Best Music Writing

and you'll notice that once the ranking ends and we have the list, the thread dies and people just start posting their individual ballots. the listing is the least interesting part of poll threads, but the reason so many of them have like 1000 posts is because people are having substantive discussion about the artist.

I do think it's great when a song that I have no recollection of ranks really high, prompting "I should go listen to that one again" and usually "yeah, this is quite good isn't it?"

by contrast the "what are you listening to" and "your favorite records of them moment, fuck" threads are boring as shit because people just post a list of things without discussion

yeah that's the bit I hate, even a sentence or two about why you like X or Y is incredibly useful

I really dislike this sort of thing on boards like RYM, where someone will say something like "anyone got any good electronic recs?" and someone will post a list of 30 different artists and nothing else. How is that useful to anyone??

For lists, I agree, most are kind of boring, and per Drew's great article, there are so many angles involved in public lists that sometimes I feel a little contaminated reading them. However, if a musician I like lists a bunch of music they're into, you're damn right I'm looking at it. Likewise, if some publication ranks, say, the 10 best French prog records, I will look at it -- not because I want validation, or because I actually expect to learn something (tho I might) -- but because that's some of *my* favorite music of all time. I want to see if they're getting it right! I mean, I say that with some tongue in cheek, but I have certainly voiced my disagreement with a website list in the past, when I felt strongly -- and funny enough, it's partly how I got my first real writing gig.

On ILM, lists and polls just seem to be part of the experience. I don't always appreciate with that experience (let alone the lists themselves). It can feel cheap, fake, superficial, like cutting corners to discussion. But come on, why wouldn't I want to know what milton parker is listening to? Or, why wouldn't I want to read about John Darnielle's favorite black metal records? Especially when the reader is somewhat knowledgeable about what's being discussed (or knows the list maker), all the weird ways lists can function don't necessarily matter so much. They're shortcuts, and if I want to know more, I'll just ask the writers.

I'd be happy to discuss more in depth on those threads myself! The risk is sometimes long posts get ignored and then I feel a little silly for wasting the time. But yeah those threads need a little more to them.

reading a list is like going to a gallery to look at trees

ILM polls have pretty much replaced Classic or Dud threads now because we've decided all music is dud.

the modest intention was that the viewer couldn't tell which record was the "best" "greatest" or "favorite" among the vast moldering piles of crap that fill our house.

this is what I loved about it, all the Jethro Tull and Connie Francis mixed in with NWW and TG

I've always like the way Nicolas Lutz paints over the middles of all his records, the idea that they only exist when being played, that all information about them is gradually forgotten. I still havent done anything like that myself yet though I generally forget the names of records

Picking "winners and losers" is the job of criticism though, as I see it, unless I'm reading Drew wrong.

I think you're seeing criticism wrong. Winners of what? According to whom? My ish w objective criticism is that the critic replaces their subjective self with the holy ghost of "canon", speaking on behalf of an invisible force. As Drew points out, it is good art's job to topple, not buttress, good art is not created to win or lose anything.

fgti otm that para should be hammered into every critic's brain repeatedly

Well, I meant, "This is a good album; here's why it's better than the last one." If you wanna call it winners and losers, sure.

My ish w objective criticism

no such thing, right?

I agree that "canon" is a dodgy subject but let's not forget that there's more music out there than anyone could possibly ever listen to in their lifetime, I don't mind having some direction

to unlearn as much as to learn! walk a different way to work tomorrow and see some different trees. you dont have to visit the taj mahal

Great post from Dominique there. Or am I just saying that coz I like his music? ;)

(on cue, All Spectacular comes onto my shuffle)

However, if a musician I like lists a bunch of music they're into, you're damn right I'm looking at it. Likewise, if some publication ranks, say, the 10 best French prog records, I will look at it -- not because I want validation, or because I actually expect to learn something (tho I might) -- but because that's some of *my* favorite music of all time. I want to see if they're getting it right! I mean, I say that with some tongue in cheek, but I have certainly voiced my disagreement with a website list in the past, when I felt strongly -- and funny enough, it's partly how I got my first real writing gig.

OTM, although maybe Buzzfeed or whatever should employ more musicians for this purpose.

it's all down to the shifting requirement of the music critic. most people don't read music crit as a buyer's guide any more. generally speaking, i sit down to read reviews after i've heard the records as a way to find out more about what i'm listening to and get interesting new perspectives.

to paraphrase Whiney at a Twitter conference ages ago - it's all about the 'why', not so much about whether or not it's a 'good' record.

Nobody is saying "let's stop being enthusiastic and screaming about music we love and hate". Just stop doing so with numbers and comparative chin-stroke and ballots. We wonder why people are like "wow 2014 is a bad year for music" it's because we're at peak levels of thinking a 7.0 is "above average" and "good".

or maybe there's just not as much music that excites the population of ilm out there. i totally agree with drew's article, but it's still acceptable to say 'i don't like this record or this artist' or 'i prefer this over that'. giving things a grade makes little sense though, it's not a coursework assignment.

