IS ROCK CRITICISM DEAD?

I checked out his tweets, and they're even more truncated than Christgau's. Amusing but useless. Link 'em to a real review!

I try not to make them useless. I think you can be useful in 140 characters! Some of them are more useful than others, but I really am trying to be a conduit for people to do the moderate amount of legwork of visiting a myspace page and making their own decisions.

I sympathize with a lot of what he says there and certainly the historical recap is accurate but .... its a weird defense of elitism, in a way (ie, the masses should be CHALLENGED by the likes of Lady Gaga/Linda Perry? And not by the likes of Fleet Foxes? What's being challenged exactly, and why...?

I just think that everyone should at the very least HEAR Katy Perry and Fleet Foxes and make up their own minds. I think the fact that MTV plays Lady Gaga because they are in the major label's pockets is no stupider a reason to give an artist exposure than NPR playing Fleet Foxes because they're trying to keep up with the Pitchforks of the world. I would love a world where these places hired music dorks to comb through everything and make up their own minds and take chances instead of just following google trends.

is it just that the accepted, underlying agenda of criticism is that they want everyone to be LIKE THEM - with eclectic, wide-ranging tastes? How narcissistic is that? Why should indie fans listen to Lady GaGa? Why should Merle Haggard fans listen to Snoop Dogg? (I like 3 out of those 4 fwiw) Is the underlying point that social divisions between listeners should be flattened out, creating a world where everybody likes everything, where everyone's a dilletante and nobody's an expert...?

I don't think everyone should like everything, but I think that maybe people can be missing a particular pop artist or country artist or even a noise artist that they can connect with in their own way just because it's harder to simply stumble across that stuff now.

Is the underlying point that social divisions between listeners should be flattened out, creating a world where everybody likes everything, where everyone's a dilletante and nobody's an expert...?

I think Whiney's point is not that everybody should LIKE everything but that everybody should BE EXPOSED TO everything.

does the internet (lolz ILM) not count as a place to stumble...?

x-post

I mean that's actually kinda what I like about this place - if I have a fleeting curiosity about the goings-on in the world of black metal, I just go over to the rolling metal thread and sure enough someone knowledgeable there will hip me to some shit (but then I am probably not the kinda listener you're talking about...)

I think Whiney's point is not that everybody should LIKE everything but that everybody should BE EXPOSED TO everything

but... this takes an insane amount of time and effort and most people don't care about music that much.

Yeah, part of me definitely agrees with the argument that the Internet has made it easier for people to find niches, and occasionally that's to the detriment of being exposed to the broader culture, but at the same time, the Internet has also expanded my music tastes by an incredible degree and made it a hell of a lot easier to be a dilettante. For instance, I can keep up with pop music now without even needing to turn on the radio.

I think the fact that MTV plays Lady Gaga because they are in the major label's pockets is no stupider a reason to give an artist exposure than NPR playing Fleet Foxes because they're trying to keep up with the Pitchforks of the world.

this is totally true - the interesting thing to me is that those two audiences (the pop/MTV audience and the NPR audience) seem to have a really deep mutual loathing/distrust of one another, and what are the roots of that and how do their opposing aesthetics play out

x-post

I liked the presentation. Started a little falteringly, but you got into a great swing, and made some excellent points. I want to believe that you can do what you say in 140 characters, but I'm not entirely convinced yet. 100 words, maybe...

Shakes

My speech basically says that the internet sucks as a place to stumble because every music site on it is so targeted to an audience. Being a target because thats easy clicks and manna for advertisers.

I'm NOT dogging the hard-working duders at Stereogum, but there's a reason they get more clicks/ad dollars than a superior (imo) site like Idolator: Sgum is targeted to a niche indie rock audience, and Idolator focuses on the general subject of "music."

Like, in some ways its really NOT okay to like both Fleet Foxes and Lady GaGa - and fans of one or the other will be suspicious/dismissive of you if you do. Similar to all those metal dudes complaining about Thurston Moore's Decibel interview ("FALSE METAL!" lolz)

x-post

I mean, as much as I don't like Fleet Foxes, I would love if MTV played them. And if NPR considered Katy like they would Bela Fleck.

The audiences USED to be opposed to each other for a reason, but now indie rock is just another industry. Like people actually buying into the idea that major-label creation Santigold is some bold swing against pop music. Indie rock is just selling the "I'M REBELLIOUS!" lifestyle back to adults the same way it sold it to kids in the height of Green Day/Offspring mania in the 90s.

I appreciated the sticking up for "because" and exposure to stuff outside your personal tastes, but the NPR-Fleet Foxes thing felt like a pithy tangent. Can't say everyone should pay attention to critics and then bitch that NPR pays attention to critics, who have always pushed middlebrow stuff like that. Still was a fun rant, but just sayin'.

DrownedInSound gets mega clicks because editorial policy re; coverage is (generally) pretty damn specific (I wrote about jazz there once, to be fair), and Sean seems to spend all his time gerrymandering clicks by linking to things on DiS that link to reviews, rather than linking straight to reviews themselves; plus the whole forum structure thing, enabling comments on the reviews-as-threads thing, means you get each person looking at a review 20 times to see what's been said, rather than 20x the amount of people reading. Is the writing good? Some of it. A lot is very average student paper stuff though, and that's the problem.

I wish, in the time I wrote for Stylus and anywhere else online, that I'd made more of an attempt at brevity, definitely.

