Christgau, Chusid, or DeRogatis: Which critic is the most useless?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (289 of them)

don't blame yourself.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:15 (seventeen years ago) link

"Getting behind" your arguments is one thing, and I agree: if you're going to post an opinion, you may as well do it with conviction. But you've got to maintain perspective and not delude yourself into thinking that you're more qualified than others to believe what you do, at least concerning something as open to interpretation as music or film.

souldesqueeze on Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:07 (5 minutes ago)

http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2003-02/6660517.jpg

― Hurting 2, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:16 (seventeen years ago) link

Srsly dude what do you want every record review to come with a disclaimer to spell out the obvious for you?

― Hurting 2, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:18 (seventeen years ago) link

Strong people used to enjoy really talented people....

they weren't feeling threatened...they just enjoyed their music....

but you've got to maintain perspective..... and not delude yourself into thinking that you're more qualified than others to believe what you do......

― ghost rider, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:19 (seventeen years ago) link

you might be projecting self-delusion onto writers where none exists but for argument's sake i think a little of that isn't necessarily a bad thing in writing.

No, I honestly believe that anyone who carries the conviction that their criticism of a piece in whose creation they played absolutely no part is of any consequence at all is wholly delusional. Criticism exists as mere food for thought for the reader, nothing more. Society would not dissolve into a cultural morass without it.

At this point, I think a distinction should be made between critics and historians. The latter contribute a definite service to society; the former do not.

― souldesqueeze, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:23 (seventeen years ago) link

isn't criticism supposed to be our way of trying to think about what art means and a process of trying to understand it and how it affects us?

you don't think that's important?

― M@tt He1ges0n, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:26 (seventeen years ago) link

So, like, Birth of A Nation is worthwhile, but essays about it are not.

― Hurting 2, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:26 (seventeen years ago) link

I relied on a large number of literary critics during my university days since my professors generally preferred papers with some attributed research. I would call that a definite service to me at least.

― Binjominia, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:28 (seventeen years ago) link

Thanks literary critics.

― Binjominia, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:28 (seventeen years ago) link

historians often act as critics of history, though, ones whose opinions affect the slant of their works.

― rps, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:35 (seventeen years ago) link

I don't think the line between music historians and music critics can be drawn in thick black marker, because very little that is of interest about music is purely objective or scientifically measurable. A history of 20th century music that contained nothing but measurable facts that could be proved scientifically would be a very dry and irrelevant read. The very act of deciding which musicians and which music to write about is a value judgment.

― o. nate, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:39 (seventeen years ago) link

And the statement that all criticism is equally valid is only true in a very trivial sense. I think it's easy to dismiss criticism as meaningless navel gazing, until you've actually tried to say something meaningful about music yourself. It's not easy to write criticism that is informative, enlightening, astute, realistic, colorful, provocative, realistic, etc.

― o. nate, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:43 (seventeen years ago) link

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0972819630.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

― Sparkle Motion, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 21:55 (seventeen years ago) link

But you've got to maintain perspective and not delude yourself into thinking that you're more qualified than others to believe what you do, at least concerning something as open to interpretation as music or film.

This is wrong on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin.

1: Many critics are more qualified than you to write about music (your general douchery on this topic makes it clear to me that you hold no advanced degree in musicology)
B: A critic must fundamentally "believe" that he is correct in order to write with authority on the topic at hand. A world of opinion journalism that adhered to your standards would be a flaccid bore.
Third: If you (yes, you souldesqueeze) can't write well or with conviction on music or film then I don't care about your "interpretation." Therefore, not all interpretations are valid. Especially yours.

― MC, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:06 (seventeen years ago) link

No, I honestly believe that anyone who carries the conviction that their criticism of a piece in whose creation they played absolutely no part is of any consequence at all is wholly delusional. Criticism exists as mere food for thought for the reader, nothing more. Society would not dissolve into a cultural morass without it.

