This is the thread where you ask for help in parsing one of Robert Christgau's sentences.

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (767 of them)
Yeah but there's an "and" after the "is"!

Why am I getting involved in this lunacy? (Groke), Thursday, 6 February 2003 20:18 (twenty-one years ago) link

"back-in-the-day" is a singular noun which is in a conjunctive clause with a plural noun ("pieces"). Hence, PLURAL.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 6 February 2003 20:22 (twenty-one years ago) link

Olga, I made the same mistake before Mr. Perry helped me see the pieces at the end of the sentence. But jeez, if both of us were confused, maybe there's something confusing about the sentence itself.

Paula G., Thursday, 6 February 2003 20:26 (twenty-one years ago) link

I is vindicated!

Amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 6 February 2003 20:27 (twenty-one years ago) link

actually, Meltzer thinks the music died in 66 (cept for the Doors of course!); Meltzer's a great writer but incredibly clueless, I once joked after Let It Blurt came out that someone should write a bio of Meltzer and call it Can't Get Work. Maybe someone can explain to me what's so Rock N Roll about collaborating with the parading potbellies in BOC and GBV.

James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 6 February 2003 20:29 (twenty-one years ago) link

threads about rock critics are always soooooo interesting

James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 6 February 2003 20:30 (twenty-one years ago) link

But hopefully Melzer will pop out of the woodwork soon!

jus' lurkin', Thursday, 6 February 2003 20:35 (twenty-one years ago) link

>>Olga, I made the same mistake before Mr. Perry helped me see the pieces at the end of the sentence. But jeez, if both of us were confused, maybe there's something confusing about the sentence itself.<<

well, yeah, i can see now how the singular form of "to be" is wrong. thanks, mr. perry. but i still don't understand why people have trouble understand what the sentence MEANS. i mean, do people really think christgau is less comprehensible, than, say, most people reviewing records on the web? or posting on ILM, for that matter? i mean, isn't the fact that he doesn't write exactly like everybody else out there, and maybe that it takes a little work on the part of the reader to get his point sometimes, a GOOD thing? it seems like people complaining about him just wanna be SPOONFED, or something...i mean, he's a WRITER. so you have to learn his LANGUAGE, you know? how does that make him any different than, say, Meltzer in The Aesthetics of Rock??? Or Sterling Clover? Or Mark Sinker? Or [fill in the blank]?

olga, Thursday, 6 February 2003 20:36 (twenty-one years ago) link

>>>but i still don't understand why people have trouble understand what the sentence<<

oops, I meant "understanding", not that second "understand". (and i meant "you fucking nitpickers," not "people". okay, maybe i didn't.)

olga, Thursday, 6 February 2003 20:39 (twenty-one years ago) link

The confusing thing to me about the sentence was the use of "back-in-the-day" as a noun. Once that was cleared up, it made a modicum of sense.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 6 February 2003 20:42 (twenty-one years ago) link

There is a difference between obscurity and opacity--I'm trying to locate the difference, so back to Christgau. In the first line of a review of the Donnas' new record, he writes, "On this beefed-up sprint to the major-label gold, their shallow attitude makes up for their skinny voices and vice versa."

What does this mean?

Amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 6 February 2003 20:45 (twenty-one years ago) link

I initially had trouble understanding the sentence because I thought the verb was "is recommended". I thought he was saying "Surrounding outtakes which were outtakes is recommended back-in-the-day-style to Tim and Missy (nonsensical parenthetical aside about pronunciation) and four autobiographical pieces." I was thinking, "Surrounding outtakes with what? And what's that thing about pronunciation supposed to refer to? Why is he recommending this to four unidentified-out-of-conext autobiographical pieces?"

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 6 February 2003 20:46 (twenty-one years ago) link

OK, I think we've solved the mystery of the sentence whose obscurity begat this thread. Moving on to the Donnas review....

Amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 6 February 2003 20:48 (twenty-one years ago) link

>>In the first line of a review of the Donnas' new record, he writes, "On this beefed-up sprint to the major-label gold, their shallow attitude makes up for their skinny voices and vice versa."<<


they signed to atlantic, made a more metal record, don't say anything deep, and don't belt out the lyrics, but he likes it more than if they were belting shallow lyrics or whispering deep ones. like, duh.

olga, Thursday, 6 February 2003 20:51 (twenty-one years ago) link

Better written and easier to follow than other Consumer Guide blurbs, but I always thought this Christgau review was pretty creepy:

Bjork, Vespertine
I liked this a lot better once I heard how it was entirely about sex, which since it often buries its pulse took a while. Sex, not fucking. I'm nervous so you'd better pet me awhile sex. Lick the backs of my knees sex. OK, where my buttcheeks join my thighs sex. I'm still a little jumpy so you'd better pet me some more sex. How many different ways can we open our mouths together sex. We came 20 minutes ago and have Sunday morning ahead of us sex. Or, if fucking, tantric--the one where you don't move and let vaginal peristalsis do the work (yeah sure). The atmospherics, glitch techno, harps, glockenspiels, and shades of Hilmar Om Hilmarsson float free sometimes, and when she gets all soprano on your ass you could accuse her of spirituality. But with somebody this freaky you could get used to that. English lyrics provided, most of them dirty if you want. A-

die9o (dhadis), Thursday, 6 February 2003 20:53 (twenty-one years ago) link

wow, he almost makes bjork sound INTERESTING! that's not creepy; it's a miracle. (and that "yeah sure" is actually kinda *funny*!)

olga, Thursday, 6 February 2003 21:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Ohmigod, I think I've just been petted by Robert Xgau.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 6 February 2003 21:07 (twenty-one years ago) link

It always amazes me when people take Meltzer's bitching about RC and GM seriously. In the first place, he complains about everyone and everything: if you suddenly decided to take everything he said seriously, you'd think rock and roll DID die in 1966 or whenever. As he'd probably be the first to admit, he's just being a bitter old git. He is a great writer, though, which is more than I can say for Jim bloody DeRogatis.

Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Thursday, 6 February 2003 21:07 (twenty-one years ago) link

wow, he almost makes bjork sound INTERESTING!

By objectifying her?

The "yeah sure" is kind of funny, though.

die9o (dhadis), Thursday, 6 February 2003 21:12 (twenty-one years ago) link

Can someone explain this one to me?

Oranges and Lemons [Geffen, 1989]
Compulsive formalists can't fabricate meaning--by which I mean nothing deeper than extrinsic interest--without a frame (cf. Skylarking, even the Dukes of Stratosfear). The only concept discernible on this hour-long double-LP is CD. Def Leppard got there first. B-

How is CD a concept? And how did Def Leppard get there first? And where is there?

dleone (dleone), Thursday, 6 February 2003 21:12 (twenty-one years ago) link

he's objectifying her music, not her. explicit doesn't automatically = creepy, at least to me

"Their earlier albums had some concept, and this doesn't, unless you count the fact that it's an hour long, something they're only doing because, thanks to CD, they can get away with. Unfortunately, Def Leppard beat them to that trick."

M Matos (M Matos), Thursday, 6 February 2003 21:15 (twenty-one years ago) link

>How is CD a concept?<

in 1989 it sure could be -- extreme length; overemphasis on improved sound quality possibilities (a la early '60s "hi-fi" albums); etc.

>And how did Def Leppard get there first?<

Hysteria came out in what, 1987? 1988?

>And where is there?<

there.

olga, Thursday, 6 February 2003 21:16 (twenty-one years ago) link

The XTC one is an example of his virtues and vices at once, I think. Extreme compression gets the idea over quickly and neatly, but the assertion "Compulsive formalists can't fabricate meaning without a frame" does rather beg the question "Why not?".

Tom (Groke), Thursday, 6 February 2003 21:19 (twenty-one years ago) link

Thanks. Matos: Automatic Xgau Translation

ps - also thanks olga

dleone (dleone), Thursday, 6 February 2003 21:20 (twenty-one years ago) link

Speaking of writing, what about Tom's use of "beg the question" - C/D?

picknit, Thursday, 6 February 2003 21:23 (twenty-one years ago) link

My use of "rather" is much worse.

