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)
(add: "i) a few tracks which pay homage to old-school hip-hop more effectively than anything on Missy's current album does--ia) he even pronounces his words more clearly than Missy does--ii)....)

M Matos (M Matos), Thursday, 6 February 2003 07:14 (twenty-one years ago) link

Don't get me wrong -- I read Christgau all the time, and I even agree with him a lot of the time (not that that's any measure of a rock writer). But his Consumer Guide in particular is problematic for me. Yes, he's good at brevity. Yes, he says in 20 words what a lot of writers take 200 words to say. But on the whole, isn't it universally true that the listener gets more useful information out of a full-length, expository album review than he or she will out of one of Christgau's carefully worded snatches of blurbdom?

Kenan Hebert, Thursday, 6 February 2003 07:19 (twenty-one years ago) link

no it isn't

M Matos (M Matos), Thursday, 6 February 2003 07:25 (twenty-one years ago) link

I got no quarrel with the man! Christgau fer president! Read between the lines hatas!

James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 6 February 2003 07:27 (twenty-one years ago) link

Michael Daddino is a golden god.

Mary (Mary), Thursday, 6 February 2003 07:39 (twenty-one years ago) link

you ought to see him shouting on hotel balconies

M Matos (M Matos), Thursday, 6 February 2003 07:41 (twenty-one years ago) link

This is his review of Hieroglyphics' Third Eye Vision: "East Bay Afrocentricity, hold the pikls." I have no idea what pikls are or why you would want to hold them.

andy, Thursday, 6 February 2003 14:02 (twenty-one years ago) link

Pro writers adore Christgau because he has made word count so much his bitch, I think.

Tom (Groke), Thursday, 6 February 2003 14:08 (twenty-one years ago) link

Robert Christgau blows. The guy has NO WRITING TALENT AT ALL. Those aren't reviews, they're just little sentences that make him look cool. Like that "hold the Piklz" reference for example. I get the feeling that the only reason he wrote that was just to say "I'm so much cooler than you because I know about the Invisible Scratch Piklz and you don't."

He even has the gall to call himself "The Dean of American Rock Critics" for Chrissake! What possible reason could you ever have for reading him?

Evan (Evan), Thursday, 6 February 2003 14:27 (twenty-one years ago) link

since you don't think he looks cool, how are they "just little sentences that make him look cool"?

mark s (mark s), Thursday, 6 February 2003 15:06 (twenty-one years ago) link

I think Tom is right, Christgau is very inventive in condensing information into tiny sentences to make his word count. I guess it's inevitable that at some point he condenses this information to the point where it's no longer easily comprehensible. And I guess this is a virtue, and why not? But I do feel like this kind of density precludes Christgau from expanding upon his core points in any real way. He doesn't make his arguments with the kind of transparency and deliberateness that would allow for the introduction of evidence, for example. This is why I find it exhausting, as above, if never exactly boring or useless as some attest.

Amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 6 February 2003 15:35 (twenty-one years ago) link

but what are Piklz??

I'm a fan of his capsule reviews (70s and 80s ones especially) but his cryptic one-liners in the Consumer Guide's honorable mention section often leave me puzzled. Like with these two Luna albums:

The Days of Our Nights:
"Still a casualty of capitalism--not downsized, but privatized"

Romantica:
"in which schemes replace dreams and shadows on the wall head for a fall"

andy, Thursday, 6 February 2003 15:41 (twenty-one years ago) link

Christgau is good on the '70s, I guess. That's his era. I don't mean to be ageist, man, but he's about 60 now and it does strike me as a bit unseemly to keep writing about Sleater-Kinney or whoever.

That said, I mean I've found some good records just from browsing the consumer guides. But I prefer Meltzer as a rock writer, whatever that means, at least Meltzer seems to have some kind of spirit, he's not pompous. When he describes Christgau and Marcus as "good Boy Scouts, good New Deal Democrats," I have to laugh.

I'm gonna have to go back and look at that Nas review--the sentence seems so screwed up, did the poster quote it correctly? Also, does anyone here know about Christgau's latest pick-to-click, Mr. Lif? What's that all about?

Edd Hurt (delta ed), Thursday, 6 February 2003 15:42 (twenty-one years ago) link

I like Christgau, though I think his writing decayed a bit since the seventies, and that could be due to his gift for the capsule review. He seems to have spent the last few years fighting against this tendency, partly by forcing himself to write longer stuff. His 2001 essay in the VV -- where he talked about how it might be possible for a liberal to take a quasi-pro-hawk stance on Afghanistan -- was crystalline (though I'm probably doing injustice to his argument by describing it as "quasi-pro-hawk" -- it was more nuanced than that).

Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Thursday, 6 February 2003 15:44 (twenty-one years ago) link

When he describes Christgau and Marcus as "good Boy Scouts, good New Deal Democrats," I have to laugh.

I wouldn't mind describing *myself* that way, only I never was a boy scout -- the scouts had a whole homoerotic vibe that creeped the fuck out of me when I was five.

Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Thursday, 6 February 2003 15:47 (twenty-one years ago) link

good Boy Scouts, good New Deal Democrats

That's just condescending crap; who does Meltzer imagine himself to be, Rosa Luxembourg?

Like Michael, I would take the latter part of that "insult" as a compliment. (Like the Maoist who tried to injure me in high school by yelling, "You're a liberal!")

Amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 6 February 2003 15:52 (twenty-one years ago) link

Is the improper conjugation of "to be" intentional? I think that is the biggest problem with that sentence (replace "is" with "are" and re-read).

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 6 February 2003 15:55 (twenty-one years ago) link

Yes, as it stands it sounds a bit like "back in the day, I was recommending that Tim and Missy surround outtakes-that-were-just-outtakes." Which makes no sense.

Amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 6 February 2003 16:04 (twenty-one years ago) link

"back-in-the-day" here is a noun, as in "back-in-the-day material". So "is" is appropriate.

Paula G., Thursday, 6 February 2003 16:14 (twenty-one years ago) link

How many of Christgaus neologisms fly anyway?

Amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 6 February 2003 16:17 (twenty-one years ago) link

SKRONK!!

mark s (mark s), Thursday, 6 February 2003 16:20 (twenty-one years ago) link

"is" is NOT appropriate because the second half of the sentence is plural. "Surrounding [X] is [Y] and [Z]." ==> BAD GRAMMAR.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 6 February 2003 16:26 (twenty-one years ago) link

It's bad grammar, but it's more colloquial. Part of the rock critic's balancing act is writing well without sounding too formal.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 6 February 2003 16:32 (twenty-one years ago) link

But too colloquial can be annoying too. I was going to write that the sentence of Christgau's that bugs me more in the latest issue, from his Mr. Lif review, is this one: "In fact, it's an excuse to drop random science about the place of hip hop in the military-industrial complex." That "drop random science" line just makes me wince a little.

This thread is really interesting. I'm curious to know what people make of any of the other 324,786 un-parseable Christgau sentences.

dan fitz, Thursday, 6 February 2003 16:39 (twenty-one years ago) link

At least the sentence you've quoted is syntactically correct, Dan.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 6 February 2003 16:40 (twenty-one years ago) link

Yes, that was the point of this thread, please produce your own examples for our inspection. (Note: this is not a let's-knock-Christgau thread.)

Amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 6 February 2003 16:41 (twenty-one years ago) link

"I guess it's inevitable that at some point he condenses this information to the point where it's no longer easily comprehensible. And I guess this is a virtue, and why not?"

Because it's not easily comprehensible?

ArfArf, Thursday, 6 February 2003 16:42 (twenty-one years ago) link

I think the problem with "drop random science" is that it doesn't sound colloquial - ie., it's hard to picture Christgau saying this in everyday conversation. Rather it sounds like a self-conscious attempt to ape a hip-hop idiom in order to beef up his hip-hop bona fides.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 6 February 2003 16:43 (twenty-one years ago) link

But there are lots of things that I've initially found incomprehensible which I have learned to parse. I'm open to the possibility that certain of Christgau's more twisty sentences will reveal buds of wisdom if I can get them to unwind (hence, this thread); I'm equally open to the possibility that he can take a simple and unremarkable idea and make it seem not so by presenting it in a twisty (obfuscatory?) manner.

(Xgau to VV intern: "excuse me, can you get me a cup of coffee -- er, and while you're downstairs, can you pick up some random science?")

Amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 6 February 2003 16:46 (twenty-one years ago) link

arfarf, if you have to ask, you'll never know < / whiskered old ilxor gag of diminishing merit >

mark s (mark s), Thursday, 6 February 2003 16:48 (twenty-one years ago) link

"...actually, make that some random *po-mo* science."

Thanks o. nate, your explanation makes more sense.

