece of criticism. For my perspective the best critics put a musical work into some historical, musical, and social context. They draw conclusions and connections that the average listener might miss. Opinions are fine, but without a familiarity of musical history, a knowledge of social movements, plus some background in the economics of the shit-filled trench called the music industry, a critic's opinions will lack perspective. I may not like some of the same things that Paul Morley loves or Lester Bangs loved, but I could count on them to know their stuff, explain why it's important, and express themselves in entertaining ways. Just having an opinion is not enough.

― leavethecapital, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 03:14 (seventeen years ago) link

Jesus lord. Such a long winding thread dedicated to an argument I had once too: with my younger brother when I was 16.

― MC, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 04:17 (seventeen years ago) link

^^^^^^^^^^The Lex to thread.

― g®▲Ðұ, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 04:19 (seventeen years ago) link

Also, here's a tip: Stop reading Entertainment Weekly and Rolling Stone and start reading real criticism.

― MC, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 04:19 (seventeen years ago) link

xpost

― g®▲Ðұ, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 04:19 (seventeen years ago) link

And I have to say that DeRogatis' bio of Bangs was a good read, despite the many examples of DeRo using it to appoint himself Bangs's heir.

― MC, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 04:21 (seventeen years ago) link

Still, in a list of anything, chances are DeRogatis is the most useless.

― rogermexico., Tuesday, 27 March 2007 05:42 (seventeen years ago) link

the reason criticism is is to narc opinions wtf

― luriqua, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 06:20 (seventeen years ago) link

No but really, Nabisco -- all human communication is pointless. Serious.

― Pye Poudre, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 12:47 (seventeen years ago) link

Why is this thread still happening

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 14:36 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.americansouthwest.net/southwest_travelogue/photographs700/road.jpg

― scott seward, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 14:39 (seventeen years ago) link

why are you still happening?

― artdamages, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 14:39 (seventeen years ago) link

scott, i want to buy your coffe table book

― artdamages, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 14:40 (seventeen years ago) link

HI DERE WAHT IS BAKC IN DAY RECOMMENNDD

― gff, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 14:41 (seventeen years ago) link

I give it B+

― Mark G, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 14:44 (seventeen years ago) link

So those of us who aren't insane tend to be aware that music criticism is not really about being "right" or constructing the "heirarchies" you seem to think we all believe in.

As sensible as this is, I think it leaves something out - which is that trying to convince the other guy (or gal) that you are right and constructing elaborate hierarchies is a big part of what makes all this senseless bickering about music interesting and fun for a lot of people. Many critics adopt a pose of know-it-allness and arcane knowledge that sets their opinions above those of the masses. Christgau plays with these tropes of authority in his use of grades, as though he were a professor (ie., the societally approved arbitrator of truth and knowledge), and a lot of his rhetorical style involves implying that there are "real" gradations of value and importance in music that reasonable people could agree on, were they to perceive things as clearly as he.

― o. nate, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 15:15 (seventeen years ago) link

I always read his capsule reviews like abstracts for a student's paper.

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 15:22 (seventeen years ago) link

"I've simply noticed that the majority of people who post regularly on such sites get extremely defensive when their own opinions are called into question, more so than is logical or necessary."

=

"i irritate everyone i meet"

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 16:10 (seventeen years ago) link

HAHAHA

― Hurting 2, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 18:15 (seventeen years ago) link

^^ o.nate gets it.

― souldesqueeze, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 19:38 (seventeen years ago) link

haha "now someone said something else that kinda makes sense, so that's what i REALLY meant"

― M@tt He1ges0n, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 19:41 (seventeen years ago) link

Just one of the few non-flaming, on-topic posts with which I happen to agree, that's all.

― souldesqueeze, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 19:43 (seventeen years ago) link

"I can't believe you compared Jessica Simpson to Debbie Gibson. Jessica has and never will be in the same pop idol class as Debbie was in the 80s. Shame on you!"

― Billy Pilgrim, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 19:44 (seventeen years ago) link

Ha, so far as I can tell O.Nate is saying the exact opposite of what Soul's been saying, which is that taste and subjective and all, but it makes the conversation a lot more fun if we kind of pretend we're making official value judgments anyway. (At the very least this saves us the trouble of saying "in my personal opinion" before every sentence.)

― nabisco, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 19:45 (seventeen years ago) link

It's just the pretension of such an attitude that I find repugnant, unless it's obviously tongue-in-cheek.

