sometime i read christgau and am amazed...

man I knew not of this! I never really check out ILE!

Does the consumer guide appear somewhere in print?

Erm... could somebody translate this for me? I don't get what he's saying at all.

This is why rock critics are morons. They ruin every sentence they write by trying to sound smart.

Agreed. Back when I started reading Christgau (geez...15 years or so ago now), I'd just chuckled and be like, "yeah. They *wish* they pope had a bigger dick." Of course, I had no idea then either, but I wouldn't admit that to myself. But now, a line like this (and this is just one example) makes me never want to read him again.

nb. i have not heard this record

I agree that Christgau can be pointlessly brusque, to the point of being uselessly cryptic.

I guess I'm an idiot. Please elaborate how the former equates to the latter.

And the Old Dog, erm Dean is typically about six months behind the curve and relies a bit too much on a crutch of nostalgic patronization to try and explain the music of today.

HS

Hurlothrumbo:
Actally, the review is strictly commenting on the lyrics to two songs on the record -- except he has them backwards. It should read ("End to End," "Shakedown") -- since reincarnation and the size of the pope's dick are lyrical components of those two songs, respectively.

me:
nb. i have not heard this record

Like the albums, his honorable mention album picks are listed in order of preference.

And Jim DeRo's band Vortis shows up in Xgau's Choice Cuts this week.

Then I would suggest he should have reversed the two comments that precede the listed songs. Unless, of course, the effect of their juxtaposition would have been irredeemably compromised by such a reversal.

You should read his book of essays, Dadaismus!

Seriously, I've always thought Xgau was fine just so long as you didn't take his opinion as gospel. I read his 70s and 80s Consumer Guides from high school on — whether you agree with him or not, his take is one of a kind.

I AM NOT AN IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not a great fan of this approach, but it does seem defensible from a logical standpoint, as long as you understand his verbal shorthand -- of course, I think it's adequately demonstrated here that not everybody does, which suggests some kind of failure.

Anthony Miccio in Being a Different Person than Christgau Shocka.
(The Courtney Love album is very good, by the way; esp. the single. And I don't hear what Bob hears in it, either -- I also completely forget what *Tonight's the Night* was about -- but I still think that was the best-written review in this month's Consumer Guide. Especially the punchline about the world owing Courtney a living.)

PS: I've never been all that big a Bon Jovi fan.
PSS: The Blondie review made me laugh.

- Some predictable moron with his head up his ass

That was one of Momus's finest moments.

i found that i had no way at all to infer this from the limited information offered in the review

Isn't it sort of assumed that the honorable mentions are records the reader is already aware of? Would someone honestly feel inclined to purchase a record based upon the tone of a single sentence or phrase. I always read it as a way for him to deny responsibility if someone bought what they feel to be a shitty album. But really it's like "oh you like the Strokes well the new record basically repeats the first one. sorry, well you know it alright, i guess."

wilful obscurity as test of readership savvy is a rhetorical deadend imho

Just when our number's up
You smashed the loving cup
It spills out everywhere
It simply isn't fair
We light up fire flies
We kissed on New Years Night
We changed the century
All those romantic things
We changed the light to low
It made our spirits glow
If it were up to me
I'd never let you go
So If By Chance
You Should agree
Ohh tonight
We keep it Real
Toinght
We put an End to the End
And just go on and on
We wrote our name in lights
Made music every night
Heatwaves and rhapsody
Burn In my memory
We changed the light to low
It made our spirits glow
If it were up to me
I'd never let you go
So If By Chance
You Should agree
Ohh tonight
We keep it Real
Toinght
We put an End to the End
And just go on and on
Toinght
We put an End to the End
And just go on and on
Tonight
We Put
An End to the End
and just go on and on and on and
on and on and on and on
To the End the End the End
We try to put the End to End to End
End the End
End to the End the End the End
End To End
End To End

(Fade out...)
Oh, did I mention that I wish the Pope had a bigger dick?

I used to get sick with solitude
I was always better in the multitude
But now I like it up here all alone in my ivory tower
Hi-ho at the end of my rope
I watch it all through a telescope
I think I'd have a better chance to see the pope
I get so bored with his shtick and his mini-minute dick

xpost

Hilarity.

i mean i understand this is one way christgau deals with limited space allotment, and to his credit he certainly has formed an identifiable and oft-praised style of out this contingencies. but as i've noted before, on other threads, he often writes so elliptically that the meaning is lost on a great portion of the audience, and unlike chuck i'm not so quick to suggest this is a function of laziness or stupidity on the part of the voice readership. it is the author's primary duty, especially in a newspaper, to communicate ideas to his audience, and if there's a great failure to do so it's unbecoming to blame the audience (especially when the problematic ellipsis can be so easily pointed out). sort of like rock stars whining about rock critics, in fact.

Then again, if the ambiguity is entertaining enough, it will get people talking. Nice trick, that.

The Pope is hung like a rhino.

what else could it possibly refer to except that having listened to the album, xgau has concluded that blondie wish the pop had a bigger dick? my assumption was that there's a lyric somewhere on the album that leads him to believe that. but maybe something else made him say that -- something on the cd cover, something about the way she sings, who knows. i don't need to know right this second which it is. what does it matter? if i'm intrigued enough, i'll explore further. if i'm not, i'll move on to the next album and the next sentence.

I don't hate Christgau's writing, or his style, but even as an occasional defender, I have to say that I find the format unclear (obviously, since I've been reading them wrong).

Seconded.

Seconded.

please pay attention to the section before you start recommending they hire people who already write for it.

Good point. For people (or at least outer space aliens) who never heard of Blondie, the Pope, dicks, or reincarnation, it's completely understandable that they wouldn't be able to decipher Bob's cryptic runes. So yeah: Context is everything, I totally agree.