The audiences USED to be opposed to each other for a reason, but now indie rock is just another industry. Like people actually buying into the idea that major-label creation Santigold is some bold swing against pop music. Indie rock is just selling the "I'M REBELLIOUS!" lifestyle back to adults the same way it sold it to kids in the height of Green Day/Offspring mania in the 90s.

well that is the fuckin truth, no argument there

people actually buying into the idea that major-label creation Santigold is some bold swing against pop music

It does actually boggle my mind that ppl think this, esp. since her whole album is a big sloppy love letter to 80s New Wave pop.

I can see indie rock selling a lifestyle thing, but is it really an "I'M REBELLIOUS!" lifestyle?

In a doofy way. (Thus Away We Go.)

yep. It's 30-year-old Starbucks/IKEA customers fighting against the business suits they have to wear now and thinking they are awesome for it.

its more of an "I AM UNIQUE AND UNCONVENTIONAL" lifestyle

people actually buying into the idea that major-label creation Santigold is some bold swing against pop music

people don't think this, they just like the music, but i understand you need a fucking thesis

oh like you don't shop at IKEA or drink Starbucks

x-post

http://barsupplies.com/images/fat-straws.jpg

you really opened a can of straws with this speech

This is maybe swinging off to a whole other tangent, but my gripe with "things these days" is kind of the opposite of Whiney's -- that people (maybe not everyone but definitely a lot of people) think it's possible to hear everything, or a representative sample of everything, and figure out what the best of everything is in some objective way. I kinda feel like heavy duty music listeners (I just mean people who cop/download new shit on a regular basis, no value judgement here) should be MORE in tune witch exactly what they do or don't like and hone in on it, not go "OK i'm gonna get the BEST rap album and BEST indie album and BEST dance album etc. of the last few months," whether they're getting their idea of best from Pitchfork or word of mouth or whatever. I lke figuring out what's idioscyncratic about my tastes and catering to it by feeding that passion, not just constantly measuring it against hte concensus.

x-post bitching about the superficiality of people's "becauses" while wishing more people would give their "because" is kinda self-defeating. Identity politics being forced on to pop music is what made it popular. If it all really is just another industry then we don't need essays about why this toaster is the best.

waht

its more of an "I AM UNIQUE AND UNCONVENTIONAL" lifestyle

― Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, June 17, 2009 3:33 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yah, this is what i meant.

I had starbucks today actually, lol

It just seems funny to complain about people buying into the "I'M UNIQUE AND UNCONVENTIONAL" products when rock criticism is basically about telling people what is unique and unconventional.

and I don't mean that as a direct knock against Mr. Listening To 1000 Albums This Year, to a certain point I think listening to a shit ton of stuff can be an enriching experience, but even the selection on Whiney's twitter clearly steers toward/away certain music based on his personal tastes.

xpost

identity politics being forced on to pop music is what made it popular.

specifically what do you mean by this

i should say "identity politics being forced on to pop music is basically the only reason rock criticism exists"

btw whiney i don't really have a lot to add here other than i will be bummed when criticism finally kicks it and that your speech was hella entertaining and you delivered it well.

You're reading me wrong, croup

I think "IUAU" is a fine reason to listen to something. The point is that people are sold "I'M UNIQUE AND UNCONVENTIONAL" as a lifestyle brand for music that isn't actually unique nor unconventional.

I mean, I stan for Ipecac and Hydra Head which are pretty much IUAU culture for ex-metalheads

Perhaps it's just me, but doesn't success turn most things that are unique and unconventional into the standard of conformity almost by definition?

I'm reading you right, Whiney. But to complain the sheep think "IUAU" because they bought "IUAU" in the middle of a defense of rock criticism is really self-defeating. Because that's what critics sell.

pepper keenan to thread

I bought an expensive Italian suit today, to try and get myself a better job, so I can earn more money and spend it on records and CD players and designer sofas. I've never even set foot in Starbucks. I think Ikea is some kind of utopian playground compared to most comparably-priced furniture stores. I like Animal Collective and Grizzly Bear and The Field and I think Fleet Foxes have about 4 decent tunes but are too winsome and too obvious. But I also like the "because". I don't give a fuck for IUAU. I give a fuck for quality experiences in my life. Whether that's an Italian suit or British speakers or a better pizza than Pizza Hut can make or drinking Kasteel Cru instead of Fosters or listening to Patrick Wolf instead of Jack Penate.

also whiney you kinda look like a dude i know and it's freaking me out!

Well, shitty critics sell Fleet Foxes as IUAU. I never said all critics are good and worthwhile.

oh ok well tell us who the good ones are and we'll financially support them

feel free to paypal me anytime

I think rock criticism needs to be more scientifically rigorous.

"people actually buying into the idea that major-label creation Santigold is some bold swing against pop music"

Wuh?

they should make CDS like a pregnancy test where good CDs have a blue plus that appears if you pee on them

I think rock criticism needs to be more scientifically rigorous.

yeah like being about MUSIC and close readings of what's actually on the records instead of oh, say, identity politics

it would be cool if rock criticism became more like the blurbs on old jazz records IMO

The problem, though, is that after the advent of Rolling Stone, it seems impossible to talk about music without resorting to identity politics.

rock criticism is basically about telling people what is unique and unconventional

Depends on the rock critic

should say "identity politics being forced on to pop music is basically the only reason rock criticism exists"

― da croupier, Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:44 PM (

Huh? Still don't understand. This is why Creem and Crawdaddy started is what you're saying? And that pop music wouldn't have identity politics if there were not rock critics? Not sure I buy that