sometime i read christgau and am amazed...

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

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

Is it spoonfeeding to add a simple "on the former" before the comment about reincarnation and "later she" before the part about the pope.

― frankE, Thursday, 22 April 2004 18:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Not spoonfeeding, FrankE; meaningless. And hack writing, too.

― chuck, Thursday, 22 April 2004 18:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Mark, that's why I noted above that he had his examples reversed.

xpost

― Hurlothrumbo (hurlothrumbo), Thursday, 22 April 2004 18:30 (twenty-two years ago)

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

Hilarity.

― frankE, Thursday, 22 April 2004 18:30 (twenty-two years ago)

It's hack writing to provide a modicrum of context for the reader to center themselves?

― frankE, Thursday, 22 April 2004 18:31 (twenty-two years ago)

connective clauses are just pandering, real writers use only adverbs

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 22 April 2004 18:31 (twenty-two years ago)

he's not writing an instruction manual for how to listen to the blondie album. he's just offering quick impressions at the end of a column of fuller reviews of albums he obviously considers more substantial. while i often have a hard time dissecting xgau, i'm puzzled at what isn't clear in this one.

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Thursday, 22 April 2004 18:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Where does he say the "examples" correspond with the "review"? On every one of those honorable mentions, he writes a short observation or joke or description of whatever, then parenthetically lists his favorite songs, in the order of how much he likes them. Why should the Blondie review have a different format from the other ones? The pope dick line is the punchline of the review, but he also likes that song more than the reincarnation one. So they're in the RIGHT order.

― chuck, Thursday, 22 April 2004 18:34 (twenty-two years ago)

it isn't clear what the sentence refers to (and, more subjectively, what significance this has, and why it should interest anyone)

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.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 22 April 2004 18:35 (twenty-two years ago)

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

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

The Pope is hung like a rhino.

― Evanston Wade (EWW), Thursday, 22 April 2004 18:39 (twenty-two years ago)

it isn't clear what the sentence refers to (and, more subjectively, what significance this has, and why it should interest anyone)

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.

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Thursday, 22 April 2004 18:40 (twenty-two years ago)

(me in defending xgau shocka)

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Thursday, 22 April 2004 18:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Apparently Christgau found these things intriguing enough to mention, which I can't understand. How is this supposed to interest any reader? Who cares what Blondie thinks about the Pope? There was no more interesting sentence he could have written relating to this album, and how it sounds, and how it is?

― morris pavilion (samjeff), Thursday, 22 April 2004 18:43 (twenty-two years ago)

re: Chuck's last post: I guess I misunderstood the format of the Honorable Mentions, myself, then. I thought the named songs were illustrative of the short review (for instance, both the Blondie and Calexico capsules refer explicitly and exclusively to the songs that are subsequently named).

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).

― Hurlothrumbo (hurlothrumbo), Thursday, 22 April 2004 18:46 (twenty-two years ago)

he should've said "bigger kielbasa"!

― dave q, Thursday, 22 April 2004 18:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Please hire Dave Q.

― Hurlothrumbo (hurlothrumbo), Thursday, 22 April 2004 18:49 (twenty-two years ago)

Chuck, I had no fricking idea what the shit Xgau meant with regards to that Blondie blurb. And I'm not asking to be spoon-fed. Just clue me the fuck in for chrissake. I don't think that's "hack writing."

― Jeanne Fury (Jeanne Fury), Thursday, 22 April 2004 18:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Please hire Dave Q.

Seconded.

― El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Thursday, 22 April 2004 18:52 (twenty-two years ago)

If the bulk of your readers can't understand what the fuck you're writing about, then you've failed as a writer.

― BanjoMania (Brilhante), Thursday, 22 April 2004 18:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Jeanne, again, what else could that review POSSIBLY mean? I still don't see how it's ambiguous. At all. It's completely straightforward!Yes, there are things about the album he did not discuss. Whether you have ten or 200 or 400 or 650 or 900 or 1500 words to work with, that's inevitable. He picked what he felt were two interesting things about the album, and he wrote them down. I'm not even sure *I* think they're interesting; frankly, I'm a little dumbfounded about why somebody would want to listen to a Blondie album in 2004 in the first place. But I'm not Bob. To him, words about reincarnation and the pontiff's need of penis enlargement were the most notable things about this Blondie album. Others might disagree; big deal. When they write THEIR reviews of the Blondie album, they'll pinpoint what THEY think is interesting about it. Oddly, I've seen reviews that go on for hundreds of words and tell me LESS than what Bob said in that Blondie one. It's bizarre to zero in on it. If there's somebody who can write BETTER ten-word album reviews, I'd love to meet them.

― chuck, Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:00 (twenty-two years ago)

I think both Blondie and Mr. Christgau would be more than pleased to discover how agitated people have gotten over a single phrase. To any writer, I would imagine this speaks to a job well done.

― Evanston Wade (EWW), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually, Phil Dellio's Top 40 fanzine *Radio On* used to have even better and shorter reviews sometimes, though, now that I think of it. Rob Sheffield (who can do a LOT in almost no words at all) on "Tears in Heaven" by Eric Clapton: "Kill it before it grows." Somebody (I forget who) on some cover of "What Becomes of the Broken Hearted": "They become rock critics."

