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

Ok, I'm ASSUMING that was supposed to be enunciation. If he genuinely meant pronunication than replace "(he even enunciates!)" with "(roger, 4-9er we got a bogey gibba gabba)".

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?

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"

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?

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.

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!")

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

Because it's not easily comprehensible?

(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?")

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.

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.

Was 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.

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

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.

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?

Yeah, but the word still implies bubbly something; otherwise the expression would just be "bubbles."

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.

FLAVA!

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.

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.

You called, bub?

This thread is still going? Jesus.

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.

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

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

I must find some of that rebop.

this one's better