I'm not knocking him Amateurist by the way--just so you know--I'm actually a fan. My point, never expressed, is that I'll take the un-aprseable, confusing Christgau over the excessively lingo-ized one (whether of the academy or of the "street") anyday.

dan fitz, Thursday, 6 February 2003 16:49 (twenty-one years ago) link

Could you repeat that, please, I found it un-aprseable.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 6 February 2003 16:53 (twenty-one years ago) link

Dan Perry's definitely right re "is" vs "are"..."is" confuses the reader's understanding of what the sentence is trying to do with colloquialism and compression. Writing in such a way demands accurate signposts to let the reader know what you're getting at. "Are" would've been a signpost, "is" is a misdirection.

Paula G., Thursday, 6 February 2003 16:54 (twenty-one years ago) link

That's just condescending crap; who does Meltzer imagine himself to be, Rosa Luxembourg?

I wouldn't mind describing *myself* that way

Welll...la-de-da, I keep forgetting that being "good, caring New Deal Democrats, good Boy Scouts, and far more telling, good boys" (Meltzer's "condescending" words to two writers who certainly deserve nothing but good, caring New Deal Democrat careful words, right?) means not having a sense of humor.

"Like most culture wags laureate, what they are...is pious outsiders..." as R.M. says...how about you two laying off being so pious yourselves, what personal connection do you guys have to the two writers anyway? I mean, he writes that way because he is a B.S. and N.D.D. in the worst possible senses of those terms--we're not talking three-day hikes or helping little old ladies across the street, or the WPA, here, we're talking about a pompous old man who thinks that rationalizing and explaining Rock and Roll is gonna keep him young--that's Meltzer's point and I happen to agree with it.

Edd Hurt (delta ed), Thursday, 6 February 2003 16:55 (twenty-one years ago) link

While we're pointing fingers, is it possible that Meltzer's motivation in making that statement might be infused with more than a hint of professional jealousy?

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 6 February 2003 17:05 (twenty-one years ago) link

because he is a B.S. and N.D.D. in the worst possible senses of those terms--we're not talking three-day hikes or helping little old ladies across the street, or the WPA, here, we're talking about a pompous old man who thinks that rationalizing and explaining Rock and Roll is gonna keep him young

Was does this have to do with the New Deal, or the Democrats?

Amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 6 February 2003 17:07 (twenty-one years ago) link

I've not read enough Christgau or Meltzer to comment or care - but when did people start capitalising rock and roll?

Tom (Groke), Thursday, 6 February 2003 17:10 (twenty-one years ago) link

"What does this have to do with the New Deal, or the Democrats?"

Um, they're *metaphors*...for a "public-service" critical mindset, as opposed to, by implication, a truly fuck-shit-up rock and roll mindset. Maybe a bogus argument, but pretending not to recognize a metaphor when you see it doesn't help you prove it to be bogus.

Paula G., Thursday, 6 February 2003 17:15 (twenty-one years ago) link

Oh. Boy, that's patronizing to actual Roosevelt Democrats. I suppose what Meltzer (sp?) is saying is that there is a political do-goodnik impulse misapplied in a cultural arena.

I wasn't playing naive, my grandparents were actual New Deal Democrats so I thought perhaps Meltzer was speaking literally, at least in part.

Amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 6 February 2003 17:18 (twenty-one years ago) link

I think what Meltzer is trying to say with his over-stretched metaphors is that Marcus and Christgau are - gasp, shudder - P.C. This line of attack strikes me as being very 10 years ago.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 6 February 2003 17:23 (twenty-one years ago) link

"I wasn't playing naive, my grandparents were actual New Deal Democrats"

But surely the reference to "good Boy Scouts" tipped you off. Which by the way flies in the face of the supposed anti-P.C. stance. Aren't the Boy Scouts like gay bashers and female excluders. And I say this speaking as the daughter of a BS...

Paula G., Thursday, 6 February 2003 17:33 (twenty-one years ago) link

Onate its establishment/anti-est rather than PC/un-PC - Meltzer, Christgau and Marcus are all 60s kids after all and the terminology of insults reflects that.

Tom (Groke), Thursday, 6 February 2003 17:35 (twenty-one years ago) link

So, Paula, you think Meltzer is accusing Marcus and Christgau of being "gay bashers" and "female excluders"? Let's not be overly literal with our metaphors here. Being a "good boy scout" is a well-known expression (cliche, perhaps) with the well-established connotation of a tame, unquestioning rule-follower.

