sometime i read christgau and am amazed...

For distinguished criticism, Ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

Awarded to Dan Neil of the Los Angeles Times for his one-of-a-kind reviews of automobiles, blending technical expertise with offbeat humor and astute cultural observations.

Also nominated as finalists in this category were: Nicolai Ouroussoff of the Los Angeles Times for his versatile architectural criticism that stretched from his hometown's new Disney Hall to the rubble in Baghdad, where he pondered the ancient city's resurrection, and Inga Saffron of The Philadelphia Inquirer for her passionate and insightful architectural criticism that, through clear, elegant writing, was as accessible to the ordinary reader as it was to the expert.

"yes, rock criticism is a lower format than other kinds of writing. thanks for setting us straight. "

Matos, where did I say that? Again, words in my mouth (or you're making a dubious leap).

"novels and hard journalism are automatically better because higher than writing about records. this is a point that cannot be reinforced enough! "

I think you misunderstood my Ulysses reference (which was meant more as a quip). I'm really not interested in positing some sort of hierarchy of the written word. I never said novels and hard journalism are automatically better. Again, words put in my mouth, which is a lazy way to debate.

Ulysses is a hard read though. My ancient Greek is none too good.

Also, yes, criticism is different from straight journalism, thank god, but when I read a food critic, I want to understand his opinion about the restaurant.; when I read a movie review, I want to know the critic's take on the movie.
The writing should be good — that's part of the enjoyment — but it shouldn't get in the way. I mean, as a writer, you are trying to communicate.

Simply put, clarity and creativity are not mutually exclusive. I realize writing about music involves approximations and metaphor, but the intent doesn't have to be buried.

"through clear, elegant writing, was as accessible to the ordinary reader as it was to the expert. "

"If you write about cars, it is reportage," said John Simon, theater critic of New York magazine. "It is not criticism, even though it postures as criticism. Cars are utilitarian things. You might as well be a critic of kitchen utensils."

I wonder if he realizes he sounds nine hundred?

banjomania, that leap is pretty dubious to me too, but I've seen it made countless times on this board and fully expect to see it made again in the future, so my (actual!) dismissiveness has some basis here. also, as one friend put it, does the auto guy clear the path for Paul Lukas to get a Pulitzer? (I hope so!)

Thank you Matos! more where that came from.

Tom Petty - Wildflowers

More songs about buildings and weed. ("House In the Wood", "You Don't Know How It Feels")

Saint Etienne - Good Humor

Muzak for the duty free shops, which isn't a bad thing, really. ("Woodcabin", "Mr. Donut")

Handsome Family - In the Air

Nature will make everything alright, except when you're crossing bridges. ("Don't Be Scared", "In the Air")

That's more than ten words, you're fired.

i reject this view most vehemently; writing is debased if its primary objective is simply to stir up talk (or anger)

this is a trick question isn't it???

whose posts are you alluding to john? in my case i don't think my mild approbation qualifies as a "rain of venom"

i had this exact same experience, if that helps people understand my criticism, but on the other hand, i don't feel edified or satisfied after solving the riddle

x-post

sorry blount i should organize my posts into one big one, but i sort of read a bit of this long thread ,posted my response, then read the rest of it, etc etc

it's early in the morning here, i'm sort of discombobulated

Xgau's pickup metal band, of course

to fall back on some chuck-style self-referentiality, here is "best (so to speak) of amateurist on the other (exceedingly long) xgau thread":

I think Tom is right, Christgau is very inventive in condensing information into tiny sentences to make his word count. I guess it's inevitable that at some point he condenses this information to the point where it's no longer easily comprehensible. And I guess this is a virtue, and why not? But I do feel like this kind of density precludes Christgau from expanding upon his core points in any real way. He doesn't make his arguments with the kind of transparency and deliberateness that would allow for the introduction of evidence, for example. This is why I find it exhausting, as above, if never exactly boring or useless as some attest.
-- Amateurist (amateuris...) (webmail), February 6th, 2003 7:35 AM. (amateurist) (link)

I want to (re)assert that by holding up Christgau's sentences for explication, I am not trying to ridicule them or cast asperions at Christgau's writing generally. I honestly believe that some of you have more "training" with this kind of writing and can be of help in, as dleone says, translating the more twisty passages. In doing so I suspect we will uncover some things that simply can't be untangled, or as Tom points out, don't really hold up to analysis.
-- Amateurist (amateuris...) (webmail), February 6th, 2003 1:27 PM. (amateurist) (link)

Maybe that's why I'm missing the meaning of much of this, because I haven't heard many of the albums under discussion. I wonder how many people actually use the Consumer Guide as a consumer guide.
-- Amateurist (amateuris...) (webmail), February 6th, 2003 1:40 PM. (amateurist) (link)

p.s. dan's parsing of xgau's sentence on that thread is the best thing ever on ilx

gabneb made a crack about 600-word reviews in PopMatters and Pitchfork -- right enough. I wrote for PopMatters briefly, until the thrill of not being paid wore off, and I was often scrambling to pad those things out to 500-plus words. You find yourself doing things like tedious track-by-track recitations, or noting that the engineer also worked on Tanya Donnelly's last album...

Well, true (except for the parenthetical thought), but is anybody here really saying clarity and formalist follies are mutually exclusive in an essay? Or career?

Then again, I'm also quite happy not knowing where I am at any given time.

What I never understood is how "spatulas" can actually be TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS, with two completely different functions -- The flipping kind (metal or wood, usually) and the scraping kind (generally rubber, I think). The only thing they have in common is that they're SORT OF shaped alike. How come the English language didn't come up with two different words for them? It weirds me out.