sometime i read christgau and am amazed...

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (846 of them)

Frank E, why would the obligation not to be dismissive of casual readers (and I'm not saying Bob is, but never mind that for a minute) inherently be more important than the obligation not to bore the wits out people who are good at pattern recognition (or people who appreciate playful prose, or whoever)??

― chuck, Friday, 23 April 2004 17:26 (twenty-two years ago)

haha Christgau on DQ's Yes piece: "I didn't get all the references."

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Friday, 23 April 2004 17:26 (twenty-two years ago)

I just want this to be restated. I enjoy the guy's writing, generally. But...

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."

― frankE (frankE), Friday, 23 April 2004 17:28 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean, it's not like these so-called casual readers don't have a few hundred OTHER, less allegedly "cryptic" sources they could go to for a consumer guide to music these days. why is it necessary that bob do the same thing every other hack out there is doing? if people don't like how he writes, why not just stick to ent weekly or whatever?

― chuck, Friday, 23 April 2004 17:30 (twenty-two years ago)

critics who willfully write in a language/style that only other critics can understand are like musicians who play music that only other people with music degrees can enjoy (ie, incredibly boring and elitist).

(ps that Yes piece is completely undreadable).

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 23 April 2004 17:30 (twenty-two years ago)

What's the pattern to recognize? If anything this particular review is the anomaly in the list of HMs here!

― frankE (frankE), Friday, 23 April 2004 17:31 (twenty-two years ago)

that's how i feel. we are talking about maybe 2% of all music writing here in papers and magazines. 98% percent of it is boring enough for anyone to follow.

― scott seward (scott seward), Friday, 23 April 2004 17:32 (twenty-two years ago)

So he has no obligation to casual readers because he is Robert Christgau?

― frankE (frankE), Friday, 23 April 2004 17:33 (twenty-two years ago)

"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."

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.

― chuck, Friday, 23 April 2004 17:33 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah no offense shakey, frankE but yall are morons

― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 23 April 2004 17:34 (twenty-two years ago)

critics who willfully write in a language/style that only other critics can understand are like musicians who play music that only other
people with music degrees can enjoy (ie, incredibly boring and elitist).

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

― scott seward (scott seward), Friday, 23 April 2004 17:35 (twenty-two years ago)

not everyone who might turn on espn but they're not gonna explain the infield fly rule for the benefit of the nobs in the audience every time out

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

― hstencil, Friday, 23 April 2004 17:35 (twenty-two years ago)

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?

Yes. Clearly.

― frankE (frankE), Friday, 23 April 2004 17:35 (twenty-two years ago)

i mean do you sincerely think the average xgau column even approaches the average sportscenter in obfuscatory obscurantism (aka jokes)? and that's TELEVISION - are people who read record reviews just that much dumber than the average sports fan?

fox sports is the blender of sports journalism

― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 23 April 2004 17:37 (twenty-two years ago)

it's true, I am too stupid to understand rock criticism. This is entirely my own fault, stemming from my unwillingness to spend the necessary brainpower on interpreting the self-absorbed in-jokes of writers with an overinflated sense of their inherent aesthetic worth.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 23 April 2004 17:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Blount, are you trying to argue for the intellectual capabilities of Harold Reynolds?

― hstencil, Friday, 23 April 2004 17:38 (twenty-two years ago)

What about jokes about finding the Pope in the pizza? Because, honestly, I can't speak for Greil, but when Father Guido Sarducci used to do that, it didn't crack me up at all! (Though, ok, I think I might have put a piece of wax paper up the TV screen ONCE, maybe...)

― chuck, Friday, 23 April 2004 17:39 (twenty-two years ago)

i mean could someone explain why xgau et. al should ignore all the people who do get them in favor of the "casual" readers who don't get them and have a MILLION other writers writing in the 'regurgitate the presskit plz' style they demand?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 23 April 2004 17:39 (twenty-two years ago)

harold reynolds would be accused of being too 'academic' by the rules of this thread stence! (and don't even mention mccarver)

― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 23 April 2004 17:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Don't you hate it when writers try and show off by using all those fancy "words" that they know.

― scott seward (scott seward), Friday, 23 April 2004 17:40 (twenty-two years ago)

actually, to be serious for a second, this "dumb-it-down" thing is a total strawman. You can actively dislike Christgau's writing (and his occasional obtuseness) without wanting reviews to read like press releases.

― hstencil, Friday, 23 April 2004 17:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Anyway, how, exactly, are jokes about the Pope's penis size "in jokes"? I've never even been to the Vatican, and I stopped going to church in ninth grade! (And Bob, I believe, is a Unitarian!!)

― chuck, Friday, 23 April 2004 17:41 (twenty-two years ago)

(ps that Yes piece is completely undreadable).

hey! you dropped your spoon!

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Friday, 23 April 2004 17:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Here was maybe my favorite line in the Yes piece:

"...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.

