sometime i read christgau and am amazed...

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (846 of them)
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)

"I'm too lazy to write an actual post"

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 23 April 2004 18:48 (twenty-two years ago)

"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."

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!)

chuck, Friday, 23 April 2004 18:48 (twenty-two years ago)

With EDR, of course. Exactly what wasn't comprehensible about it, Shakey Mo -- that is, if you're not too lazy yourself to go into some detail.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 23 April 2004 18:48 (twenty-two years ago)

I guess I could go back and take a look at it, for argument's sake. Hold on and let me go find it...

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

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 23 April 2004 18:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Exactly! I posted "What is there not to get regarding the Yes piece?" and Shakey Mo didn't exactly provide any answers.

x-post

El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Friday, 23 April 2004 18:52 (twenty-two years ago)

I thought there was a thread about the Yes piece but I'm not seeing it...?

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 23 April 2004 18:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Also, I didn't know you were addressing me specifically Diablo, I'm not the only one who cited that piece.

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 23 April 2004 18:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Thread.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 23 April 2004 18:56 (twenty-two years ago)

thanks Ned - I'm goin to lunch, will go over this when I get back in an hour.

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 23 April 2004 18:58 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm not the only one who cited that piece.

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

El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Friday, 23 April 2004 19:02 (twenty-two years ago)

" I don't read the Voice - I live in SF why would I bother...)"

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!

chuck, Friday, 23 April 2004 19:40 (twenty-two years ago)

I have no problem with that Yes piece. But if Christgau had written it, he wouldn't have included the parantheticals. And had I have been confused, I would have been berated for demanding spoonfeedery!

frankE (frankE), Friday, 23 April 2004 19:47 (twenty-two years ago)

I find it curious that a rock fan would equate "obscurity" with "elitism" when some of the most popular (even populistically popular) rock songs of all time have lines that are incomprehensible, solipsistic, cryptic, inaudible or mumbled.

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

Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Friday, 23 April 2004 20:08 (twenty-two years ago)

"Thirty-six true summers ago"

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....

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 23 April 2004 20:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Shakey, there will be an ocean of flame directed at you, but rest assured that it won't really be about having slagged off the writing of an ILX regular.

Begs2Differ (Begs2Differ), Friday, 23 April 2004 20:18 (twenty-two years ago)

eh whatever I don't care. It's just the internet.

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 23 April 2004 20:21 (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 "

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.

BanjoMania (Brilhante), Friday, 23 April 2004 20:21 (twenty-two years ago)

it's not very hyperbolic a leap, especially given that amazing thing Collier just posted.

Matos W.K. (M Matos), Friday, 23 April 2004 20:24 (twenty-two years ago)

this thread is hell

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Friday, 23 April 2004 20:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Shakey, you must not even be reading this thread cuz I just made reference to the whole flare gun thing; it's a paraphrase of a lyric from "Smoke On the Water" by Deep Purple, one of the more elephantine classic rock warhorses of all time. The same basic chord progression (you know the one - sampled by BDP on "Ya Slippin'") was later used by Yes guitarist Rabin on "Owner of A Lonely Heart". I actually had never noticed this until Dave's piece.

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

meh

Broheems (diamond), Friday, 23 April 2004 20:30 (twenty-two years ago)

b-b-b-but if Dave didn't say "It is written in the history of rock lore that Jon Anderson was a milkman," in spoonfeeding tones, it DOESN'T COUNT!

Matos W.K. (M Matos), Friday, 23 April 2004 20:34 (twenty-two years ago)

I saw yr reference Broheems but I didn't know what it meant (since I'm only marginally familiar with the words to the Deep Purple song - is it also about apartheid? or is that Owner of a Lonely Heart). re: the milkman thing, the piece is littered with things that might or might not be true. That just sounded like one of them.

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 23 April 2004 20:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Matos in pedantic elitism shockah!

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

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 23 April 2004 20:39 (twenty-two years ago)

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

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.

Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Friday, 23 April 2004 20:39 (twenty-two years ago)

why don't we stop criticizing criticism and just listen to some fucking music, ok?

cutty (mcutt), Friday, 23 April 2004 20:40 (twenty-two years ago)

all writing in history is littered with things that might or might not be true. here's another hint: Trevor Rabin is from South Africa, and Dave never said "this song is about apartheid."

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

Matos W.K. (M Matos), Friday, 23 April 2004 20:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Tom plz delete humanity

Matos W.K. (M Matos), Friday, 23 April 2004 20:41 (twenty-two years ago)

start with this thread

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Friday, 23 April 2004 20:42 (twenty-two years ago)

haha well that even I can do

strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Friday, 23 April 2004 20:43 (twenty-two years ago)

I've got your back if you do, man

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Friday, 23 April 2004 20:43 (twenty-two years ago)

See, I didn't know that Rabin was from South Africa! So now I've learned something else. I thought that the apartheid thing was a reference to "Owner of a Lonely Heart"'s unlikely cross-over to the R&B charts at the time. I like reading it that way. It makes me laugh.

Broheems (diamond), Friday, 23 April 2004 20:44 (twenty-two years ago)

or let's put it this way: you don't have to know a fucking thing about Yes or its history or anything else to enjoy Dave's Yes article as anything other than a piece of writing. I know this because while editing the thing I had to look up about half of the references; I also know this because I have gotten lotsa feedback from people about that piece--in person and via email--that I know don't know or care about Yes at all. they just liked it as a piece of writing. you don't have to feel the same way, obviously, but presenting it in the pedantic terms you do doesn't make your case look very good.

Matos W.K. (M Matos), Friday, 23 April 2004 20:45 (twenty-two years ago)


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