Tom, when you're talking about the media venues that Christgau and Marcus write for, then P.C. and establishment become more or less identical.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 6 February 2003 17:37 (twenty-one years ago) link

"what personal connection do you guys have to the two writers anyway?"

Probably, Edd, something close to the relationship you have to Meltzer--as readers, as fans, as critics of...whatever. What kind of relationship do you propose readers have to writers?

dan fitz, Thursday, 6 February 2003 17:40 (twenty-one years ago) link

Oh Nate (sigh) well you've picked a good name for yourself anyway. What I'm saying is that Boy Scout means in this context "goody-goody" or "squeaky clean" or "good public servant", the same thing Meltzer intends "New Deal Democrat" to mean. His dis has absolutely nothing to do with Political Correctness. He's saying THEY AIN'T ROCK AND ROLL.

I still think "they ain't rock and roll" is kind of a bogus argument. But he's not saying "they're P.C." P.C. is one of those overused terms like pretentious and ironic that shouldn't be used unless definitely appropriate.

Paula G., Thursday, 6 February 2003 17:43 (twenty-one years ago) link

One thing Meltzer's just silly-wrong about: Music might or might not make Christgau and Marcus feel young (isnt' that something to envy in a way?), but they never write pretending that their still in their thirties or twenties or forties. Christgau's writing is heavily autobiographical, and age and agingness comes into the equation often.

dan fitz, Thursday, 6 February 2003 17:48 (twenty-one years ago) link

If Meltzer is really claiming that he is more "rock and roll" (whatever that means) than Christgau and Marcus, then he is more pretentious and pompous than they could ever hope to be.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 6 February 2003 18:01 (twenty-one years ago) link

>>Surrounding outtakes that were just outtakes is back-in-the-day<<

wait, so WHY do people think the "is" should be "are" again?? sorry, but "back-in-the-day" is a SINGULAR noun. makes perfect sense to me. and anybody who thinks "even has some pronunciation in it" should be "he even enunciates" is clearly a useless literalist born without a fucking sense of humor, and should stick to *entertainment weekly*.

also. re meltzer. at least christgau and marcus don't think that music died in 1970 (when meltzer got too lazy for it), you know?

olga, Thursday, 6 February 2003 20:14 (twenty-one years ago) link

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

The term "English" (as in "putting English on something") seems to work this way too. English what?

Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 17 February 2003 06:50 (twenty-one years ago) link

Its like Getting yer Irish up...

Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Monday, 17 February 2003 07:53 (twenty-one years ago) link

Neither of these examples help because I've got no idea what either of them mean.

I've just looked up a book definition of metonymy. It says: 'A figure in which the name of an attribute or adjunct is substituted for that of the thing meant.' Bubbly is an attribute of champagne and is substituted for it. I don't believe that it's a contraction of 'bubbly champagne'.

And why can't anyone explain the meaning of 'back in the day' to me whether as a noun, adjective, adverb or phrase. I'm a forty-one year old Britain/Australian and I don't know much about hip hop. You can explain the English and the Irish phrases too if you like.

Amarga (Amarga), Monday, 17 February 2003 09:25 (twenty-one years ago) link

"English" is when you're playing pool and you hit the ball off-centre to spin it, i.e. deliberate attempt to tricky-up things.

B.Rad (Brad), Monday, 17 February 2003 09:30 (twenty-one years ago) link

What noun should come after 'back in the day'?

FLAVA!

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 17 February 2003 14:48 (twenty-one years ago) link

I'm still a bit confused too. Does "back in the day" just mean "old tracks"? Or does it suggest tracks with some allegiance to old-school hip-hop? Or does the Missy reference Matos pointed out waaaaaay upthread explain this?

Amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 17 February 2003 16:08 (twenty-one years ago) link

It's tracks with some allegiance to old-school hip-hop with a rather pointed barb at Missy and Timbo saying "See, THIS is how it's done!" lambasting Missy's "Back In The Day" specifically but aimed at a good 60% of _Under Construction_.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 17 February 2003 16:13 (twenty-one years ago) link

