What makes for a good music critic in 2010 ?

I went to see Factory Floor and Fuck Buttons two nights ago at a London gig venue and it was weird being in an audience of ATP beards/indie types all stood stock still, stroking beards real and metaphorical - looking at me like it was somehow gauche to be dancing. Saw FF two weeks earlier at an arts venue but everyone there (motley collection of industrial fans, acid house guys, metallers, goths and patrons of the arts all getting down - but in totally different styles. I guess it's interesting seeing in practice how seemingly functional music gets used in completely different ways.

But the hipster thing is just a red herring. I wish there was a ban on mentioning 'them'.

I grew up dancing at shows. I tend to think of it as a small-town thing, but it could just be my town/era. It's a critical mass thing.

Can we read Althusser too?
― Kevin John Bozelka, Friday, 23 April 2010 09:44 (Yesterday) Bookmark

You could, but be sure to read his critics too, and for the love of God do not take anything whatsoever from his writing style and research methods if you ever want to land a job.

The history of popular music is a history of audiences, and audiences define genres, which are nothing other than social context- Pete Scholtes

I'd say that the popular history of popular music is a history of audiences if that's the angle you choose, and that doesn't even apply exclusively to music or culture: you can get a demographic profile out of any consumer product from lawnmowers to yoghurt.

At this day and age, I'd rather focus on the historically recent facts that people 1)often isolate and create personal spaces for themselves through music(ipods, home theaters etc), and 2) somewhat paradoxically, are also more willing to listen to certain genres and artists outside of their natural social settings (like metalheads who like Stravinsky or housewives who listen to Lady Gaga). If you want to communicate with as many intelligent readers as possible, think twice before writing with a specific audience in mind; do not alienate anyone.

Finally, music like all art is created from an individualistic, solipsistic (and ocasionally misanthropic) POV. I'd rather try to assess the motivations and talent of the artist as an individual or a specific group of individuals because this is how you honour their craft and efforts, and this kind of commitment at the same time turns you into an author and thinker with a distinguishable and therefore more marketable voice.

Will.i.am has some wisdom for this thread in the cover story of the latest Rolling Stone. This is in response to the question of whether The Black Eyed Peas make songs or jingles:

"Since the 1960's, it's been a taboo for bands to fuck with brands, like they should only sell music. But music was never the product. When you played in a bar, music drew people in to sell a ticket and drinks. The first music industry was publishing, because they sold sheet music." Beethoven? Verdi? "They were selling aggregation, the ability to bring people to a concert hall."

Very interesting thread. Thanks, people.

Consumers of mass-produced products can often find an identity based around buying that product, but I trust you're not saying these identities all operate the same way, or exert the same amount of influence over their product. And is thinking about the history of popular music as a history of audiences (including individuals making space for themselves out of category) really all that popular? Books like The Sound of the City and England's Dreaming and Triksta: Life and Death and New Orleans Rap strike me as the exception rather than the rule.

yeah frankly the popular histories are usually ones obsessed w/ the auteur, not the other way around