Tom (Groke), Thursday, 6 February 2003 21:26 (twenty-one years ago) link

I want to (re)assert that by holding up Christgau's sentences for explication, I am not trying to ridicule them or cast asperions at Christgau's writing generally. I honestly believe that some of you have more "training" with this kind of writing and can be of help in, as dleone says, translating the more twisty passages. In doing so I suspect we will uncover some things that simply can't be untangled, or as Tom points out, don't really hold up to analysis.

Amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 6 February 2003 21:27 (twenty-one years ago) link

one of the problems w/Xgau sometimes is that his stuff is very adamantly journalism--that XTC review would have made a lot more sense if you were reading it in 1989, because "CD as a concept" would be right there instead of a historical curiosity the way it is now--and therefore travels badly at times unless you're willing to dig in and infer the context

M Matos (M Matos), Thursday, 6 February 2003 21:28 (twenty-one years ago) link

Well I think it might hold up to analysis. It's an interesting idea! That's why I want the analysis!

These days we can just start ILM threads on any given sentence of course which solves that problem.

Tom (Groke), Thursday, 6 February 2003 21:30 (twenty-one years ago) link

(nevermind that it was XTC's *second* double album, the first coming well before the CD boom -- so is it even good journalism?)

dleone (dleone), Thursday, 6 February 2003 21:31 (twenty-one years ago) link

I find much to like in his work, but I'm noticing that I only enjoy his "Honorable mention" one liners when I've already heard the album. A definitely explanation of why journo's and journowannabe's love him. He makes great injokes that sum up the situation IF you've heard the album. If you haven't, then you're basically screwed.

It's pretty smug for somebody to basically just offer "His Two Cents and Nuthin' but" on an album ever weak, but for those who ARE saturated with info on most albums, myself included, he can be very entertaining.

However, I'll note that this year I've felt a lot his A's were totally on the pipe, rather than OTM (can we make OTP a new abbreviation). The Transplants being the latest.

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Thursday, 6 February 2003 21:38 (twenty-one years ago) link

Maybe that's why I'm missing the meaning of much of this, because I haven't heard many of the albums under discussion. I wonder how many people actually use the Consumer Guide as a consumer guide.

Amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 6 February 2003 21:40 (twenty-one years ago) link

The '70s and '80s ones were a lot better for that. He did a more diverse grading scale, which helped you put things in perspective. I hate saying somebody has "gotten worse." But since part of what I enjoy about him is his cynicism, I don't like this all A stuff. Especially when his Streets reviews was FILLED with negative statements, but he still gave it an A-. Wtf?

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Thursday, 6 February 2003 21:45 (twenty-one years ago) link

um, maybe he likes the streets but doesn't think what he likes about the streets makes for writing as interesting as what he *doesn't* like about the streets (maybe because so few critics say ANYTHING negative about the streets)? what's wrong with that?? (and while you're at it, what's wrong with the transplants? they're great!!)

olga, Thursday, 6 February 2003 21:51 (twenty-one years ago) link

olga said what i was going to say. i wish more critics would go for what makes interesting (or at least critical) writing, over something to "corroborate their grade." (implicit or otherwise.)

the literalism and reduced horizons - from the implications of "consumer guide" on down - seem pretty typical of this place these days.

jess (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 6 February 2003 21:54 (twenty-one years ago) link

If he's gonna give something a positive rating, I think he should explain that. Not write a B review and then just put an A-. If he's not gonna corroborate his grade, why put it? Also, when somebody says "this sucks but it's good" I usually assume their full of shit and that they're just giving it a thumb-up to tow the line. Like somebody who doesn't enjoy their favorite band's new album but still gives it an 8 out of 10 because it's their favorite band. Maybe that's just my cynicism and reduced horizons.

Transplants? On initial listen, it sounded like weak loops and a guy barking on top of it. I was hopefully since I figured Rancid raps would sound like the verse to "Time Bomb" or something. I wanna hear it again but it was pretty ungainly. Plus I don't WANT people to sing about being materialist criminals when they're NOT them. Real rappers are bad enough these days. Unless it's like, really smart and funny. Which it didn't seem to be.

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Thursday, 6 February 2003 21:58 (twenty-one years ago) link

Jess, if expansive horizons are so important to you, I wd suggest you not make such statements as "cuz musicals suck." Unless said horizons are only expanding in the direction of your CD tower.

Amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 6 February 2003 22:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

I like reviews where the grade doesn't precisely match the tenor of the writing because it indicates a well-rounded listen, and I think almost every great album (and certainly every very good album) has something about it that sucks as well.

dan fitz, Thursday, 6 February 2003 22:02 (twenty-one years ago) link

also, how humorless (and corny) it's been.

jess (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 6 February 2003 22:02 (twenty-one years ago) link

I like reviews which don't have grades and which get enough space to actually talk about what sucks and doesn't.

Tom (Groke), Thursday, 6 February 2003 22:03 (twenty-one years ago) link

NAS
The Lost Tapes
(Columbia)
Surrounding outtakes that were just outtakes is back-in-the-day recommended to Tim and Missy (even has some pronunciation in it) and four autobiographical pieces.

Sheesh, you guys, he's using "back-in-the-day" as a noun...as in old-style...that old bastard...the back-in-the-day is recommended to them...where's Strunk and White when you need 'em?

I don't think Meltzer's problem with Christgau and Marcus has anything to do with "PC" or that back-in-the-day (adj.) stuff...he just thinks they don't understand that being a bad boy is the right of rock journalists, just as it is the right of some guy in the New York Dolls. There's some rather blatant personal animus in there too, which grumpy old Meltzer doesn't hide...I mean, I would be grumpy too if an editor called me up and told me, "Get out your thesaurus, it's word choice time," as R.M. asserts R.C. did (in "A Whore Just Like the Rest"). But yeah, he does think rock ended with the first Moby Grape album or something.


I don't capitalize rock and roll...that was, you know, a joke...although I had the misfortune to spend a couple of months in Cincinnati, Ohio once and was appalled to see that, in the alternative weekly there, the music editor capitalized EVERY SINGLE possible permutation of "genre"--Jazz Rock, Folk Rock, Singer Songwriter, Classic Pop, Blues, Blues Rock, Emo, Alternative Rock, Grunge, Harmolodic Pop, Post-Big-Star-Power Pop, Power Pop...

Edd Hurt (delta ed), Thursday, 6 February 2003 22:04 (twenty-one years ago) link

I'm sorry I started this thread. I don't even like rock critics. I apologize for any unnecessary angst I caused.

Amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 6 February 2003 22:06 (twenty-one years ago) link

why would meltzer try to do anything other than self-publish if he didn't want to work with an editor?

jess (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 6 February 2003 22:06 (twenty-one years ago) link

(i mean, aside from finding some fawning fanboy editor who would publish anything that he spurted.)

jess (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 6 February 2003 22:07 (twenty-one years ago) link

Meltzer - "I don't wanna write about music! There ain't been no good music since 66 (cept the Doors!)! (how come no one will hire me to write about music?)"

James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 6 February 2003 22:10 (twenty-one years ago) link

Edd, because of the incorrect usage of "is", it wasn't immediately obvious to me if the main verb in the sentence was "is" or "is recommended".

I think that the end result of this is that Xgau should get a new editor, like MEEEEEEE.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 6 February 2003 22:11 (twenty-one years ago) link

(Strunk and White is on MY side, not yours! NYAH!)

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 6 February 2003 22:12 (twenty-one years ago) link

(something i always wondered: does xgau edit his own voice pieces?)

jess (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 6 February 2003 22:14 (twenty-one years ago) link

i wish more critics would go for what makes interesting (or at least critical) writing, over something to "corroborate their grade." (implicit or otherwise.)

I was thinking about this last night, about how deceptive album grades can be compared to whatever private connection the reviewer has with the record. I was listening to a CD, and I said to myself "This is a three-star record if I've ever heard one. It's nice in no particularly spectacular way, it's pretty but not terribly original or statement-making, and it's doomed for a life in cut-out bins all the world over. And yet, I like it. A lot. I can't stop listening to it. But I'd be lying if I were to grade it and give it more than three stars."

Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 6 February 2003 22:28 (twenty-one years ago) link

I'm sorry I started this thread. I don't even like rock critics. I apologize for any unnecessary angst I caused.

Oooh... you claim you don't like rock critics and you use the word "angst." I renounce my crush on you. :-(

Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 6 February 2003 22:30 (twenty-one years ago) link


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