IS ROCK CRITICISM DEAD?

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

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 the concensus.

― the cult of radio killa (some dude), Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:38 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark

^^ there's totally a whole OTHER clusterfuck thread in this

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

― m coleman, Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:54 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I meant like not getting to make shit up and having to back assertions with verifiable data.

I think croupier's onto something tbh

Depends on the rock critic

What critic thinks the music they enjoy is common and conventional? That would be an impressively self-aware conservative critic.

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?

Music would have identity politics, but rock criticism basically started so people could say what they got out of pop music, which more often than not has to do with identity politics than a mere an appreciation of craft. There's a reason we care about one type and not the other.

one type of music and not another, I should clarify.

"people could say what they got out of pop music, which more often than not has to do with identity politics than a mere an appreciation of craft"

mmm yes/no

part of the problem with the whole 'music critics should use actual musical vocabulary' thing is that so much of the appeal of pop music even qua music is textural — there's not really a technical vocabulary to talk about how one THWOOMP noise is more interesting than another THWOOMP noise

"that people (maybe not everyone but definitely a lot of people) think it's possible to hear everything, or a representative sample of everything"

There've always been people like this. Folks who just buy the four star albums in record guides or whatever. I don't think it's any worse than it's ever been.

well, you know, "buy"

What critic thinks the music they enjoy is common and conventional? That would be an impressively self-aware conservative critic.

When I wanted to be a music writer, it was because I kept stumbling across stuff that wasn't that far removed from the mainstream but appeared to not have cracked it that I enjoyed a lot more than what was being played on the radio; my entire MO was "hey, you like A, why don't you like B and C as well?" and the not-at-all-subtle aim was to attempt to shift mainstream radio such that I could listen to it and be entertained. Shortly after this, modern rock stations started appearing that also had dance music and industrial blocks and I shut up.

part of the problem with the whole 'music critics should use actual musical vocabulary' thing is that so much of the appeal of pop music even qua music is textural — there's not really a technical vocabulary to talk about how one THWOOMP noise is more interesting than another THWOOMP noise

You can talk about reverb/distortion/filters, though, not necessarily in specific detail but at least in acknowledgment of the fact that a production choice resulted in manipulating a piece of technology to get that sound.

xp That seems like its a different complaint.

you really opened a can of straws with this speech

― Bitchtime Producto (M@tt He1ges0n), Wednesday, June 17, 2009 12:37 PM (23 minutes ago) Bookmark

lollllllllll

rock criticism basically started so people could say what they got out of pop music, which more often than not has to do with identity politics than a mere an appreciation of craft. There's a reason we care about one type and not the other.

imagine reviewing books where the critic didn't discuss the text and instead focused on how his/her impressions of the author squared with some politicized sense of identity. don't know about you but I wouldn't want to read that. isn't pop music MUSIC at its core? why can't listeners -- or critics -- be responding to music when they like a pop song?

x-post to Da Croupier-

I was reading your use of "unconventional" as asserting that all critics want to write about stuff that is avante-garde or atonal, and not stuff that sells to millions of people. But that's not what you meant I see.

"part of the problem with the whole 'music critics should use actual musical vocabulary' thing"

And the other part of the problem is that most readers of music criticism aren't terribly musically literate themselves. . .

Music would have identity politics, but rock criticism basically started so people could say what they got out of pop music, which more often than not has to do with identity politics than a mere an appreciation of craft. There's a reason we care about one type and not the other.

this is totally true but it kinda predates rock (cf black music being authentic/white music being fake)

x-post

why can't listeners -- or critics -- be responding to music when they like a pop song?

lolz are you kidding - music is a lifestyle accessory for the vast VAST majority of listeners

this is why I quit writing about music kthxbye

imagine reviewing books where the critic didn't discuss the text and instead focused on how his/her impressions of the author squared with some politicized sense of identity. don't know about you but I wouldn't want to read that. isn't pop music MUSIC at its core? why can't listeners -- or critics -- be responding to music when they like a pop song?

you're really overstating the case here. I think like-minded people can agree on what's "good" or "bad" based on close readings and an understanding of craft, but when talk about what's "great" we usually bring personal values in. And an appreciation of craft alone isn't usually what drives people to be evangelical about art.