I can't tell if Amarga's question is about "back in the day" in general usage or in the specific Christgau sentence. Excuse me if in talking about the former I'm wasting your time and telling you something you already know. I assumed that the expression was so common in English usage in the last several decades as to be generally unproblematic. In general usage, "back in the day" can be a noun, adverb, or adjective, depending on what it's doing in its particular sentence. Well, excuse my ignorance of grammatical terminology; "noun" might not be the correct word for a phrase that contains an adjective, a preposition, an article, and a noun. (Dan, help me.) Anyway, as a noun it means "back in the era referred to," e.g., "If I were a young person I think I'd be most interested in having old folk like me write about what things were like back in the day: what the Fillmore was like, what the crowd was like at a Dolls show in the early '70s, etc." This is no more a problem than "yesterday" in "What was she like yesterday" or "tomorrow" in "We will be happy tomorrow." (It's true; we will be.) The trouble with the Xgau sentence is that the word's location signals that it is an adjective or an adverb but not a noun, since as a noun it would be as bizarre as "Surrounding outtakes that are just outtakes is yesterday recommended to Paul McCartney (with cellos even) and four autobiographical pieces." So my question for the rest of you is whether in hip hop "back in the day" has wandered in its meaning from "back in the era referred to" (with the sentence clueing you in to what era that is) to "old school hip hop." Any particular instances? Sentences or sung phrases? And I don't mean sentences or phrases where the context signals that "back in the day" refers to old school hip hop ("Back in the day she would rap 'Jack and Jill went up the hill to have a little fun/Stupid Jill forgot the pill and now she has a son'") but something where there is no signal: "The DJ played some techno and some back in the day." (Btw, even if the latter were in common usage the Xgau sentence is still a problem, since (1) the verb form needs to be "are" and (2) the sentence can still lead you to think at first that you're getting an adjective; if Chuck and Bob had noticed this, they would have done a rewrite.)

Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 01:56 (twenty-one years ago) link

'back in the day' a more specific 'ol' skool' except Missy and Tim ain't got no song called 'ol' skool'

James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 02:49 (twenty-one years ago) link

Thanks for the help with 'back-in-the-day'. If it's equivalent to 'ol' skool' then I think that makes it an adjectival phrase or some such category - not a noun anyway. Maybe Christgau's missing his subject from the beginning of the sentence. I'm rather prone to this writing error myself. Maybe it should start: [The style of ]Surrounding outtakes that were just outtakes is back-in-the-day ... That would explain the use of 'is' rather than 'are' but then there should be a comma before 'recommended' so this theory doesn't explain the rest of the sentence.

I'm not sure why I'm persisting with this but I'd truly like to know what Christgau thinks his sentence means. I'm more interested in the other elements of the discussion in this thread, particularly the differences in reviewing practices and media culture between the US and the UK.

Amarga (Amarga), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 05:46 (twenty-one years ago) link

Amarga, it can't work as an adjective since that would unmoor the "four autobiographical pieces" at the end from the rest of the sentence. Anthony got the meaning right back on the second post. Surrounding outtakes that should have stayed outtakes are (1) old-school tracks that Tim & Missy should listen to and (2) four autobiographical pieces.

Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 23:52 (twenty-one years ago) link

Oh, a point for way back in the thread: Meltzer places the end of rock in late '67 not in '66. That's a huge difference. Like placing the death of punk in late '77 rather than '76. He has interesting reasons, too. But that's a subject for a different thread (there's a Meltzer thread, if you want to look for it).

Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 23:57 (twenty-one years ago) link

"back-in-the-day" can't be a noun, it's too hyphenated!

i think it's an indication of what the results of the recommendation will yield.

ambiguity about whether he's urging Tim and Missy to surround outtakes with some unspecified thing, or whether "surrounding" is an adjective. The latter at least has some fixity to it, but the verb "is" doesn't agree so we have to go with the former - "surrounding outtakes that were just outtakes" becomes one unified action, a noun—like "jousting" as a sport.

"I'm recommending - in an old-school way - that Tim and Missy engulf and outflank outtakes that are worthy of the name (they could also both stand to speak up a little more clearly like our man Nas); four autobiographical pieces are also on the album."

I feel weird.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 00:30 (twenty-one years ago) link

You guys are soo hopinng that X-Man comes to thread.

Mary (Mary), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 01:05 (twenty-one years ago) link

You guys are soo hoping that X-Man comes to thread.

Mary (Mary), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 01:05 (twenty-one years ago) link

they must really hope otherwise you wouldn't have posted it twice.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 09:58 (twenty-one years ago) link

*snikt*

You called, bub?

Wolverine (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:19 (twenty-one years ago) link

*pokes head in.

