Critics: Love 'Em or Hate 'Em?

[Tequila Cowboy]

Four Ways Pop Culture Critics Have Made Themselves Obsolete

The rip on Robert Christgau pretty much invalidated any good points.

[beantownbubba]

Four Ways Pop Culture Critics Have Made Themselves Obsolete

The rip on Robert Christgau pretty much invalidated any good points.

I basically agree w/ this but the link did cause me to check out Christgau's 2013 best of list and related column and boy, the arrogance of it is pretty off-putting. And I say this as a very long-time reader of Christgau so I'm used to a certain amount of generally well-earned arrogance to start with. The difference, I think, is that the boasting and self-referential stuff seems to be motivated by bitterness. It's understandable - his career and ability to make a living has been undermined by forces beyond his control and he's been replaced mostly by idiots who can't carry his turntable, but it's still pretty ugly.

[Tequila Cowboy]

Listen, I get it. Christgau and other critics are inherently arrogant, but see I want them to be. This applies to movies, books, film or what have you. Let me sort out if the arrogance works. The writer of this piece points out a few things correctly and one of those is that there a lot of diverse reasons for folks to read reviews, two of the most prominent are to be entertained and validate opinions. Good writers do entertain and there are so few of them left in the field of artistic criticism that you want to beat them up for arrogance? I expect them to absolute experts in their field and arrogance comes along with that. When I read a review by a good critic I expect to uderstand why they liked something and/or why they didn't. Roger Ebert hated one of my favorite films of all time, Blue Velvet, but he explained his reasons so well that it did not disqualify him as a critic I enjoyed and counted on in most cases. He was a critic that also understood the difference between great films and "popcorn munchers" and graded each on their own merits. I mean you can't call superhero movies great films but it shouldn't discount them from having 4 stars in terms of watchability. He understood that, other critics not so much. I read a review once, can't remember by who, of one of these late period albums by great artists that garner 5 stars and sell in the bazillions that rather than blow smoke up more asses said this "to say that this record even comes close to the masterpieces that comes before is both foolish and laughable, to say that it's fun to see them have some relevance in a time where they shouldn't is honest and something we all can rejoice in". I remember that line even though I can't remember the reviewer or the artist because it was so true. Is that arrogant? Probably, but it also told me something that all the glowing Rolling Stone reviews didn't that no it wasn't great art but it was fun and that should be what counts.

What perplexes me most about this piece is that great reviewers do almost exactly what this guy wants them to do, entertain, know their audience and be realistic and yet he slams them for that. We're dangerously close to a time where there are no great reviewers. Film guys like Siskel, Ebert and others are already gone and in musics guys like Christgau and Robert Fricke are very close to being gone as well. People make fun of Pitchfork but frankly they're some of the most hones music reviewers left, who said you had to agree. Soon all we'll have are young punks that don't understand the field and paid hacks who write what the movie studios and record labels ask them to (read some RS reviews of both movies and albums and then read official press releases, it's almost startling). When we reach that time we'll be begging for the likes of Lester Bangs, or maybe like this kid writes no one will care. That day will be sad.

[Zip City]

I can read "bad" reviews of albums I like and it doesn't bother, so long as the critic has salient points.

That said, I HATE it when a publication decides to have someone review an album by a band that they clearly dislike.

See: Pitchfork's review of the new Black Keys album.

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/193 ... turn-blue/

Presumably Pitchfork has a staff of writers to choose from, so why assign this album to this reviewer? I know that Pitchfork is the hipsteriest hipster site on the planet, so they'll get more page-views by trashing a popular band than praising them, but for whatever reason, this particular review struck a nerve

[Tequila Cowboy]

I can read "bad" reviews of albums I like and it doesn't bother, so long as the critic has salient points.

That said, I HATE it when a publication decides to have someone review an album by a band that they clearly dislike.

See: Pitchfork's review of the new Black Keys album.

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/193 ... turn-blue/

Presumably Pitchfork has a staff of writers to choose from, so why assign this album to this reviewer? I know that Pitchfork is the hipsteriest hipster site on the planet, so they'll get more page-views by trashing a popular band than praising them, but for whatever reason, this particular review struck a nerve

Actually I thought it was a very well written review and made a lot of really good points about the band. That said, you are correct, it's clear that the reviewer has little use for them and that even a herculean effort resulting in a widely regarded masterpiece would have had a tough go at getting to 7.0 on the Pitchfork scale. I go back and forth on whether I think reviews should be written by sympathetic ears or whether they should be reviewed by the harshest of critics. It really is a tough call. With all teh DBT reviews the only negative reviews I really objected to were the ones that got facts wrong. I don't know enough about The Black Keys to know if that's the case here but I'll be honest, after Brothers and El Camino I wouldn't have thought I would be interested in listening to anymore from Aurbach and company but after reading this I'm really curious to hear it and see if he's right about any of what he wrote.