― souldesqueeze, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 19:48 (seventeen years ago) link

Obviously is in the eye of the beholder.

― Pye Poudre, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 19:50 (seventeen years ago) link

worst
thread
ever

― M.V., Tuesday, 27 March 2007 19:51 (seventeen years ago) link

haha "now someone said something else that kinda makes sense, so that's what i REALLY meant"
classic trolling maneuver

― James Redd and the Blecchs, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 19:53 (seventeen years ago) link

"When Charles Trenet passed away in early 2001, France reacted almost as dramatically as America did following Frank Sinatra's death nearly three years earlier: it was a time of national mourning. Tributes filled the TV, and nothing but Trenet songs were heard on the radio. He was a prophet so honored in his native land that not even the rumors that he was both a homosexual (apparently true) and, far more worrisome, a collaborator with the Nazis during World War II (probably not true, but it's complicated) could temper the national enthusiasm for the man, who was billed as "Le Fou Chantant" (the Singing Fool)."

― Billy Pilgrim, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 19:55 (seventeen years ago) link

Dude, Christgau is/was a college professor. He gives records GRADES. Is the humor/tongue-in-cheekness not evident to you?

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 19:56 (seventeen years ago) link

By the way, when I was having this argument with my younger brother when I was 16 years old, my argument was pretty much "Yes, we're all able to have / form our own opinions, but if I know more about a subject than you do, then my opinion is more right." This would piss him off to no end.

Now I've grown a lot since then, but essentially it's right. Rock critics get paid to devote their careers to understanding music and culture. It's no hobby (at least for non-lazy ones). So when souldesqueeze writes that he's "incredulous of the supposed value of criticism" and about "anyone who is convinced that their opinions (of rock & roll, for Chrissakes!) are so refined as to warrant them a living wage is delusional," but I have read, enjoyed, and learned from Bangs' bio of Blondie and Marcus' Lipstick Traces, among many others, well then I have to call bullshit on that.

Get a job rent-a-cop...

― MC, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 19:57 (seventeen years ago) link

i don't really need rock critics for opinions.

but sometimes the good ones will make me look at stuff i already like in a different way.

or stuff i don't like a in a different way.

or describe something i like or dislike about something in a way that i couldn't quite put into words.

that's why i like reading stuff.

― M@tt He1ges0n, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 20:02 (seventeen years ago) link

"The genius of Bill Simmons is that whether he's talking about Jerry Maguire or the most recent NFL weekend, you read what he writes and then you think to yourself, yes, that's exactly what I was about to say."

― Billy Pilgrim, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 20:06 (seventeen years ago) link

I don't think it's that it "it makes the conversation a lot more fun if we kind of pretend we're making official value judgments." It's that these things ARE real judgements of value for us and we feel that there are elements of human nature involved in these perceptions of value, i.e., some music seems to be about beauty and passion and transcendence and freedom.

― Tim Ellison, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 20:10 (seventeen years ago) link

I'm inclined to see it both ways, but uh, GO TIM.

― Pye Poudre, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 20:13 (seventeen years ago) link

M@tt is on point. Opinion is almost the secondary consideration to teh learning of teh stuff. (Unless of course you're reading Ent Weekly's bite-size crapola.) Of course if I tend to agree with a critic's opinion more times than not, I'm going to heed him in the future.

― MC, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 20:20 (seventeen years ago) link

Dude, Christgau is/was a college professor. He gives records GRADES. Is the humor/tongue-in-cheekness not evident to you?

Ya srsly. He's the "dean of rock criticism" for crissakes.

― Hurting 2, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 20:30 (seventeen years ago) link

thought about posting my tuppence here, but as usual, "Nabisco OTM" will suffice.

― tom, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 20:30 (seventeen years ago) link

It's that these things ARE real judgements of value for us and we feel that there are elements of human nature involved in these perceptions of value, i.e., some music seems to be about beauty and passion and transcendence and freedom.
Kant to thread

Hi tehre I'm new here but I knwo the general mindset.

― Sparkle Motion, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 20:44 (seventeen years ago) link

i think one major point is that a lot of these reviews exist to either elicit contentious responses or to spawn discussion. tongue-in-cheek, "i'm jus messin about guys lol" reviews result in a wasteland of failed pussy-ass writers who are too afraid to get behind their own arguments.

― rps, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 20:50 (seventeen years ago) link

There's a very good essay called "The Critic as Artist" by a certain Oscar Wilde our beleaguered topic poster should read. I always thought it contained a pretty excellent justification for the entire critical enterprise.