I haven't a goddamn clue!! If you honestly think that the first (or fiftieth) thought in my head when I read that was "I bet these are lyrical references," you're dreaming. What has me annoyed is that by your line of thinking, there's an allusion to the fact that if I don't get it, I'm stupid. (What Broheems is saying.)

I didn't use one the other day and Jess complained. My heart was ruined!

Don't get me started on Marcus. Or Meltzer. Or that Eddy. Grrrrrr.

J0hn otmx1000

Exactly. (Of course the only reason I would care is because I've read something he wrote quoted on ILM.)

Outer space aliens. Ouch. Consider me put in my place.

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

Is this reader asking to be placed in a permanent state of comprehension? Does this reader need the Truth at all times?

If so, I'm with Christgau: gum up the works! Clarity is for monks and intelligence reports.

(Whoops. Maybe it's just for monks.)

Anyway dissecting Xgau's writing is half of the fun of reading him!

damn!

sounds like the Justice League of Rock Crits

xpost Anthony Xgau's writing is full of metaphors, assuming that this would be another one doesn't seem too silly to me.

I did :(

It's not REALLY a comeback record though, is it?

Dude "No Exit" feels like ages ago though. I've heard ppl talking about Neil Hannon's return from a "hiatus" w/r/t the new Divine Comedy album, so I figure calling Blondie's latest a comeback is fair game.

Even if some of your audience does understand you, and even if more of them accept a certain level of obscurity in your writing?

I find myself oft-frustrated by the HM's, even though I know what the classification is about. But those who don't should recognize )(as I understand it) that the HM's are for fans and are recommended to non-fans only with caution. Whether that's implicit in the format for most people, I'm not sure. Regardless of fandom, however, are the HM's usually more cryptic than the As? Perhaps the idea is that you should have to work harder to figure out if you really want the thing, whether or not you're a fan?

I struggled w/ the second one, the best I could come up w/ was that Xgau thinks that Blondie wishes eclecticism was a more powerful tool than it is ("catholic tastes", you see?)

fantastic

What's the fun in separating the two?

It took me a minute to realize that, if these lyrical snippets were all he was referring to, the ret of it must relatively recognizable as a Blondie record. (I'm assuming it's not a grand concept album or a samba experiment, and I'd expect him to note if it were.)

But taking a minute to read between the lines isn't gonna kill anyone.

"By the way, in case nobody pointed out what I would have assumed is obvious but obviously i'm no judge about that sort of thing, the "reincarnation" part refers not ONLY to a song lyric, but also to, uh, Blondie's CAREER. (i.e. this is sort of a COMEBACK record). Which is kinda clever, since there are TWO meanings to not get, not just one! He said THREE things about the album in just ten words!
-- chuck (cedd...), April 22nd, 2004."

Yeah, but if one to infer a metaphor from "reincarnation" then one can't be criticized for inferring one from "wishes the pope had a bigger dick."

Thus, were I editing him, I would request he clarify thusly:
BLONDIE
The Curse of Blondie
(Sanctuary)

Believes in reincarnation ("Shakedown"), wishes the pope had a bigger dick ("End to End").

It hangs deep in his robes, a delicate
clapper at the center of a bell.
It moves when he moves, a ghostly fish in a
halo of silver seaweed, the hair
swaying in the dark and the heat - and at night,
while his eyes sleep, it stands up
in praise of God.

----- Sharon Olds

Why would you "assume" that? This idea that every review of a particular record has to say the same things about makes no sense at all to me. What if he thought the samba or grand concept weren't IMPORTANT?? What if he thinks, as I do, that Grand Concepts are almost NEVER important, and rarely have anything to do with what might make a record worth listening to??

x post

By the way, I thought David Cross's singles reviews in the new Rolling Stone were way funnier than his ones in Spin a few months ago, by the way. (But he still doesn't resemble me in the picture.)

GTR
Sht.

Because it's called a Consumer Guide. And this is listed under "Other Consumer News." Please don't say "Oh, he's being ironic, you moron." Just don't.

"This idea that every review of a particular record has to say the same things about makes no sense at all to me."
I didn't say it did. I WAS praising this review for hitting the distinctive bits and not bothering with what everyone already knows. Now I'm not so sure.

"What if he thought the samba or grand concept weren't IMPORTANT?? What if he thinks, as I do, that Grand Concepts are almost NEVER important, and rarely have anything to do with what might make a record worth listening to??"

Maybe you're right about the Grand Concept. But if it were a salsa record, would that be a less salient fact of "what might make a record worth listening to" then a couple of lyric snippets?

"Or what if he thought they were SORT OF important, but not as important as the fact that there are songs about reincarnation and penile lengths and girths within Vatican City, and he said, "oops, I only have ten words! Better stick to what REALLY MATTERS here?"

Then I might buy the Blondie album, find out that he completely missed the boat on the most distinctive thing about the album, figure that his priorities regarding music are completely worthless to me, and never read him again.

Jesus, Chuck. Like I said, I WAS praising this review. Now I'm not so sure.

Great - now my mind's eye is flashing on the cover shot of Can't Slow Down.

In the immortal words of Alice Cooper, "GOOD NIGHT!"

Yes blount, the refusal to indulge rock critics who care more about being prose stylists than giving their readers some idea what the recordings under discussion sound like is the first step on the slippery slope to an imperialist plutocracy.

Rockist, who do you think actually falls in this category? Obviously, you can't say that about Christgau in general.

J.D. Considine was at the EMP Pop Conference! He gave a paper (that I missed) on J-pop, sounded intriguing. Otherwise I think he lives in Toronto and freelances for Blender among others.

Say Something Interesting about "The Threepenny Opera"

DeRo to thread, obv.