No, I honestly believe that anyone who carries the conviction that their ~~criticism~~ creation of a piece in whose creation they played ~~absolutely no~~ a major part is of any consequence at all is wholly delusional. ~~Criticism~~ Art exists as mere food for thought for the reader, nothing more. Society would not dissolve into a cultural morass without it.

― s.clover, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:38 (seventeen years ago) link

~~Art~~Cookery exists as mere food ~~for thought for the reader~~, nothing more. Society would not dissolve into a cultural morass without it.

― s.clover, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:39 (seventeen years ago) link

basically I think everything we need to know about this dude can be deduced from the fact that he views criticism as some sort of monolithic enterprise which threatens his own opinions and tramples dissent underfoot, rather than a means to promote discussion among intelligent people

― bernard snowy, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:41 (seventeen years ago) link

Am I insane, or is Pitchfork not mentioned once on this thread?

― schwantz, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:45 (seventeen years ago) link

that's not writing, it's typing.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:48 (seventeen years ago) link

haha, I was actually just thinking, the only thing this dude could do at this point that would save face and make me empathize with his position would be to reveal that he's that guy who posted a thread here recently about how he would play records for his roommate and his roommate would tell him they sucked and he didn't want to listen to them and then would go out and buy the same records as soon as Pitchfork reviewed them

― bernard snowy, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:48 (seventeen years ago) link

(xpost)

― bernard snowy, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:49 (seventeen years ago) link

glazing lawn gnomes??

― m0stlyClean, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 23:15 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.gnomeland.co.uk/Heissner%20factory.jpg

― g®▲Ðұ, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 23:19 (seventeen years ago) link

No, I honestly believe that anyone who carries the conviction that their criticism of a piece in whose creation they played absolutely no part is of any consequence at all is wholly delusional. Criticism exists as mere food for thought for the reader, nothing more. Society would not dissolve into a cultural morass without it.

Cynthia Ozick wrote an article in this month's issue of Harpers called "Literary Entrails: They boys in the alley, the disappearing readers, and the novel's ghostly twin" about the place of criticism in art. Reducing her argument to a few sentences, she argues that what gives culture (particularly literary culture) context is criticism. She is, of course, a writer who knows a couple things about criticism and literature. I think she'd probably disagree with your entire assumption.

― Mordechai Shinefield, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 00:34 (seventeen years ago) link

I honestly believe that anyone who carries the conviction that their criticism of a piece in whose creation they played absolutely no part is of any consequence at all is wholly delusional. Criticism exists as mere food for thought for the reader, nothing more.

I.e., food for thought is of no consequence.

I.e., thought is of no consequence.

I.e., if you really believed this, you'd have shot yourself in the face long ago.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 01:28 (seventeen years ago) link

syllogistic nabisco otm

― James Redd and the Blecchs, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 01:34 (seventeen years ago) link

Although I guess that's not a syllogism.

― James Redd and the Blecchs, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 01:50 (seventeen years ago) link

My mind hungers for the misguided opinions of others.

― M.V., Wednesday, 28 March 2007 02:13 (seventeen years ago) link

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/11/Medved_Michael2.jpg/200px-Medved_Michael2.jpg

― If Timi Yuro would be still alive, most other singers could shut up, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 02:32 (seventeen years ago) link

God Bless You, g®▲Ðұ.

― m0stlyClean, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 02:37 (seventeen years ago) link

five years pass...

I await your perspectives.

― buzza, Sunday, 23 December 2012 08:48 (eleven years ago) link

5 Years Pass...

― maura, Sunday, 23 December 2012 20:44 (eleven years ago) link

Meanwhile, I'm still thinking

― Rumba de Schmillsson (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, 23 December 2012 22:42 (eleven years ago) link

I like Chusid, if only for highlighting worthy way-out-in-left-field artists and bands

― Lee626, Sunday, 23 December 2012 22:52 (eleven years ago) link

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