sometime i read christgau and am amazed...

"This is why rock critics are morons. . ."

"The entire Voice music staff are a bunch of fucking nitwits. . ."

I wish I had disassociated myself from those sweeping comments before making any further response.

*I think one of the funniest things on this thread is the way someone, I think it was cinniblount, wanted to make a sharp distinction between music criticism and journalism. Meanwhile, chuck and others seem to want to blur the line between criticsm and art. To me, the line between music criticism (at least the sort that appears in newspapers) and music journalism is much less black and white than the line between criticism and art (though once again, I understand that criticism can be literature as well).

If you read Chris Ware you get both.

"The entire Voice music staff are a bunch of fucking nitwits. . .""

OK, i didn't notice these comments; I suppose this would nettle me too

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.

Has anyone else done this?

i know its a grave failing on my part

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

I can think of a few other things.

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

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

: D

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.

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

!

Do I hear four, anybody?

"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."

"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.

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

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

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!

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

waht?

He just doesn't have it.

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

no i was quoting xgau about mccartney

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

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

X(gau)post

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

Can you give examples?

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."

Christgau just means "Paul's lyrics suck."

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.

Can you *give* examples?

(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.

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.

(meaning "Penny Lane" sorry xposts)

Can someone post the link to the podcast?

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/06/05/paul-mccartney-memory-almost-full-the-long-blondes-someone-to-drive-you-home-robert-christgau-rolling-stone/

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?