(I'm not into those French guys.)

I need a new job. This one leaves me too much dead time with a PC in front of me.

x-post: Rockist, who do you think actually falls in this category? Obviously, you can't say that about Christgau in general.

What I've seen of Christgau often falls into this category, but I haven't gone out of my way to read him.

xpost: DING DING DING DING DING

Sort of like salsa music, Rockist? Do you not think that's "worthwhile for its own aesthetic value, or for what it reveals about its author" either, since people dance to it? Bizarre. How, exactly, does walking prevent a person from chewing gum??

How it's different from music designed to be danced to I'd have to think about. I guess for one thing, in my experience, salsa or some other music made to accompany dancing is enjoyable to me when I'm just listening to it without dancing.

Also, if I went out to see a salsa band, with the intention of dancing, and found that they were going off on their own tangents which made it difficult to dance to them, I'd be frustrated and feel cheated (unless I just happened to really like their tangents). In a similar way, if I read one of Christgau's really compact, elliptical and hard to decipher reviews, when I wanted to get an idea of how something sounded, I'd be unsatisfied.

And I guess my complaint would be with critics who aren't taking care of the functional side of their work.

So mainly, you enjoy cookbooks, phone books, and auto repair manuals?

BUT...

I think that game reviewer as a whole definitely take the course that I think Rockist is talking about -- i.e. giving consumers nuts-and-bolts explanations of a consumer product and what works and doesn't work about it...

Obv. games are different because they are software as well as art--- bad graphics or technical glitches are just bad graphics and technical glitches -- there's no "lo-fi" charm in gaming...so we have a lot more simply "black and white" issues that aren't really a matter of taste or philosophy....but it is funny because this discussion would never happen with a bunch of game journalists....

I sometimes wonder as games get more complex in terms of plot/story/emotional content if this might change...obv. graphics are getting better and better so in the future technical issues won't be as paramount in the minds of gamers...hopefully they'll become more focused on the impact and style of the experience...

"Believes in reincarnation, wishes the pope had a bigger dick" = "All music is horrible." How could anybody have interpreted it otherwise?

x-post: chuck, that's a pretty limited view of what sort of books would fit my description.

Examples of critics I think do the fuctional thing well? I don't follow any particular music writers, so that makes it difficult for me to give examples. I'll try to think of an example. I like what I've read about Arabic music by A. J. Racy, though he's more ethnomusicologist than critic. I also found ethnomusicologist Lise Waxer helpful on salsa.

(What little exposure I've had to Christgau's writing gives me a really visceral negative reaction, which I guess is why I always end up jumping into these Christgau threads.)

*

Maybe this is a delayed reaction to my having spent too much time in my teens so focused on poetry? At any rate, I mostly read non-fiction books about things that interest me. The artistic side of reading is of pretty marginal interest to me.

The review was under his "Honorable Mention" category, which is reserved for albums that are good, even "solid," but not great. So I don't think he's being snide...flip maybe, but hey, it's not as if Blondie are strangers to flippishness.

how many people who contribute to these threads actually read Christgau

As the originator or the tread, I feel I should respond:

I've been reading Christgau since I discovered the Village Voice in the University of Illinois' (Urbana-Champaign) main library about 13 years ago. Since the music section is online now, I read just about every word he publishes. Hell, I even read (and finished, mind you) his Believer article on the roots of minstrelry.

Some of his articles have moved with me to every apartment I've lived in since the day I first read them. His article on Freedy Johnston's Can You Fly, titled Arguing with Perfection, is one of my absolute favorite pieces of music writing ever.

Sure, oftentimes I don't get him on the first read, or even the second read, or (I'll admit it) even on the third. When I do, I find myself paid in full for *my* (emphasis added for his editor, whom I understand thinks I need to be spoonfed) effort and his. But in all honesty, the pope's-dick line is such a throwaway as to come off as being for the guys on bathroom break at the symposium. "Hey, Greil! Chuck! Whadya think of that one? Heh, heh."

Like I said, sometimes I'm amazed, others confounded.

I'm just saying that if you're gonna argue that music criticism has an inherent aesthetic value (as you clearly believe), then for the sake of intellectual consistency an inherent respect for the aesthetic value of the musical work of others should follow as well. This particular case - Blondie/Xgau - I don't really give a shit about. It just irritates me to see people who dismiss other people's careers with 10 words get all hyper-defensive when the value of their own careers are questioned.

any idea where one can find this online?

It just irritates me to see people who dismiss other people's careers with 10 words

If you were paying attention, you'd understand that he's not dismissing their career. If you read more of his work, you might know that he called Parallel Lines "as close to God as pop-rock albums ever get, or got."

Thanks for playing.

(x-post)

What does this "inherent respect for the aesthetic value of the musical work of others" entail? You mean ALL PEOPLE'S MUSICAL WORKS OF ALL TIMES? If you believe rockcrit has worth, then you can't EVER be mean or irreverent or flip or silly or dismissive about a piece of music? Even ones you like? Why the fuck would anybody want to do that? NOBODY does this. Not critics, not listeners, not musicians, not fans, nobody. Maybe bizarro l'art pour l'art idolators do, but who takes THEM seriously?

this is what we call 'a distinction without a difference'

about a zillion x posts

The format of the 10-word joke review is inherently dismissive to whatever it's reviewing. By extension, being casually dismissive of the aesthetic value of that 10-word review is only fair.

even if it says more than 600 words? some examples.

do you think that 10 minutes songs are better than 3 minute ones?

"Flip" = "this album is so obviously not a matter of life and death" --> "so I can be pretty or silly or cute or pretentious or extremely casual about this album." OR "It's pretty much common knowledge I love these guys" --> "I can say all sorts of silly things about them without seeming mean." (Much like I can call a friend a "fascist" or a "jerk" in certain contexts -- like in jokes -- and they'll KNOW I'm not dissing them.")

