Christgau, Chusid, or DeRogatis: Which critic is the most useless?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (289 of them)
But you've got to maintain perspective and not delude yourself into thinking that you're more qualified than others to believe what you do, at least concerning something as open to interpretation as music or film.

This is wrong on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin.

1: Many critics are more qualified than you to write about music (your general douchery on this topic makes it clear to me that you hold no advanced degree in musicology)
B: A critic must fundamentally "believe" that he is correct in order to write with authority on the topic at hand. A world of opinion journalism that adhered to your standards would be a flaccid bore.
Third: If you (yes, you souldesqueeze) can't write well or with conviction on music or film then I don't care about your "interpretation." Therefore, not all interpretations are valid. Especially yours.

MC, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:06 (seventeen years ago) link

No, I honestly believe that anyone who carries the conviction that their criticism of a piece in whose creation they played absolutely no part is of any consequence at all is wholly delusional. Criticism exists as mere food for thought for the reader, nothing more. Society would not dissolve into a cultural morass without it.

No, I honestly believe that anyone who carries the conviction that their criticism creation of a piece in whose creation they played absolutely no a major part is of any consequence at all is wholly delusional. Criticism Art exists as mere food for thought for the reader, nothing more. Society would not dissolve into a cultural morass without it.

s.clover, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:38 (seventeen years ago) link

ArtCookery exists as mere food for thought for the reader, nothing more. Society would not dissolve into a cultural morass without it.

s.clover, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:39 (seventeen years ago) link

basically I think everything we need to know about this dude can be deduced from the fact that he views criticism as some sort of monolithic enterprise which threatens his own opinions and tramples dissent underfoot, rather than a means to promote discussion among intelligent people

bernard snowy, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:41 (seventeen years ago) link

Am I insane, or is Pitchfork not mentioned once on this thread?

schwantz, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:45 (seventeen years ago) link

that's not writing, it's typing.

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:48 (seventeen years ago) link

haha, I was actually just thinking, the only thing this dude could do at this point that would save face and make me empathize with his position would be to reveal that he's that guy who posted a thread here recently about how he would play records for his roommate and his roommate would tell him they sucked and he didn't want to listen to them and then would go out and buy the same records as soon as Pitchfork reviewed them

bernard snowy, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:48 (seventeen years ago) link

(xpost)

bernard snowy, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 22:49 (seventeen years ago) link

glazing lawn gnomes??

m0stlyClean, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 23:15 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.gnomeland.co.uk/Heissner%20factory.jpg

g®▲Ðұ, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 23:19 (seventeen years ago) link

No, I honestly believe that anyone who carries the conviction that their criticism of a piece in whose creation they played absolutely no part is of any consequence at all is wholly delusional. Criticism exists as mere food for thought for the reader, nothing more. Society would not dissolve into a cultural morass without it.

Cynthia Ozick wrote an article in this month's issue of Harpers called "Literary Entrails: They boys in the alley, the disappearing readers, and the novel's ghostly twin" about the place of criticism in art. Reducing her argument to a few sentences, she argues that what gives culture (particularly literary culture) context is criticism. She is, of course, a writer who knows a couple things about criticism and literature. I think she'd probably disagree with your entire assumption.

Mordechai Shinefield, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 00:34 (seventeen years ago) link

I honestly believe that anyone who carries the conviction that their criticism of a piece in whose creation they played absolutely no part is of any consequence at all is wholly delusional. Criticism exists as mere food for thought for the reader, nothing more.

I.e., food for thought is of no consequence.

I.e., thought is of no consequence.

I.e., if you really believed this, you'd have shot yourself in the face long ago.

nabisco, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 01:28 (seventeen years ago) link

syllogistic nabisco otm

James Redd and the Blecchs, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 01:34 (seventeen years ago) link

Although I guess that's not a syllogism.

James Redd and the Blecchs, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 01:50 (seventeen years ago) link

My mind hungers for the misguided opinions of others.

M.V., Wednesday, 28 March 2007 02:13 (seventeen years ago) link

God Bless You, g®▲Ðұ.

m0stlyClean, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 02:37 (seventeen years ago) link

five years pass...

I await your perspectives.

buzza, Sunday, 23 December 2012 08:48 (eleven years ago) link

5 Years Pass...

maura, Sunday, 23 December 2012 20:44 (eleven years ago) link

Meanwhile, I'm still thinking

Rumba de Schmillsson (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, 23 December 2012 22:42 (eleven years ago) link

I like Chusid, if only for highlighting worthy way-out-in-left-field artists and bands

Lee626, Sunday, 23 December 2012 22:52 (eleven years ago) link


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