Frankly, I find it more than a little bizarre that anyone would question the legitimacy of criticism at this point in history.

― Angsty, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:02 (seventeen years ago) link

Uh, examples?

― Hurting 2, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:03 (seventeen years ago) link

(xpost)

― Hurting 2, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:03 (seventeen years ago) link

"Getting behind" your arguments is one thing, and I agree: if you're going to post an opinion, you may as well do it with conviction. But you've got to maintain perspective and not delude yourself into thinking that you're more qualified than others to believe what you do, at least concerning something as open to interpretation as music or film.

― souldesqueeze, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:07 (seventeen years ago) link

more qualified than others to believe what you do???

― ghost rider, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:09 (seventeen years ago) link

all my posts are being deleted here...so i wont be back..bye...

― marissa, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:09 (seventeen years ago) link

[weird scott seward image]

― ghost rider, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:10 (seventeen years ago) link

AWESOME XPOST

― ghost rider, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:10 (seventeen years ago) link

you might be projecting self-delusion onto writers where none exists but for argument's sake i think a little of that isn't necessarily a bad thing in writing.

― rps, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:10 (seventeen years ago) link

finally someone who can communicate with souldesqueeze at his level of rhetoric has arrived on the thread!

― ghost rider, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:10 (seventeen years ago) link

xpost to marissa obv, who has gone off this thread because of me ;_;

― ghost rider, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:11 (seventeen years ago) link

don't blame yourself.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:15 (seventeen years ago) link

― Hurting 2, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:16 (seventeen years ago) link

Srsly dude what do you want every record review to come with a disclaimer to spell out the obvious for you?

― Hurting 2, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:18 (seventeen years ago) link

Strong people used to enjoy really talented people....

they weren't feeling threatened...they just enjoyed their music....

but you've got to maintain perspective..... and not delude yourself into thinking that you're more qualified than others to believe what you do......

― ghost rider, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:19 (seventeen years ago) link

you might be projecting self-delusion onto writers where none exists but for argument's sake i think a little of that isn't necessarily a bad thing in writing.

No, I honestly believe that anyone who carries the conviction that their criticism of a piece in whose creation they played absolutely no part is of any consequence at all is wholly delusional. Criticism exists as mere food for thought for the reader, nothing more. Society would not dissolve into a cultural morass without it.

At this point, I think a distinction should be made between critics and historians. The latter contribute a definite service to society; the former do not.

― souldesqueeze, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:23 (seventeen years ago) link

isn't criticism supposed to be our way of trying to think about what art means and a process of trying to understand it and how it affects us?

you don't think that's important?

― M@tt He1ges0n, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:26 (seventeen years ago) link

So, like, Birth of A Nation is worthwhile, but essays about it are not.

― Hurting 2, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:26 (seventeen years ago) link

I relied on a large number of literary critics during my university days since my professors generally preferred papers with some attributed research. I would call that a definite service to me at least.

― Binjominia, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:28 (seventeen years ago) link

Thanks literary critics.

― Binjominia, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:28 (seventeen years ago) link

historians often act as critics of history, though, ones whose opinions affect the slant of their works.

― rps, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:35 (seventeen years ago) link

I don't think the line between music historians and music critics can be drawn in thick black marker, because very little that is of interest about music is purely objective or scientifically measurable. A history of 20th century music that contained nothing but measurable facts that could be proved scientifically would be a very dry and irrelevant read. The very act of deciding which musicians and which music to write about is a value judgment.

― o. nate, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:39 (seventeen years ago) link

And the statement that all criticism is equally valid is only true in a very trivial sense. I think it's easy to dismiss criticism as meaningless navel gazing, until you've actually tried to say something meaningful about music yourself. It's not easy to write criticism that is informative, enlightening, astute, realistic, colorful, provocative, realistic, etc.

― o. nate, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:43 (seventeen years ago) link

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0972819630.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

― Sparkle Motion, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:55 (seventeen years ago) link

But you've got to maintain perspective and not delude yourself into thinking that you're more qualified than others to believe what you do, at least concerning something as open to interpretation as music or film.

This is wrong on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin.