"Dismissive" = "This sucks, and isn't worth respect in any contexts."

He needs the blood of the living to retain his girlish figure.

Doesn't look like it's made it to his archive yet. But his consumer guide review is here

U2 - "Pop"
Misses his mother, misses Jesus ("Mofo, "Wake Up Dead Man")

I want to start a thread now.

For distinguished criticism, Ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

Awarded to Dan Neil of the Los Angeles Times for his one-of-a-kind reviews of automobiles, blending technical expertise with offbeat humor and astute cultural observations.

Also nominated as finalists in this category were: Nicolai Ouroussoff of the Los Angeles Times for his versatile architectural criticism that stretched from his hometown's new Disney Hall to the rubble in Baghdad, where he pondered the ancient city's resurrection, and Inga Saffron of The Philadelphia Inquirer for her passionate and insightful architectural criticism that, through clear, elegant writing, was as accessible to the ordinary reader as it was to the expert.

"yes, rock criticism is a lower format than other kinds of writing. thanks for setting us straight. "

Matos, where did I say that? Again, words in my mouth (or you're making a dubious leap).

"novels and hard journalism are automatically better because higher than writing about records. this is a point that cannot be reinforced enough! "

I think you misunderstood my Ulysses reference (which was meant more as a quip). I'm really not interested in positing some sort of hierarchy of the written word. I never said novels and hard journalism are automatically better. Again, words put in my mouth, which is a lazy way to debate.

Ulysses is a hard read though. My ancient Greek is none too good.

Also, yes, criticism is different from straight journalism, thank god, but when I read a food critic, I want to understand his opinion about the restaurant.; when I read a movie review, I want to know the critic's take on the movie.
The writing should be good — that's part of the enjoyment — but it shouldn't get in the way. I mean, as a writer, you are trying to communicate.

Simply put, clarity and creativity are not mutually exclusive. I realize writing about music involves approximations and metaphor, but the intent doesn't have to be buried.

"through clear, elegant writing, was as accessible to the ordinary reader as it was to the expert. "

"If you write about cars, it is reportage," said John Simon, theater critic of New York magazine. "It is not criticism, even though it postures as criticism. Cars are utilitarian things. You might as well be a critic of kitchen utensils."

I wonder if he realizes he sounds nine hundred?

banjomania, that leap is pretty dubious to me too, but I've seen it made countless times on this board and fully expect to see it made again in the future, so my (actual!) dismissiveness has some basis here. also, as one friend put it, does the auto guy clear the path for Paul Lukas to get a Pulitzer? (I hope so!)

Thank you Matos! more where that came from.

Tom Petty - Wildflowers

More songs about buildings and weed. ("House In the Wood", "You Don't Know How It Feels")

Saint Etienne - Good Humor

Muzak for the duty free shops, which isn't a bad thing, really. ("Woodcabin", "Mr. Donut")

Handsome Family - In the Air

Nature will make everything alright, except when you're crossing bridges. ("Don't Be Scared", "In the Air")

That's more than ten words, you're fired.

i reject this view most vehemently; writing is debased if its primary objective is simply to stir up talk (or anger)

this is a trick question isn't it???

whose posts are you alluding to john? in my case i don't think my mild approbation qualifies as a "rain of venom"

i had this exact same experience, if that helps people understand my criticism, but on the other hand, i don't feel edified or satisfied after solving the riddle

x-post

sorry blount i should organize my posts into one big one, but i sort of read a bit of this long thread ,posted my response, then read the rest of it, etc etc

it's early in the morning here, i'm sort of discombobulated

Xgau's pickup metal band, of course

to fall back on some chuck-style self-referentiality, here is "best (so to speak) of amateurist on the other (exceedingly long) xgau thread":

I think Tom is right, Christgau is very inventive in condensing information into tiny sentences to make his word count. I guess it's inevitable that at some point he condenses this information to the point where it's no longer easily comprehensible. And I guess this is a virtue, and why not? But I do feel like this kind of density precludes Christgau from expanding upon his core points in any real way. He doesn't make his arguments with the kind of transparency and deliberateness that would allow for the introduction of evidence, for example. This is why I find it exhausting, as above, if never exactly boring or useless as some attest.
-- Amateurist (amateuris...) (webmail), February 6th, 2003 7:35 AM. (amateurist) (link)

I want to (re)assert that by holding up Christgau's sentences for explication, I am not trying to ridicule them or cast asperions at Christgau's writing generally. I honestly believe that some of you have more "training" with this kind of writing and can be of help in, as dleone says, translating the more twisty passages. In doing so I suspect we will uncover some things that simply can't be untangled, or as Tom points out, don't really hold up to analysis.
-- Amateurist (amateuris...) (webmail), February 6th, 2003 1:27 PM. (amateurist) (link)

Maybe that's why I'm missing the meaning of much of this, because I haven't heard many of the albums under discussion. I wonder how many people actually use the Consumer Guide as a consumer guide.
-- Amateurist (amateuris...) (webmail), February 6th, 2003 1:40 PM. (amateurist) (link)

p.s. dan's parsing of xgau's sentence on that thread is the best thing ever on ilx

gabneb made a crack about 600-word reviews in PopMatters and Pitchfork -- right enough. I wrote for PopMatters briefly, until the thrill of not being paid wore off, and I was often scrambling to pad those things out to 500-plus words. You find yourself doing things like tedious track-by-track recitations, or noting that the engineer also worked on Tanya Donnelly's last album...

Well, true (except for the parenthetical thought), but is anybody here really saying clarity and formalist follies are mutually exclusive in an essay? Or career?

