Robert Christgau labelled Nick Hornby a neocon. What's your take?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0327/christgau.php

How do you interpret this statement?
How does one define a music critic neo conservative?

― Chris Radford (Chris Radford), Saturday, 5 July 2003 02:52 (twenty-three years ago)

well?

― Chris Radford (Chris Radford), Saturday, 5 July 2003 02:52 (twenty-three years ago)

two threads for one review, oy vey

― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 5 July 2003 03:13 (twenty-three years ago)

and nature labelled nick hornby a neocon

― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 5 July 2003 03:14 (twenty-three years ago)

I've always assumed the new yorker ran alex ross' radiohead thing as a corrective/tonic for the awful hornby (redundancy) piece.

― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 5 July 2003 03:16 (twenty-three years ago)

Does anyone read this guy's stuff anymore, or do they just see the words and think about him?

― dleone (dleone), Saturday, 5 July 2003 03:22 (twenty-three years ago)

A music crit gets labeled a neocon when he says nothing good happened after Motown and early 60s rock (or he only likes music that resembles that era or earlier)...A number of people began griping about Hornby's perspective when he started bashing in the New Yorker anything too raw be it hiphop or rock or whatever...

― Steve Kiviat (Steve K), Saturday, 5 July 2003 04:26 (twenty-three years ago)

Hornby is 'new labour'.

― Andrew L (Andrew L), Saturday, 5 July 2003 04:36 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah, I'd always interpreted Hornby's tone and set of concerns as pretty much 100% neoliberal, New Labour or New Democrat / DLC, the increasingly conservative centrism of the Baby Boom; it's very easy to imagine him listening to records with Clinton and Blair.

― nabisco (nabisco), Saturday, 5 July 2003 13:28 (twenty-three years ago)

Xgau's the one who's into cultural Manifest Destiny tho, isn't he?

― dave q, Saturday, 5 July 2003 13:38 (twenty-three years ago)

Andrew L. OTM x1000

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Saturday, 5 July 2003 13:41 (twenty-three years ago)

left = "they're killing us!!!"
palaeo-com = "let them lose their souls, more for moi"
neo-con = "you can't kill yourselves, that's destroying the Man's property"

― dave q, Saturday, 5 July 2003 15:29 (twenty-three years ago)

Nick Hornby being a neo-con means that the Hollywood version of his book actually had better music than what was in the original version.

― JesseFox (JesseFox), Sunday, 6 July 2003 04:29 (twenty-three years ago)

yup!

― James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 6 July 2003 04:34 (twenty-three years ago)

thank you chicago!

― James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 6 July 2003 04:34 (twenty-three years ago)

so what kind of neo-con is hornby? bill kristol or daniel patrick moynihan? (moynihan makes more sense ie. see new labour, but we all know if someone's using it as a slur nowadays they mean kristol/wolfowitz/etc.)

― James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 6 July 2003 04:39 (twenty-three years ago)

I disagree. The movie was missing the Steely Dan, and the copious amounts of Solomon Burke. Not that any of that would've worked in Chicago. It wasn't about making the music "better," just more setting-appropriate.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Sunday, 6 July 2003 04:39 (twenty-three years ago)

It's crazy!!

I had this totally moronic realization that listeners like Dave Q, James Bount, Jody Beth Rosen, John Darnielle, are sort of basically more smarter and perceptive than the usual dolts who feel they have some sort of purchase over "rock" music. I always think, ILX is a blast, but quite frankly - it's a weird world and Ozzy is my man.

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Sunday, 6 July 2003 05:21 (twenty-three years ago)

"i.e. what can I say?"; um, I really do feel an affinity towards the Panama era of Van Halen , for some strange reason.

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Sunday, 6 July 2003 05:26 (twenty-three years ago)

man they were showing Roth videos on VH1 Classix earlier and "Yankee Rose" (which is still pretty great if not as great as I remembered ie. not just a notch below "Panama") came on and it was like Roth went "how can I kick the Van Halen standard up a notch? I know - FLUORESCENT COLORS!!! PLUS RAINBOW SPANDEX!!! BIDDILY BOP BOP BOW!!!" (it took another album for him to add 'flying surf boards' and 'steel drums' to the equation). anyhow, between this and the Smiths video marathon the other night, I'm wondering just who the hell I was in 1986, and how I ended up like this.

― James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 6 July 2003 05:38 (twenty-three years ago)

um, tying it back into rockcrit neo-con, TS: "Yankee Rose" vs. "The Queen is Dead" (both feature intros before the 'real' song kicks in, plus guitarists going wah-wah-wazoo at the end)

― James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 6 July 2003 05:40 (twenty-three years ago)

so, has anyone killed Xgau with their big fucking dick yet?

― Kingfish (Kingfish), Sunday, 6 July 2003 06:30 (twenty-three years ago)

it turned out it wasn't big enough so back to the drawing board

― mark s (mark s), Sunday, 6 July 2003 22:17 (twenty-three years ago)

i've heard about that infamous nick hornby "only 16 year olds would like it, everyone else is too busy having lives" take on radiohead's kid a. does anyone know if it's posted on the web? also, does anyone actually read his new yorker stuff? is it as bad as some of the tosh in his 31 songs book? do music critics even like him?? i happily ate up rob young's anti-31 songs rant in the wire and ian penman's admission that he'd happily slag off 31 songs without even reading it.

― mint condition, Sunday, 6 July 2003 23:28 (twenty-three years ago)

the top ten albums in billboard thing was completely fucking abominable, makes 31 songs look really good in comparison. thing is, he hasn't written about music for the new yorker in two years so it's a misnomer to say he's still their pop critic. I suspect (gee, wonder why) that most music critics loathe him if only for getting a high profile gig writing about a subject he's been long out of touch with while they (we) try our damnedest to at least stay on top of things if not write better than that. (and i'm still a fan of both about a boy and high fidelity, his ny'er stuff was doubly infuriating to me for that reason.)

― M Matos (M Matos), Sunday, 6 July 2003 23:36 (twenty-three years ago)

that new yorker radiohead thing pissed me off. i made fun of that in something i wrote for the voice. the only time that i ever felt compelled to lambaste a writer in print.

― scott seward, Sunday, 6 July 2003 23:42 (twenty-three years ago)

actually, that's not true. i made fun of stanley crouch once too.

― scott seward, Sunday, 6 July 2003 23:43 (twenty-three years ago)

who hasn't?

― M Matos (M Matos), Sunday, 6 July 2003 23:45 (twenty-three years ago)

me. (yet.)

― jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 7 July 2003 00:10 (twenty-three years ago)

which reminds me that I wanted to talk w/you about an assignment, jess....

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 7 July 2003 00:18 (twenty-three years ago)

(haha)

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 7 July 2003 00:18 (twenty-three years ago)

when i made fun of stanley i incorporated harry allen, a naked puff daddy, and a wynton marsalis opera based on the life of nora zeale hurston made entirely out of versions of "Satin Doll" into my delusional dreamscape.HAH! i used to be funny. whatever happened to me?

― scott seward, Monday, 7 July 2003 00:20 (twenty-three years ago)

ilm.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 7 July 2003 00:27 (twenty-three years ago)

egads! you are probably right. but ilm is one of the only things that i can afford right now. plus, i watch the baby all day all week, and ilm is handy for just short little lurks and perusals while baby is napping or otherwise occupied. would i be writing more if i wasn't on the computer? hmmm...that's a good question. i don't think so though.

― scott seward, Monday, 7 July 2003 00:36 (twenty-three years ago)

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