― Broheems (diamond), Friday, 23 April 2004 17:42 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean, I don't find much worth in Christgau but not 'cause he's "difficult" or whatever. There are other rock writers who are as difficult (if not more so) whose writing I like better (Meltzer comes to mind first and foremost).

― hstencil, Friday, 23 April 2004 17:42 (twenty-two years ago)

stence i know you can - but that ain't happening here! it's all 'writers MUST appeal to the 'casual' reader' garbage!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 23 April 2004 17:42 (twenty-two years ago)

well I may not be a "casual reader" but I will admit that Xgau's obfuscations bug me in a way that Meltzer's or dave q's don't.

― hstencil, Friday, 23 April 2004 17:43 (twenty-two years ago)

it's funny how self-righteous rock critics are when the value of their work is questioned.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 23 April 2004 17:45 (twenty-two years ago)

it's all 'writers MUST appeal to the 'casual' reader' garbage!

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.

― BanjoMania (Brilhante), Friday, 23 April 2004 17:50 (twenty-two years ago)

it's funny how self-righteous rock critics are when the value of their work is questioned.

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

― scott seward (scott seward), Friday, 23 April 2004 17:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Dave Q Yes piece = genius beyond description. It's *flow,* is what it is -- the jokes so easily form this larger pattern, if you will. It IS performance but it still also talks about the music.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 23 April 2004 17:52 (twenty-two years ago)

for the remainder of the thread people should strictly use archaic words, terms and phrases

― BanjoMania (Brilhante), Friday, 23 April 2004 17:52 (twenty-two years ago)

I like to mentally substitute the content of each of Chuck's posts with "MY CREW IS WILD NICE!"

― Al (sitcom), Friday, 23 April 2004 17:52 (twenty-two years ago)

I think there's a difference between insisting that all writers appeal to the "casual reader" (an obvious impossibility) and arguing that writers have a responsibility not to crawl up their own asses being willfully obscure. But my POVs been misconstrued from the start, at this point I'm just watchin the sparks fly since obviously none of us are going to convince each other.

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

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 23 April 2004 17:53 (twenty-two years ago)

also, I will try to use bigger words and make less sense from now on, in an effort to fit in with the established ILM critical aesthetic.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 23 April 2004 17:54 (twenty-two years ago)

I shouldn't have read this thread.

― Begs2Differ (Begs2Differ), Friday, 23 April 2004 18:06 (twenty-two years ago)

the guy who started the thread stated he was a regular reader of Xgau's.

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

― frankE (frankE), Friday, 23 April 2004 18:10 (twenty-two years ago)

heh.

― frankE (frankE), Friday, 23 April 2004 18:10 (twenty-two years ago)

matos i know the blondie thing has been explicated on this thread but we've established, i think, that numerous people were not aware that christgau was referencing some lyrics, and therefore didn't know how to interpret the "review".

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.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Friday, 23 April 2004 18:16 (twenty-two years ago)

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.

― scott seward (scott seward), Friday, 23 April 2004 18:23 (twenty-two years ago)

shut up scott you WOULD say that, you're one of them! fucker.

― Begs2Differ (Begs2Differ), Friday, 23 April 2004 18:24 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, scott, but it's the VEHEMENCE of the reaction, not the reaction itself, that i was wondering about

― amateur!st (amateurist), Friday, 23 April 2004 18:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Maybe it has something to do with brilliant and highly informed observations like "it's the contemporary practice of rock criticism that i find wanting"? Just a thought....

― chuck, Friday, 23 April 2004 18:32 (twenty-two years ago)

I dunno, I've seen worse on ILM. And some people were looking for a fight. And Chuck takes what he does at the paper really seriously. Just in case some people missed that. (it ain't all pope dick jokes you know)

― scott seward (scott seward), Friday, 23 April 2004 18:33 (twenty-two years ago)

see, there he goes again. he's like a pitbull in a skort.

― scott seward (scott seward), Friday, 23 April 2004 18:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Or maybe it has something to do with this dumbing down to brain-dead spoonfeedery devoid of personality and wit you guys are apparently so fond of being EXACTLY the direction that "the contemporary practice of rock criticsm" has been HEADING in the past several years?

― chuck, Friday, 23 April 2004 18:38 (twenty-two years ago)

What is there not to get regarding the Yes piece? Seems pretty easy to understand to me. I don't even want to go into the whole xgau debacle -- at this point it has been debated enough.

― El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Friday, 23 April 2004 18:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Woof woof. Snarl. Grrrrr....

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

― chuck, Friday, 23 April 2004 18:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Why is everything always so black and white with you, Chuck? You don't think there's any middle ground between regurgitating press kits and writing incomprehensible gibberish like Queen's Yes piece? Cuz I think there is.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 23 April 2004 18:40 (twenty-two years ago)

"incomprehensible"

― El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Friday, 23 April 2004 18:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Skipping 746 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

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