Then again, I'm also quite happy not knowing where I am at any given time.

What I never understood is how "spatulas" can actually be TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS, with two completely different functions -- The flipping kind (metal or wood, usually) and the scraping kind (generally rubber, I think). The only thing they have in common is that they're SORT OF shaped alike. How come the English language didn't come up with two different words for them? It weirds me out.

i can say with breathtaking confidence that i have no aspirations to becoming a rock critic

xgau doesn't really bother me, in fact i really like him on certain things (al green!), and he has very good taste as i've remarked elsewhere; sometimes i search for explication of his notoriously cryptic reviews, and if it turns up the review was simply missing a bit of crucial context, or a connective clause or two, it bugs me a little, and more so that people use the "don't spoonfeed the audience" argument in response

i don't dislike rock critics or even "rock criticism" in theory, it's the contemporary practice of rock criticism that i find wanting; there are probably certain exceptions that i'm unaware of

often that context will be understood by those who have gleaned it from other writings of his (compare daniel's comment above about "catholic tastes" a phrase that he has used more than once elsewhere, i believe). each capsule review seems to help piece together a puzzle. (is it possible that he's understood better by people who are good at pattern recognition and looked down upon by people whose intelligence is more likely to come in other forms?) perhaps he is being dismissive of more casual readers by adopting this approach, but i don't see what obligation he has not to be.

Why doesn't he have this obligation?

Because he writes about music? Because he writes for the Village Voice? Because he is Robert Christgau?

well, i do know that bob and i are both pretty good at math, for whatever that's worth. which comes in handy around pazz & jop time, but pazz & jop also annually reaffirms for us how AWFUL at math so many rock critics are. (which is fine; it's not exactly a job requirment.)(and metal mike saunders, who is a CPA and who uses math in his writing more than any other rock critic i know and who, to my knowledge, has never been given credit for it, could probably put both bob and i to shame. as could mike's former bandmate and fellow ex-Creem critic greg turner, who's been a math professor for years.)

btw, i wonder what the folks who think christgau is cryptic think of dave tompkins or don allred or (oddly enough, given the love for him above) dave queen, who often write entire reviews (LONG ones) almost completely as word puzzles, where almost EVERY word is some kinda internal pun....there's a ingenius playfulness to their stuff that i'm awe of, but i assume it must drive some readers completely nuts.

note: i do know who he is and knew what context he was writing, and still had no clue what he was saying.

Sure, oftentimes I don't get him on the first read, or even the second read, or (I'll admit it) even on the third. When I do, I find myself paid in full for *my* (emphasis added for those who think I need to be spoonfed) effort and his. But in all honesty, the pope's-dick line is such a throwaway as to come off as being for the guys on bathroom break at the symposium. "Hey, Greil! Chuck! Whadya think of that one? Heh, heh."

(ps that Yes piece is completely undreadable).

Again, I still don't get this. Are you just saying Greil or I are more likely to be amused by jokes about the size of the Pope's penis than most other people? Possible, but I don't know why that would be.

this isn't true. and when haven't good writers tried to impress other good writers?

Blount you did hear about that crappy "speedy" graphic that Fox is using to explain baseball arcana to kids, no?

Yes. Clearly.

fox sports is the blender of sports journalism

hey! you dropped your spoon!

"...the mighty riff machine YES went into overdrive with riffs like “Owner of a Lonely Heart,” where Trevor Rabin took a flare gun and burned the corrupt apartheid state to the ground!"

The thing is, I had never really noticed that "Smoke on the Water" and "Owner of a Lonely Heart" have essentially the same riff! So the piece taught me something, as well as making me chuckle.

actually, i think it was you guys (Chuck, Blount, et al.) who made the shift from reader to "casual reader." it does make your points easier to defend. also, if i remember correctly, the guy who started the thread stated he was a regular reader of Xgau's.

well, it's amazing how dunderheaded some people can be. (look it up)

So let's keep those snappy putdowns coming! After all, that's the apex of music criticism for most writers.

That's me. And I am! I actually like the guy's writing! Chuck's though...peeee-ewe!

xgau often has nice little bits of critical observation in his reviews; but on other occasions it seems like once you've figured out the pun (and there are sometimes impediments to even doing that; a grammatical error here, a lack of context there), there's no further insight to be gleaned. that's no mortal sin; people are obviously enjoying his writing just the same. but it's not what i look for in a critic.

to cite an example of a critic whose writing can be impossibly dense, even obscure on occasion, and yet full of revelations and pointed observations, see manny farber.

i think my criticisms of xgau have been pretty mild, so i'm a bit bewildered by the vehemence of some responses here. i don't know what engenders this wolf pack defensiveness re rock criticism that i sometimes perceive.

could have something to do with all the rock critics lying around.

Actually, I think I've been fairly UN-vehement today, at least compared to yesterday, at least until my most recent post. Oh well!

You don't say?? Coulda fooled me, Shakey -- every piece in the Voice music section I edit reads EXACTLY like that Queen piece (which I, uh, comprehended and loved, though I did not myself edit or run it)! That's my rule: If you don't write like Dave Queen, don't even think of pitching me ideas! (And that goes double for all you jazz critics!)

(I assume Chuck's being sarcastic, since I don't read the Voice - I live in SF why would I bother...)

x-post

Well, you were the one to bring it up so I was curious.

Well, that explains a lot, Shakey -- if I didn't read the Voice music section, I'd under-rate the current state of rock criticism, too!

(Hell, I don't think I know what some of my favorite songs are "supposed to" mean.)

What is a "true summer"? Why is there a distinction being drawn at all between a "true summer" and yr regular old summer?