I get that looking at criticism through the capitalist "here's the winner" prism is dangerous.

recent rolling stone 1984 pop list was a pretty great example of how lists can function, though i realize that's really predicated on the year (and the fitful waves of nostalgia caused) and the form (pop)

the funny thing about this debate is that neither "well-written, informed but honestly subjective descriptions of experience" nor "faux-objective estimations with ratings" pay many mortgages these days, though i suppose that suggests one might as well aim for the former if they're going to bother at all

It is not the review itself but the fact it is reviewed that gives it the seal of approval. that it is considered worthy of words and inches, these records are the winners, somebody somewhere wanted the words

It is not the review itself but the fact it is reviewed that gives it the seal of approval. that it is considered worthy of words and inches, these records are the winners, somebody somewhere wanted the words

― saer, Friday, September 26, 2014 4:01 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah this has become so apparent in the last few years especially. no one remembers whether any given publication gave any given album a good or bad review, but if that artist is continually covered in a publication's NEWS section...that is the real seal of approval. (an artist can even score a good review, but if they don't make the news cycle, no one cares)

yes. i admit i often fall into the trap of judging music on whether ILM itself would give an artist/album not only the seal of approval, but any attention at all. This is a ridiculous admission, of course.

the only reason i ever read that dusted site was for the lists. matmos did a good one. lists made by musicians are pretty much the only lists i read. basically, i just love reading what musicians have to say about other music. always my favorite part of any music magazine like the wire or mojo.

yea^

the photographs in the dd piece were like cheese in healthy soup

count me in the "lists are actually pretty OK" category but they should be either:

- well-written lists, in which case it just becomes another framework for organizing good writing, and one that results in less transitional cruft at least;

- lists with unexpected entries. this can even be context-free -- my best music discoveries in 2014 were from actual file directories with nothing but the filename -- as long as you are encountering something you wouldn't otherwise encounter. they don't have to be by musicians, just by someone who knows what they're talking about and whose taste is broad. (for instance, a list of 30 different artists and nothing else gives me 30 names to Google! and who knows how many once factoring in side projects and the like.)

archives are lists, things already have listableness in them, curating and presenting does not have to be tied to personal preference (favorites) or history, it can be active and political, using objects to open onto something else.

i got an e-mail from someone who wanted to do a documentary on a list i did for decibel magazine. which was weird. i guess the idea was to document how hard it was to track everything down on the list in actual record stores? it had taken this person years...

someone made a quiz out of my noise list:

"How many did you heard from beggining to end?"

http://www.listchallenges.com/top-25-noise-albums-according-to-decibel-magazine

theres a difference between lists and inventories, scaruffi.com is an inventory (if sometimes an inventory of lists sure), the nww list is really an inventory; lists are finite, maintained, curated, anankastic rhetorical devices; inventories are exhaustive, proliferating, they hide nothing and freely reveal the limits and limitations of their authors

I like that distinction

I have only heard six of those noise albums in full, revoke my noise cred now

btw that's a good list, will check some of those out

yeah, i dunno, good idiosyncratic lists with good writing attached can be fun to read. they mostly make my eyes glaze over though. the internet will do that to you. i've definitely learned a lot from random RYM lists of weirdness and Youtube playlists. and those are obviously just data for the most part. i liked dd's thing a lot though. i just enjoy reading him. reduction on the web seems like a logical response to the too-muchness of the web. it makes sense to me. sometimes people come in my store and they can't take it all in and they end up buying whatever i'm playing on the turntable at the moment.

not so much about whether or not it's a 'good' record

as a writer and reader of music coverage, whether a record is "good" is one of the least interesting aspects of a review for me. i just like learning about the music and watching the writer think, draw connections, be inspired.

obviously if something is fucking terrible i'd like to know, but most music exists in the space between 0.0 and 10.

You are wrong. You fuck with it or you don't, there is only 0 or 10.

I mean I only read the 0s and 10s on Singles Jukebox :/ I don't care about your 6s

if i didn't read 6s i'd never read alfred

"i want your 6" -george michael in 2014

6 is natural
6 is good
not every song scores it
but every song should

i posit that this is an example of a great list http://www.vulture.com/2014/09/50-best-bootleg-bart-t-shirts.html

http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/content/dam/vulture/slideshows/2014/9/bootleg-bart/boot-leg-bart-18.jpg.r.nocrop.w610.h610.jpg
skuhfkesnfkebggeukfj

in non list-related but great music writing I really enjoyed Damon Krukowski's article on mono http://pitchfork.com/features/oped/9492-back-to-mono/ - it's a good historical presentation, it explains how sound works really well and makes a good case for advantages to mono. He's written quite a few good articles for p4k, would like more. I like his tone and style, reminds me a bit of Byrne in How Music Works.

I saw some Twitter lolling when that article came out but many many mixers just work in mono and/or almost mono without even thinking about it. I called around! Drums in mono, overheads super narrow, it makes sense. Ideally I'd love one and the other for different contexts. Stereo recordings sound weird in public places.

it's weird when i hear a recent/modern pop/rock/indie rock record that uses stereo sound in an interesting/creative way. noticeable. remarkable. most stuff could be mono and nobody would be the wiser. most of it sounds mono.