1: Many critics are more qualified than you to write about music (your general douchery on this topic makes it clear to me that you hold no advanced degree in musicology)
B: A critic must fundamentally "believe" that he is correct in order to write with authority on the topic at hand. A world of opinion journalism that adhered to your standards would be a flaccid bore.
Third: If you (yes, you souldesqueeze) can't write well or with conviction on music or film then I don't care about your "interpretation." Therefore, not all interpretations are valid. Especially yours.

― MC, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:06 (seventeen years ago) link

No, I honestly believe that anyone who carries the conviction that their criticism of a piece in whose creation they played absolutely no part is of any consequence at all is wholly delusional. Criticism exists as mere food for thought for the reader, nothing more. Society would not dissolve into a cultural morass without it.

No, I honestly believe that anyone who carries the conviction that their ~~criticism~~ creation of a piece in whose creation they played ~~absolutely no~~ a major part is of any consequence at all is wholly delusional. ~~Criticism~~ Art exists as mere food for thought for the reader, nothing more. Society would not dissolve into a cultural morass without it.

― s.clover, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:38 (seventeen years ago) link

~~Art~~Cookery exists as mere food ~~for thought for the reader~~, nothing more. Society would not dissolve into a cultural morass without it.

― s.clover, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:39 (seventeen years ago) link

basically I think everything we need to know about this dude can be deduced from the fact that he views criticism as some sort of monolithic enterprise which threatens his own opinions and tramples dissent underfoot, rather than a means to promote discussion among intelligent people

― bernard snowy, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:41 (seventeen years ago) link

Am I insane, or is Pitchfork not mentioned once on this thread?

― schwantz, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:45 (seventeen years ago) link

that's not writing, it's typing.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:48 (seventeen years ago) link

haha, I was actually just thinking, the only thing this dude could do at this point that would save face and make me empathize with his position would be to reveal that he's that guy who posted a thread here recently about how he would play records for his roommate and his roommate would tell him they sucked and he didn't want to listen to them and then would go out and buy the same records as soon as Pitchfork reviewed them

― bernard snowy, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:48 (seventeen years ago) link

(xpost)

― bernard snowy, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:49 (seventeen years ago) link

glazing lawn gnomes??

― m0stlyClean, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 23:15 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.gnomeland.co.uk/Heissner%20factory.jpg

― g®▲Ðұ, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 23:19 (seventeen years ago) link

No, I honestly believe that anyone who carries the conviction that their criticism of a piece in whose creation they played absolutely no part is of any consequence at all is wholly delusional. Criticism exists as mere food for thought for the reader, nothing more. Society would not dissolve into a cultural morass without it.

Cynthia Ozick wrote an article in this month's issue of Harpers called "Literary Entrails: They boys in the alley, the disappearing readers, and the novel's ghostly twin" about the place of criticism in art. Reducing her argument to a few sentences, she argues that what gives culture (particularly literary culture) context is criticism. She is, of course, a writer who knows a couple things about criticism and literature. I think she'd probably disagree with your entire assumption.

― Mordechai Shinefield, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 00:34 (seventeen years ago) link

I honestly believe that anyone who carries the conviction that their criticism of a piece in whose creation they played absolutely no part is of any consequence at all is wholly delusional. Criticism exists as mere food for thought for the reader, nothing more.

I.e., food for thought is of no consequence.

I.e., thought is of no consequence.

I.e., if you really believed this, you'd have shot yourself in the face long ago.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 01:28 (seventeen years ago) link

syllogistic nabisco otm

― James Redd and the Blecchs, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 01:34 (seventeen years ago) link

Although I guess that's not a syllogism.

― James Redd and the Blecchs, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 01:50 (seventeen years ago) link

My mind hungers for the misguided opinions of others.

― M.V., Wednesday, 28 March 2007 02:13 (seventeen years ago) link

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/11/Medved_Michael2.jpg/200px-Medved_Michael2.jpg

― If Timi Yuro would be still alive, most other singers could shut up, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 02:32 (seventeen years ago) link

God Bless You, g®▲Ðұ.

― m0stlyClean, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 02:37 (seventeen years ago) link

five years pass...

I await your perspectives.

― buzza, Sunday, 23 December 2012 08:48 (eleven years ago) link

5 Years Pass...

― maura, Sunday, 23 December 2012 20:44 (eleven years ago) link

Meanwhile, I'm still thinking

― Rumba de Schmillsson (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, 23 December 2012 22:42 (eleven years ago) link

I like Chusid, if only for highlighting worthy way-out-in-left-field artists and bands

― Lee626, Sunday, 23 December 2012 22:52 (eleven years ago) link

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.