sometime i read christgau and am amazed...

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (846 of them)
But is there a value and in acknowledging and even preserving generic differences, without just seeming like an anal-retentive type that wants to keep his CDs all neatly ordered?

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.

Rockist Scientist, Thursday, 29 April 2004 17:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Xenakis rocks, dude.

hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 29 April 2004 17:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Somehow it seems that if we were going to look for an umbrella term to comprise it all, "pop" would be more accurate than "rock" at this point
I agree with this, but when it's come to this, why not just go all the way and call it "music".
I'm not being sarcastic here. As a fairly general rule, I hate genre labels and I file my music alphabetically.
Then, labels like "pop", "rock", "trance", etc. are relegated to use as adjectives or adverbs, but not nouns, i.e. "this music rocks", not "this rock music is good".

Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 29 April 2004 18:56 (twenty-two years ago)

I guess I think of "rock = all this other stuff too" mostly in the sense of "these are pop structures not governed by jazz, classical, art-song, or musical theater." you don't have to agree w/it but it's a workable enough assumption.

Matos W.K. (M Matos), Thursday, 29 April 2004 20:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Techno can't be pop until it starts making the charts. At this point, in the US, it's as much of a cult music as death metal is.

Patrick (Patrick), Friday, 30 April 2004 02:13 (twenty-two years ago)

I once used a rubber spatula as a wooden kind and it got all melty.

Has anyone else done this?

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 30 April 2004 05:13 (twenty-two years ago)

also once i left a wooden kind too close to the flame of my stove and it got a bit burney but it survived.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 30 April 2004 05:14 (twenty-two years ago)

i'm glad it survived, too, because whenever i break something of mine (even easily replacable) i am overwhelmed with feelings of guilt. i forgot to water a little bamboo shoot once and it died and i was depressed for a week. also i left a plant out during a cold snap which died, but i couldn't accept it was dead and kept it inside my apartment on my kitchen table trying to nurse it back to life for two weeks, during which it shed all the dead leaves over my kitchen. it made me feel like a terrible person.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 30 April 2004 05:17 (twenty-two years ago)

it felt like proper penance to look at the victim of my thoughtlessness every day, and the plant might have stayed there a month or more, and the leaves might have crunched underfoot for just as long if my flatmate didn't understandably get peeved.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 30 April 2004 05:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Noted.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 30 April 2004 05:21 (twenty-two years ago)

is that some kind of extended metaphor sterling? i'm not going to think too hard about it.

amateur!st (amateurist), Friday, 30 April 2004 07:39 (twenty-two years ago)

wuddya mean "not going to think too hard about it", on this thread?!
christ! go, go go!!

t\'\'t (t\'\'t), Friday, 30 April 2004 08:15 (twenty-two years ago)

The best wooden spoon I've used was made from an olive tree, if I recall correctly.

Rockist Scientist, Friday, 30 April 2004 12:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Rockisto, sorry, and no disrespect and all that, but, you know, "correctly", actually, is not exactly that "important" spoonfully, or otherwise, speaking. Obviously. Or not.

t\'\'t (t\'\'t), Friday, 30 April 2004 12:22 (twenty-two years ago)

wuddya mean "not going to think too hard about it", on this thread?!
christ! go, go go!!
-- t\'\'t (phon...) (webmail), April 30th, 2004 2:15 AM. (t\'\'t) (later) (link)

i know its a grave failing on my part

amateur!st (amateurist), Friday, 30 April 2004 12:57 (twenty-two years ago)

'teur!ist, you just deliberately lost the wink-wink 'moticon, didnnjunot?

t\'\'t (t\'\'t), Friday, 30 April 2004 13:00 (twenty-two years ago)

three years pass...

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

Tim Ellison, Friday, 13 July 2007 17:27 (eighteen years ago)

I can think of a few other things.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Friday, 13 July 2007 17:33 (eighteen years ago)

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

gabbneb, Friday, 13 July 2007 17:37 (eighteen years ago)

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

: D

Tim Ellison, Friday, 13 July 2007 17:57 (eighteen years ago)

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.

da croupier, Friday, 13 July 2007 18:01 (eighteen years ago)

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

!