[Zip City]

I can read "bad" reviews of albums I like and it doesn't bother, so long as the critic has salient points.

That said, I HATE it when a publication decides to have someone review an album by a band that they clearly dislike.

See: Pitchfork's review of the new Black Keys album.

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/193 ... turn-blue/

Presumably Pitchfork has a staff of writers to choose from, so why assign this album to this reviewer? I know that Pitchfork is the hipsteriest hipster site on the planet, so they'll get more page-views by trashing a popular band than praising them, but for whatever reason, this particular review struck a nerve

Actually I thought it was a very well written review and made a lot of really good points about the band. That said, you are correct, it's clear that the reviewer has little use for them and that even a herculean effort resulting in a widely regarded masterpiece would have had a tough go at getting to 7.0 on the Pitchfork scale. I go back and forth on whether I think reviews should be written by sympathetic ears or whether they should be reviewed by the harshest of critics. It really is a tough call. With all teh DBT reviews the only negative reviews I really objected to were the ones that got facts wrong. I don't know enough about The Black Keys to know if that's the case here but I'll be honest, after Brothers and El Camino I wouldn't have thought I would be interested in listening to anymore from Aurbach and company but after reading this I'm really curious to hear it and see if he's right about any of what he wrote.

I read the review before listening to the album, and he does have some good points. I just think the scale is skewed, because he'd probably give the best Keys album a 6.8.

[Tequila Cowboy]

I read the review before listening to the album, and he does have some good points. I just think the scale is skewed, because he'd probably give the best Keys album a 6.8.

Agreed which is why I said this:

it's clear that the reviewer has little use for them and that even a herculean effort resulting in a widely regarded masterpiece would have had a tough go at getting to 7.0 on the Pitchfork scale

Again I guess my only point is that is that a good thing or a bad thing? Clearly for a band, or those that want to see them do well, it's a bad thing but is it bad for a consumer? If a consumer reads a review written by a fan of the band and then is disappointed is that a good thing or is it better to read an extremely tough review from someone who is clearly outside the fan circle and then be pleasantly surprised? I think that's a tough question.

[Zip City]

by contrast, Rolling Stone gave the same album 4.5/5 stars, where the reality is the album falls somewhere in the middle (3 or 3.5 stars on RS' scale, 6.7-7.3 on P4k's)

[tinnitus photography]

I can read "bad" reviews of albums I like and it doesn't bother, so long as the critic has salient points.

That said, I HATE it when a publication decides to have someone review an album by a band that they clearly dislike.

See: Pitchfork's review of the new Black Keys album.

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/193 ... turn-blue/

Presumably Pitchfork has a staff of writers to choose from, so why assign this album to this reviewer? I know that Pitchfork is the hipsteriest hipster site on the planet, so they'll get more page-views by trashing a popular band than praising them, but for whatever reason, this particular review struck a nerve

Actually I thought it was a very well written review and made a lot of really good points about the band. That said, you are correct, it's clear that the reviewer has little use for them and that even a herculean effort resulting in a widely regarded masterpiece would have had a tough go at getting to 7.0 on the Pitchfork scale. I go back and forth on whether I think reviews should be written by sympathetic ears or whether they should be reviewed by the harshest of critics. It really is a tough call. With all teh DBT reviews the only negative reviews I really objected to were the ones that got facts wrong. I don't know enough about The Black Keys to know if that's the case here but I'll be honest, after Brothers and El Camino I wouldn't have thought I would be interested in listening to anymore from Aurbach and company but after reading this I'm really curious to hear it and see if he's right about any of what he wrote.

I read the review before listening to the album, and he does have some good points. I just think the scale is skewed, because he'd probably give the best Keys album a 6.8.

maybe that's all it deserves.

[Kudzu Guillotine]

With all teh DBT reviews the only negative reviews I really objected to were the ones that got facts wrong.