"Jon Andersen tired of being a milkman"

This sounds like a fabrication meant as a joke, except I don't understand why it should be funny. Unless Dave Q thinks it's clever to say "this is the truth!" before telling an obvious lie. Which doesn't seem very clever to me.

"he decided to combine the Mars Volta with the Outfield"

Okay, so he's fucking with the timeline here (tho I dunno who the Outfield is), but what for? Do Yes actually sound like Mars Volta and the Outfield?

"'Owner of a Lonely Heart' where Trevor Rabin took a flare fun and burned the corrupt apartheid state to the ground!"

Huh? Is "Owner of a Lonely Heart" even about apartheid? A flare gun is used as a distress signal, but the sentence implies it was intentional. Or did he burn the state to the ground (which is in itself a bad metaphor - how does one burn an abstraction "to the ground"?) by mistake? I don't get it. Why use a "flare gun" instead of "flamethrower"? And why bother figuring all that out when it doesn't seem to actually have anything to do with the music and is just something Dave Q thought was a funny image?

"(TEMPO CHANGE)"

haha - okay, the headers so far are the only thing that work in the article.

"All the Yes covers are really photographs from outer-space telescopes, so they're actually TRUE."

This seems to tie back to the "true summers" thing but I still don't get what for. Are Yes obsessed with "the Truth"? Is there some conflict between truth/falseness going on in their music that I should understand implicitly?

"Except for the cover of Relayer (1974), which is a photo of my apartment block after I stupidly lit the crack pipe with the gas burner on."

Don't know the cover, so don't know if this is another complex joke I'm out of the loop on. Otherwise this looks like the same trick as the first paragraph - stating "the truth" then following it up with an obvious fabrication (unless Dave Q really is a crack smoker that burned his block down).

And that's about where I stopped reading the first time I read this article, cuz frankly the article's entertainment value was inversely proportional to the effort it took to read it. I read the whole thing a few minutes ago but this is all I have time to write about right now, let the flamewar begin now that I've publicly slagged off the writing of an ILM regular....

Nobody said this anywhere in the thread. Not one person championed dumbing down or spoonfeedery (which is a 'word' I'm starting to like). The only reason I can see to make these hyperbolic leaps is to shore up a shaky argument or two.

Jon Anderson really was a milkman, it is true. Lots of famous people have held shit jobs. What's so unbelievable about that?

meh

How dare I not know that Jon Andersen was actually a milkman!

Poetic language d00d. Would "many moons ago" confuse you, too?

Okay, so he's fucking with the timeline here (tho I dunno who the Outfield is), but what for? Do Yes actually sound like Mars Volta and the Outfield?

One would assume that yes, to him they do.

Don't know the cover, so don't know if this is another complex joke I'm out of the loop on. Otherwise this looks like the same trick as the first paragraph - stating "the truth" then following it up with an obvious fabrication (unless Dave Q really is a crack smoker that burned his block down).

He's giving an unconventional spin on what the cover looks like (i.e. it's not the sort of image that you'd associate w/ it just looking at it, but if you look at it after having read the review you can actually kinda see it); referncing HIS house as opposed to just any house is used to enhance his psychotic critical persona (whether or not this persona has anything to do with the *real* Dave Q is absolutley irrelevant.) So it's funny AND a new way of looking at the cover AND useful in characterizing the persona under which he's writing the review (which in turn is useful for knowing whether or not you'd be interested in the album.)

xpost I'm guessing the apartheid line is referencing the fact that "Owner Of A Lonely Heart" is sort of a R&B tune.

xpost: YOU'RE calling SOMEONE ELSE a pedant?!

I didn't know these things when I read it, and it made sense to me. I don't think knowing anything about prog or Yes was necessary to understanding the article.

I don't think understanding this article is necessary to understanding this article!

Man that was wild, funny yes bit....awesome.

(x-post)

I have no idea when the problem became, "rock critics are showing off" vs. "readers are morons", but that was the original intention here.

Shakey Mo in minority of one shockah

The pattern of the HMs here are "here's a witty one liner about the BAND, ALBUM or MUSIC CONTAINED THEREIN" not "here's a comment about one song I like, here's another comment about another song I like."

Hey, I only mentioned math in one post, which nobody even answered!! I guess Metal Mike's accounting career is old news or something...

But choice A above does not necessarily NEGATE choice B. The Blondie review was meant to be both, obviously -- a witty one-liner consisting of comments about two different songs. Sort of.

*

I think it's pretty funny how not being terribly interested in writing with "personality" and not looking to writing primarily for its entertainment value is getting labelled "dumbing down" on this thread. I would have thought turning every discipline into a personality cult would be one example of "dumbing down."

*

I honestly don't know why I am continuing to post to this thread. Apparently, I enjoy this sort of thing. I wish I didn't.

(To be honest, I didn't really like the piece - though I love dave q and Yes - on first skimming but without even rereading this thread is making me appreciate it more.)

I loved the Yes piece, personally.

"I'm assuming the "true summers" stuff is a reference to the chorus of Yes' hit "Roundabout": "Ten true summers we'll be there and laughing too/Twenty-four before my love and I'll be there with you"."

I hadn't caught that at first. But that was OK. The piece works even if you don't catch it. (I just figured it was an attempt to sound all fancy and literary - just like Yes.) And I think that's the key to making references, lyrical or otherwise.

I didn't know John Anderson was a milkman. If I were someday to find out he weren't, then I'd retroactively like the piece a lot less, because then it would read like pure fiction. But this mixture of fact and fancy is dead-on, particularly given its subject. And it solves the problem of "what the hell is there left to say about Yes?"

Just like Christgau pretty well solved the problem of what to say about the Blondie record, which, according to other reviews I've read in the past day and a half, sounds pretty Blondie-esque.

