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

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?

"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."

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.

ps - also thanks olga

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

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.

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

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.

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...

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

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."

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

As much as I love Ol' Meltz, that imitation is spot-on.

I don't understand your comment (Christ, I'm sorry I ever mentioned Meltzer to this crowd, by the way...)

about the incorrect use of "is" in the sentence

"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."

Am I missing something here? Chriss-gow is saying "Surrounding outtakes that were just outtakes is old-style stuff recommended to Tim and Missy." How is this incorrect?

I think the major problem is that I would like to become more engaged with the sort of music Christgau reviews, but I'm simply not at the moment. Perhaps this is why so much of his writing is lost on me. It's my loss, I suppose.

Bit of both. I mean, I appreciate the universally grokked understanding of the star system (even though grades are horribly inflated in venues like Rolling Stone). I know what "3 stars" means and I'm comfortable with the definition, although I'd just as soon use "3 stars" as a descriptive tool to get across the feel of a record, the place it occupies in the music world, etc. As a rating in and of itself, though, it's faulty. It doesn't tell me much about the record's intangible qualities.

Surrounding [X] is [Y] and [Z]. But "[Y] and [Z]" is a plural construction. The only way to make it non-plural is the chop the sentence up like this:

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]).

Surrounding [X] is [Y] recommended to ([Z] and [W]). But recommending [X] to [W] doesn't make sense. And if you take [W] out of the compound prepositional phrase, you're right back at the plural problem.

God help me, I am a grammar bore.

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

well, this depends how many "stars" three is on a scale of. but if you like it a *lot* and can't stop listening to it, jody, why do you think how "important" it is otherwise even matters? a good record is a record you LIKE. PERIOD. not acnowledging THAT would be lying.

All of it (the bulk of it in the abstract) is recommended to Missy and Tim. If he'd enumerated each component, piece by piece, then he would've said, "Surrounding outtakes are echo, use of dialect humor, fast talking, loops, more loops, simulated orgasms and gunshots, and samples from both Silkworm and Ennio Morricone, all of which are recommended to..." But that's not what he said. Plus, he's only recommending "back-in-the-day" to Missy and Tim not "four autobiographical pieces."

This is naive. There are thousands of different shades to what "good" means. It's never as simple as merely "liking" something.

Also, I didn't use the word "important." My interest isn't in the album's importance writ large, it's in its function as a thing to buy, a thing to consume, a thing that sits among other things in record stores and (abstractly) in magazine pages and on my shelf when I need a thing to reach for.

Shut up, Dan.