You can talk about reverb/distortion/filters, though, not necessarily in specific detail but at least in acknowledgment of the fact that a production choice resulted in manipulating a piece of technology to get that sound.

― HIS VAGINA IS MAKING HIM CRAVE SALAD. (HI DERE)

which, you know, people do. -- i mean, it's not like most people completely avoid that, although i do wish hand-wavey terms like 'psychedelic guitar tones' or whatever would go away. btw you are totally the poster that comes to mind when ppl on this board mention the idea that pop music critics ought to talk about how the technical factors of how music works and stuff

"imagine reviewing books where the critic didn't discuss the text and instead focused on how his/her impressions of the author squared with some politicized sense of identity"

what, like in . . . book reviews?

btw the issues of responding to (and writing about) music qua music and not as 'lifestyle accessory' or 'identity politics' (are these two on a sliding scale or what?) are totally valid ones, if wgw's speech were a week-long seminar, and not a ten minute speech attempting to limn some particular problems in fairly light-hearted fashion

oh also:

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.

― Sickamous Mouthall (Scik Mouthy), Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:48 PM (27 minutes ago) Bookmark

^^ someone copy-paste the phil collins / huey lewis bits from american psycho here plz

why can't listeners -- or critics -- be responding to music when they like a pop song?

lolz are you kidding - music is a lifestyle accessory for the vast VAST majority of listeners

― Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, June 17, 2009 4:09 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

real talk you are a depressing motherfucker

I don't feel depressing

seriously dude that's like saying "most people don't actually have ears they just grab the CD with the same cover everyone else has"

Yeah I don't think it's true for even a vast majority of listeners let alone a vast VAST one.

It's a pretty condescending viewpoint IMO, both to the audience and the artists.

i liked your speech whiney! you're a good speaker. i kept hoping you'd throw us a bone and say something like "listeners today are drowning in a deluge of choices!"

yeah i mean for every like brad paisley or rhianna there's like a zillion country singers or R&B singers that are totally trying to do the same thing but totally fail, and are trying to be just as "commercial" or whatever, so it's not like ppl just fall for anything that's handed them

of course, we also don't have a technical vocabulary for aesthetic appreciation

Shakey's right though. Condescension isn't really very depressing.

i mean, rather than 'music is something most people who listen to music are only into as a lifestyle accessory' maybe read 'a lot of people are genuinely engaged with the music they like, but in a way that some other people might read as being naive and self-regarding'

maybe I'm just a jerk (entirely possible) but the average non-music-dorks in my life spend at most less than a few minutes a day thinking/talking/searching out music. Yes, they do mostly take what's handed to them - they find some outlet they like and they take whatever comes out of that outlet (ie, NPR or 106 and Park, same diff)

spare me the faux populist routine guys

I don't think that consuming music in a reactionary manner means you don't like music and that you don't have opinions about it.

wow if people are just buying everything they hear on NPR or 106 and Park it's amazing the music industry is doing poorly

most of the people I know who don't spend a lot of time thinking about or seeking out music still have some kind of visceral engagement with the music they do like -- think the chorus is catchy, find the lyrics deep, like dancing to the beat, love the singer's voice, etc. i guess you could say their enjoyment is less valid or 'earned' or something because they bought less than 12 CDs last year but saying their enthusiasm is less sincere or more tied to lifestyle or social status is mostly bullshit imo.

So you think people go around saying I've chosen an NPR lifestyle or a Hot 97 lifestyle and therefore I have to listen to such songs that have been "handed" to me? Where and how would you have people expose themselves to music and decide which songs they like or don't like, or are you not being critical of people's chosen outlets?

if they were listening critically on some level then there would be no big huge, zillion dollar marketed albums by big artists that ever flop, and that happens all the time

wow if people are just buying everything they hear on NPR or 106 and Park it's amazing the music industry is doing poorly

lolz note I didn't use the word "buy" anywhere

so if your tastes aren't eclectic enough to have you scouring the radio dial, music is just a "lifestyle accessory" to you