I also didn't think it was obvious that Christgau was talking about song lyrics. (I too assume "believes in reincarnation" was a reference to it being a comeback album.) And I also don't really get, even after having it explained, what the value of that blurb would be for someone reading it.

No Exit seems more appropriate.

-- sundar subramanian (sundar_subramanian200...), April 23rd, 2004.

It's in the Honorable Mentions, so he thinks it's pretty good, but not great. Picking a couple of lyric references = "otherwise, it's pretty much what you'd expect from a Blondie album."

Granted, I needed to have a little of that explained to me - the "reincarnation" bit does sound like a metaphor, which leads one to believe that "wishes the pope had a bigger dick" is also a metaphor. But apparently others got it, so what the heck.

Attaching this much importance, positive or negative, to one of many 10-word end-of-the-column reviews: C or D?

yes. especially when it rocks.

"Whatever other genre distinctions you want to make (and they're always fuzzy), it's a weird switch to act as if black music (whatever exactly that means) is not rock and roll. If Motown was rock and roll, then so are the O'Jays and Donna Summer; if Linda Ronstadt and Randy Newman are part of the tradition, then so are Natalie Cole and Gil Scott-Heron. Rock and roll is a direct descendant of rhythm and blues, and so are soul, funk, middle-class black pop from Linda Hopkins to Ashford & Simpson, Philly-derived disco, reggae (less categorically), and jazz fusion and Eurodisco (less categorically still, since both are genuinely interracial styles with disparate forebears). All these genres share formal and cultural presuppositions with white rock."

But yeah, sure, it's a matter of opinion, just like all genre classifications. But I'd say a lot of techno and country and teenpop (and maybe all hip-hop) are rock, too. Just like James Brown and the Platters and the Shangri-Las and the Coasters and Desmond Dekker.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0239/allred.php

As a habitual user of the parenthetical phrase myself (which I trace to early and prolonged exposure to Pauline Kael), I stand in awe of Don Allred's barrage of asides, digressions, and (literally) inside jokes in his review of the new Dixie Chicks album, Home ["Goin' Out Walkin'," September 25-October 1]. Allred knows what he's doing. By frantically juggling language (I'm reminded of somebody working a shell game, or maybe three-card monte, same thing), sometimes going so far as to insert brackets within parentheses, he almost manages to conceal the fact that he has nothing to say. (He thinks that an argument set down in simple declarative sentences would be dull.) (Given his inability to describe music, it would be.) Add the steady barrage of puns, neologisms, and street talk (but where would we find that street?), and we just have to give up. The prose (and the reader) is (are) tortured beyond belief. We long to hear something, anything, about the Dixie Chicks, but Allred doesn't deliver (or, as he might have said [and I'm surprised he didn't]—the Chicks are in the mail).
Douglas Anderson
Middlebury, Vermont
Don Allred replies: The Chicks are also in the mall, and I suggest that you go reward yourself by purchasing Home, if you haven't done so already (or even if you have) (it gooood).

Not sure what "a rock perspective" (there's not just one!) might mean here, and sadly I don't know who Jammer are, but I should point out that "rock" can mean Tangerine Dream & Kraftwerk too (assuming "Kraut rock" is part of "rock"), not just Led Zeppelin and AC/DC...

As for reggae, I seriously doubt that words like "rockers" and "rocksteady" are entirely coincidental...

After reading Scott Seward's El-P review I wondered how such an absolute farce of an attempt to communicate anything, other than a masturbatory fascination with words and the self speaking them, got printed in the Voice. One would expect a reviewer to offer something more tangible than useless literary name-dropping and meaningless pop-culture references like "El-P's sound tries to come across like some William Burroughs cutup of the B-boy's Bhagavad Gita but turns out more like Nabokov's Lolita holding down a slab of Velveeta so it can get fucked by Chester Cheetah." The point of a review is to express cogent thoughts about a piece of work, not rhyme one's way through a gleefully nonsensical diatribe against music one clearly has not taken the time to listen to closely.
Dan Thomas-Glass
Berkeley, California

And now I have to turn off my computer and go home....

chuck, it wasn't an observation per se, it was an opinion. which is not my full statement on the matter; i have written other things, here and elsewhere, that you might find it a bit more challenging to respond to, though i suspect you could come up with a putdown just the same (or if not a putdown, a capital-letters rant full of expletives).

now i suspect you happen to not find it "highly informed" simply because you disagree with it, not because you happen to know or care to what extent i am familiar with rock criticism.

i learned a while ago that you don't respond to logic, or to anything that suggests criticism, except by snide remarks and putdowns. at least that is how it comes off on ilm.

please cite the name of one of these dumbed-down critics who i have professed to prefer to xgau, say; my arguments are not in favor of one vein of rock criticism over another, but a plea for an altogether new type of writing on rock, one modeled after writing that is.

the past few years do not demarcate, to me, some kind of decline in rock criticism. there would have had to have been some kind of golden age for there to have been a decline. i enjoy reading many critics from time to time, but on the whole i have been dissatisfied with rock criticism since always, and i don't find examples of it from the 60s and 70s, say, to be any better (possibly much worse) than what is being written now.

OTM

every time someone proposes an alternative, or indicates a preference, to the kind of criticism chuck specializes in, he retorts with the accusation that they want to be "spoon fed" some kind of shilling idiocy.

oh i'm sorry are we talking about who "rocks" and who doesn't again now?

''Was it just supposed to be an overview of their career as a build-up to the concert? If so, and it was written for a reader who doesn't know the band and get all the lyric and album cover references, I don't know what it would communicate to them.''

yes, I think it was build up to a concert. Just took another glance, and, as someone who has only heard one record from them, it did tell me quite a bit about the sound, the personalities within the band, the covers (context and more context) but it's done within this web of puns so I you might not know what would be true or not but I don't think criticism should be consumer guide all the time but I wonder if i loved it more than I should have done bcz I know dave from being on the board for a few years now and kind of have an idea of his online 'persona'.