― chuck, Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Chuck. It's great that you get it, but some of us might chalk that up to proximity. Without the context, it's just a bunch of words for a lot of us.
(x-post)

― BanjoMania (Brilhante), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:04 (twenty-two years ago)

I remember a review a few years back of Herbie Hancock's "Dis Is Da Drum" that read in toto "Dis is da dis." Probably a lucky one-shot on that guy's part, though.

― Hurlothrumbo (hurlothrumbo), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Please hire Dave Q.

Seconded.

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

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Matos do you think there is a slight chance they already knew that? A very slight chance that Nicole at the very least knew that? That perhaps implicit in the comments was just a good-natured statement of approbation for dave?

― Broheems (diamond), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:12 (twenty-two years ago)

I was going to say...

― El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:13 (twenty-two years ago)

No, I meant he should replace Christgau.

― Hurlothrumbo (hurlothrumbo), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:14 (twenty-two years ago)

"It's great that you get it, but some of us might chalk that up to proximity. Without the context, it's just a bunch of words for a lot of us."

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.

― chuck, Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Jeanne, again, what else could that review POSSIBLY mean?

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.)

― Jeanne Fury (Jeanne Fury), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:19 (twenty-two years ago)

more bullying from rock critics, please.

― hstencil, Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:21 (twenty-two years ago)

I agree with everyone on this thread except for Chuck.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Also, I always thought the songs that he mentions in parens were simply recommended tracks and didn't necessarily relate to the preceding blurb.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Broheems do you think there is a slight chance I already knew they knew that? A very slight chance that I knew that Nicole at the very least knew that? That perhaps implicit in the comments was just a good-natured kidding around with my fellow regulars?

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:23 (twenty-two years ago)

I enjoyed the Xgau as a bizarro shrugworthy line. I like Dave Q's conciseness more, though.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Apparently, Jaymc, you're correct (if I'm understanding Chuck), and this instance is coincidental -- I was assuming differently, though.

― Hurlothrumbo (hurlothrumbo), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:25 (twenty-two years ago)

xxpost

― Hurlothrumbo (hurlothrumbo), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:25 (twenty-two years ago)

was does xgau make us hurt ourselves so?

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:25 (twenty-two years ago)

er, makes us that is.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Where is a serious Xgau who aims reviews?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:26 (twenty-two years ago)

anyway, I the squibs are cryptic but they're tacked on and irrelevant unless you already care about the subject and/or writer. he does require deciphering a lot of the time, absolutely.

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:27 (twenty-two years ago)

It didn't occur to me, no Matos, else I wouldn't have posted that! Sorry. But I wasn't trying to start a fight, I just thought the statement seemed unnecessarily stroppy in the context of some light-hearted remarks. I must be too attuned to look for Raggett-esque smileys or something.

― Broheems (diamond), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:29 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think people are stupid who didn't get it; I just think you could probably pick ANY well-written review and there would be people who wouldn't get it; if there's a review that EVERYBODY gets, it's probably in Entertainment Weekly or Rolling Stone, and it's horrible writing. And there are many reviews (including a few New Order and Boogie Down Productions ones by Xgau himself) that I don't get, too. (And there are Dave Queen and Don Allred and Scott Seward reviews that I don't fully get, but that crack me up anyway. "Getting it" is hardly the only standard of good music writing.) But TO ME anyway, I think this particular review was pretty clear. Christgau is such an easy fucking target. And yes, he writes a bit convoluted sometimes, and doesn't always make complete sense. So how, exactly, does that make him different from, say, Bangs or Meltzer or Marcus or Powers or Kogan or Eddy or Queen or Fury? Sorry, but I don't get that at all.

― chuck, Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:29 (twenty-two years ago)

no, I came across way more brusque than I intended to, your response is understandable. no worries.

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:30 (twenty-two years ago)

I just assumed they were lyrics because how else would you know from an album what the singer thinks? I can see why someone would find the review less than satisfying but Honorable Mentions aren't really about satisfying as much as flinging in your two cents. I was going to say if you want to get pissy you should get pissy about his no-context duds, but I actually love seeing albums get dismissed without a single word of explanation.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:31 (twenty-two years ago)

I must be too attuned to look for Raggett-esque smileys or something.

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

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:31 (twenty-two years ago)

I've heard of Blondie (and heard them, too), the Pope and reincarnation. Plus, I have a dick. Apparently all this means I should know what he's fuck he's talking about. I don't. Therefore, I need to be spoonfed and am a lazy reader.

― frankE (frankE), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:32 (twenty-two years ago)

actually, yeah.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:34 (twenty-two years ago)

So how, exactly, does that make him different from, say, Bangs or Meltzer or Marcus or Powers or Kogan or Eddy or Queen or Fury?

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

― frankE (frankE), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I am always completely baffled by the rain of venom that comes down everytime Xgau's name is mentioned here, and it always looks like really ugly player-hating to me.

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:38 (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.