This thread is still going? Jesus.

die9o (dhadis), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 18:52 (twenty-one years ago) link

This thread is like the craven remnants of a mighty civilization feeding off of gutter rats after the fall.

Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 19:38 (twenty-one years ago) link

* drool *

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 21:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Mmmmm. Tasty rats.

Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 22:15 (twenty-one years ago) link

[PBS Pledge Break]...this is only post #744. We need your support if we're going to reach our goal of #1,000 posts! Please post early and often![/PBS Pledge Break]

C'mon, Momus...we know you still have a kooky comment to make (involving the phrases "Aguilera", "social classes", "sheepshagger", "Adolph Hitler" and "new Butterscotch flavor toothpaste") that you need to make.

Don't force me to post some demented "madcap theory" in order to get everyone yelling at me again just to keep this thread going.

Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Wednesday, 19 February 2003 22:22 (twenty-one years ago) link

three weeks pass...
I wasn't sure if I should put this in the P&J thread or here, but anyway: David Segal, the Washington Post's rock critic, has written a diatribe against Christgau and his P&J essay in particular. Check it here:

http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/r_entertainment_segal031203.htm

Yanc3y (ystrickler), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 16:24 (twenty-one years ago) link

Oh my. I do believe this needs to be a separate thread. ;-)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 16:32 (twenty-one years ago) link

Yes, it does need to be separate.

(Anyone read the Dean's piece on Norah this week?)

I must find some of that rebop.

Jess Hill (jesshill), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 16:47 (twenty-one years ago) link

Yes, is Norah really on antidpressants or was that just a JOKE? (It was funny.)

Mary (Mary), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 06:44 (twenty-one years ago) link

"Pop writing should be distracting and illuminating and a little provocative and if possible it should make you laugh and maybe run out and buy an album. That’s about it." - Mr. Ambition^2, this fukkers got his eye's on the mantle and he's taken no prisoners! Watch out English language - this motherfucker's rock n roll! David Segal ain't about writing up the new Norah Jones for all the housewives in northern Virginia - oh no, and he ain't about to be trifling discourse on the new Bonnie Prince Billie for all the comp. lit majors at G-town (HOYAS IN DA HAUS!), no way, this cowboy's out to fukkkk shit up, rip your eyes outcha head, check your prostate (verbally), love you, leave you, FUCK SHIT UP! How'd this rebel getta job at the Washington Post? Does Tony Kornheiser know about this guy?!!!

James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 07:49 (twenty-one years ago) link

HE'S BACK!!! YES!!!

M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 08:19 (twenty-one years ago) link

That rebel got to the Post through less-than-admirable means, I hear.

Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 16:29 (twenty-one years ago) link

Why, he is! Heya Mr. Blount. :-)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 16:29 (twenty-one years ago) link

Christgau cites Jody Beth as having "got it just right" good on you JBR!

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 17:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

twas another jody rosen, john.

Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 17:02 (twenty-one years ago) link

Does nobody read the FAQ anymore??!!? ;)

Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 17:03 (twenty-one years ago) link

OK this is getting annoying.

Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 17:04 (twenty-one years ago) link

You should've copyrighted your name, like Billy Joel©.

Amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 17:09 (twenty-one years ago) link

Say what???

Billy Joel Rosen (ystrickler), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 17:11 (twenty-one years ago) link

Say what???

Billie Joe Armstrong (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 17:32 (twenty-one years ago) link

another cheer for the return of Blount from me, says I.

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 20:52 (twenty-one years ago) link

I love how Segal's bio sez that a Dead Kennedys show changed his life. yeah, so much so he became a legal writer who was moved to the rock-writing job because the Post decided its 53-year-old rock critic was too old for the job. Segal isn't rock, he isn't roll, my god he's both.

M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 21:08 (twenty-one years ago) link

all said, I still think Christgau writes in code too often these days. I'm not against looking something up in the dictionary but come ON...

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 21:23 (twenty-one years ago) link

So who's gonna send Segal the link?

Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 21:28 (twenty-one years ago) link

I can't get Troy McClure saying "I hear he plays the banjo!" out of my head everytime somebody writes the word Segal on this thread.

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 21:30 (twenty-one years ago) link

two years pass...
if xgau wrote about baseball:
http://baseballtonight.blogspot.com/2005/06/viewer-guide.html

patita (patita), Wednesday, 8 June 2005 15:19 (nineteen years ago) link

two years pass...

this one's better

Stormy Davis, Friday, 13 July 2007 17:50 (seventeen years ago) link


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