I quite like the xgau review and 10-20 word reviews are a valid and workable format, again execution is the key (see stefan jaworzyn's 'scum list' but you prob won't find it, too damn obscure but a mix of the funny, informative, plain throw away stuff and phrases to chew on, that make you think about what you're listening far more than most 'proper' reviews).

i seem to have left out a big chunk of my sentence here, sorry.

i meant to say that i appreciate certain veins of music study of other kinds of music, and perhaps a better rock criticism could model itself after certain examples of same. that's all.

"This is why rock critics are morons. . ."

"The entire Voice music staff are a bunch of fucking nitwits. . ."

I wish I had disassociated myself from those sweeping comments before making any further response.

*I think one of the funniest things on this thread is the way someone, I think it was cinniblount, wanted to make a sharp distinction between music criticism and journalism. Meanwhile, chuck and others seem to want to blur the line between criticsm and art. To me, the line between music criticism (at least the sort that appears in newspapers) and music journalism is much less black and white than the line between criticism and art (though once again, I understand that criticism can be literature as well).

If you read Chris Ware you get both.

"The entire Voice music staff are a bunch of fucking nitwits. . .""

OK, i didn't notice these comments; I suppose this would nettle me too

Yes, obviously, if you are at all interested in understanding music in its social context. If you are primarily interested in being the music critic of Harold Bloom's* "strong poet," then maybe not.

*I think it was Bloom. Read about it in Rorty.

Has anyone else done this?

i know its a grave failing on my part

Does he really still have to call Paul McCartney "Paulie?"

I can think of a few other things.

http://nastybrutish-n-short.com/blog/2007/07/less_dressy_what_do_you_think.html

three stars - WOULD IT HAVE KILLED YOU TO GIVE IT THREE AND A HALF?

: D

on the rolling stone blog you can watch Joe Levy and Xgau discuss two albums each week or so in a video clip (a friend was sending me the link until I begged her not to), and in the Macca one he admits he should have given it three and a half.

Music ratings are fucking retarded, btw.

he admits he should have given it three and a half.

!

Do I hear four, anybody?

"The thing about McCartney...he doesn't have great ideas. He's just sort of...a level of intellectual sophistication...he doesn't have it. He doesn't have the instincts that a Lennon or a Lou Reed or a Bob Dylan or even a Neil Young has for just thinking. And that makes his work really soft around the edges."

"the instincts for thinking." so we're talking about instincts or thinking here? I'd be hard pressed to say who's more theoretical, or who benefits more from either thinking or instinct, or this mysterious instinct for thinking--Reed or McCartney. at this point, isn't it rather insane to worry about Paul McCartney either way? His contributions are huge, no doubt, but I'd just as soon worry about Brian Wilson, who was always better than almost all the Beatles put together, and he had no instinct for thinking, thus, he achieved the real ur-banality/pop dream "Paulie" or "Macca" never quite got--compare "Johnny Carson" to any of McCartney's concurrent '70s shit. Pondering Johnny Carson goes beyond "instinct for thinking." That's pop music, in my book. But to be fair, The Dean wuz the one whose basically onthemoney review of Beach Boys Love You turned me on to the record, so whatever.

...Lou Redd, of all ..."people"?

(Uhh, Reed! ...(wotever))

Those are just such tired cliches about what constitutes Real Thinking and Intellectual Sophistication. And couched in this freaking THE DEAN oppressiveness whereby McCartney doesn't get put in the advanced class with John Lennon and Lou Reed and Neil Young!

Brian Wilson, who was always better than almost all the Beatles put together

waht?

He just doesn't have it.

If by "he" is meant Lu Rddd, I agree. 'holeheartedlyyyy.

no i was quoting xgau about mccartney

Tim, do you think McCartney's music does display "a level of intellectual sophistication"?

Definitely as much as John Lennon's, Lou Reed's or Neil Young's. Maybe not as much as Bob Dylan at his best.

X(gau)post

Xgau obv. isn't teh best source to out 'bout Maccasir.
;)

Can you give examples?

Yeah, there's about a million of them. But sixties vanguard intellectualism will never agree that "Penny Lane" was just as intellectually sophisticated as "Strawberry Fields Forever."

Christgau just means "Paul's lyrics suck."

That's not quite true, Tim; he says generally nice things about Paul in that long Lennon essay he wrote in the early eighties, and singles out "For No One" and "Penny Lane" for special praise.

Can you *give* examples?

(X-gau-post)

"The thing about Lou Reed ...he doesn't have great ideas. He's just sort of...a level of intellectual ambition... he doesn't have it. He doesn't have the instincts that a Lennon or a McCartney or a Bob Dylan or even a Neil Young has for just thinking. And that makes his work really soft around the edges."

Seems fairer, 'tleast to me.

No Alfred, he also means that John Lennon's lyrics and Lou Reed's lyrics and Neil Young's lyrics were more Intellectually Advanced.

x-post - I wouldn't imagine he would say it was as Intellectually Sophisticated as the sacred text that is "Strawberry Fields Forever," however.

(meaning "Penny Lane" sorry xposts)

Can someone post the link to the podcast?

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/06/05/paul-mccartney-memory-almost-full-the-long-blondes-someone-to-drive-you-home-robert-christgau-rolling-stone/

Martin, asking for examples of how Paul McCartney is as intellectually sophisticated as John Lennon or Lou Reed is fruitless because I think just about ALL OF HIS MUSIC can be looked at this way. How about, if someone wants to argue the opposite, they give me an example of a Lennon or Reed song that demonstrates superior intellectual sophistication?