Do I hear four, anybody?

Tim Ellison, Friday, 13 July 2007 18:04 (eighteen years ago)

"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."

Tim Ellison, Friday, 13 July 2007 18:16 (eighteen years ago)

"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.

whisperineddhurt, Friday, 13 July 2007 18:29 (eighteen years ago)

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

t**t, Friday, 13 July 2007 18:30 (eighteen years ago)

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

t**t, Friday, 13 July 2007 18:31 (eighteen years ago)

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!

Tim Ellison, Friday, 13 July 2007 18:35 (eighteen years ago)

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

waht?

gabbneb, Friday, 13 July 2007 18:36 (eighteen years ago)

He just doesn't have it.

Tim Ellison, Friday, 13 July 2007 18:37 (eighteen years ago)

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

t**t, Friday, 13 July 2007 18:38 (eighteen years ago)

no i was quoting xgau about mccartney

Tim Ellison, Friday, 13 July 2007 18:39 (eighteen years ago)

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

Martin Van Burne, Friday, 13 July 2007 18:40 (eighteen years ago)

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

Tim Ellison, Friday, 13 July 2007 18:40 (eighteen years ago)

X(gau)post

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

t**t, Friday, 13 July 2007 18:42 (eighteen years ago)

Can you give examples?

Martin Van Burne, Friday, 13 July 2007 18:42 (eighteen years ago)

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."

Tim Ellison, Friday, 13 July 2007 18:44 (eighteen years ago)

Christgau just means "Paul's lyrics suck."

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Friday, 13 July 2007 18:45 (eighteen years ago)

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.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Friday, 13 July 2007 18:46 (eighteen years ago)

Can you *give* examples?

Martin Van Burne, Friday, 13 July 2007 18:46 (eighteen years ago)

(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.

t**t, Friday, 13 July 2007 18:47 (eighteen years ago)

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.

Tim Ellison, Friday, 13 July 2007 18:47 (eighteen years ago)

(meaning "Penny Lane" sorry xposts)

Tim Ellison, Friday, 13 July 2007 18:48 (eighteen years ago)

Can someone post the link to the podcast?

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Friday, 13 July 2007 18:49 (eighteen years ago)

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?

Tim Ellison, Friday, 13 July 2007 18:58 (eighteen years ago)

Seriously, though, the presumption about "he just doesn't have the capacity" is what's most galling.

Tim Ellison, Friday, 13 July 2007 19:01 (eighteen years ago)

Well, Lennon worked quite self-consciously with a conception of himself as a persona and a celebrity throughout his solo career. *Plastic Ono Band* and *Imagine* and *Double Fantasy* are all organized around ideas about self and presentation. Maybe you don't think they're *good* ideas, but it's certainly a different--a more intellectual--way of working than McCartney seems to have, and I'd agree with Christgau that this gives Lennon's music a resonance that McCartney doesn't have access to.

Martin Van Burne, Friday, 13 July 2007 19:04 (eighteen years ago)

...gives Lennon's music a resonance that McCartney doesn't have access to

Oi, do elabo-labo-labo-labo-rate please! with examples,yeh!

t**t, Friday, 13 July 2007 19:06 (eighteen years ago)

I love that line of Xgau's about John Updike being "an extremely skilled" fiction writer whose values he finds "repellent."

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Friday, 13 July 2007 19:08 (eighteen years ago)

Lennon writes from within a role as "John Lennon," and for me this gives his career a shape and a narrative, and sets up a relationship between his songs, creates a dialogue between them. And *Double Fantasy* as a whole is a brilliant self-conscious recasting of a marriage into an artificially romantic pop ideal.

Martin Van Burne, Friday, 13 July 2007 19:16 (eighteen years ago)


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