Not a review so this belongs more in the current state of music journalism category but when this interview with Rickey Medlocke first went online, they got Hughie Thomasson's last name wrong and referred to Johnny Colt (ex-Black Crowes) as Artimus Pyle in the photo accompanying the article. They still haven't corrected the spelling of Van Zant (which they spelled "Van Zandt"). I'm honestly surprised they were able to spell Lynyrd Skynyrd correctly.

[Zip City]

P4k likes jimmyjack's latest effort a bit more

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/193 ... rs-corner/

[beantownbubba]

I think the 3 reviews from the Ireland and UK shows linkous posted today are interesting in the context of this discussion. All seemed to be written by reasonably well-informed, tasteful music fans (well, possibly excluding the one who said that Brad was new to the band) who were not especially DBT fans. The reviews were positive and, at least to one who wasn't there, seemed to hit on the high points. But I think they sounded a lot different than they would have sounded coming from uber fans like folks on this board and the reviews were better for it even if there probably would have been a lot more detail in a fan-written review.

[Kudzu Guillotine]

It’s Only Rock’n’Roll, But They Like It: New Books from Robert Christgau and Jessica Hopper


Jessica Hopper, senior editor of the online music magazine Pitchfork
Photo by David Sampson

[Kudzu Guillotine]

Daily Newspapers Need Music Writers Now More Than Ever
With a batch of high-profile music writer layoffs, 'tastemaking' loses its force


Finally. The first pressing of Beyoncé’s “Crazy In Love” single.

[Zip City]

I've gotten to the point where I kind of hate-read Pitchfork reviews now. The latest on the new Decemberists EP is so wrought with contradictions that it makes my head spin. It basically says that past albums were too conceptual, so the problem with the new album and EP is that they aren't conceptual enough.

[RolanK]

I've gotten to the point where I kind of hate-read Pitchfork reviews now. The latest on the new Decemberists EP is so wrought with contradictions that it makes my head spin. It basically says that past albums were too conceptual, so the problem with the new album and EP is that they aren't conceptual enough.

Old one, but pretty spot on (and humorous) Pitchfork Gives Music 6.8

[Tequila Cowboy]

I've gotten to the point where I kind of hate-read Pitchfork reviews now. The latest on the new Decemberists EP is so wrought with contradictions that it makes my head spin. It basically says that past albums were too conceptual, so the problem with the new album and EP is that they aren't conceptual enough.

I agree that sometimes they're bad but they do have a few good writers, Stephen Duesner comes to mind, and I think when they aren't over the top ripping a record they are right more than they are wrong.

[Markalanbishop]

What could possibly go wrong
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/busin ... .html?_r=0

[Zip City]

I know, I know, it's a reader poll, but it goes to show that we're no better critics than the pros

[Smitty]

I know, I know, it's a reader poll, but it goes to show that we're no better critics than the pros

I don't know which poll result is worse.
Sorry, I can't fathom how any album by Weezer could even be remotely close to even the top 50 albums of all time, and I dig Weezer alright.

[Tequila Cowboy]

I don't know which poll result is worse.
Sorry, I can't fathom how any album by Weezer could even be remotely close to even the top 50 albums of all time, and I dig Weezer alright.

Yep, was thinking the same thing.

[Kudzu Guillotine]

Michael Azerrad Does Not Care for This Horrible Music Writing You Rock Critics Crank Out


Richard Mia

[Kudzu Guillotine]

THE CRITIC WHO CONVINCED ME THAT CRITICISM COULD BE ART


Greg Tate’s best paragraphs throb like a party and chatter like a salon; they’re jam-packed with names and references that shouldn’t get along but do.
PHOTOGRAPH BY JANETTE BECKMAN / GETTY

[Kudzu Guillotine]

One of the First Female Rock Critics Battled Sexism and Obscurity To Document the 1970s
Willis was The New Yorker’s first pop music critic, but to her, everything was open for criticism


Ellen Willis in upstate New York in 1970
(Courtesy Nona Willis Aronowitz and University of Minnesota Press, publisher of The Essential Ellen Willis)

[Kudzu Guillotine]

Curtains fall on arts critics at newspapers

[Swamp]

"Gold" critics says it sucks, I'll probably go see it.

[Kudzu Guillotine]

From The Guardian:
What crisis? Why music journalism is actually healthier than ever

[beantownbubba]

Hey, KG.

Really surprised that I didn't comment on the Ellen Willis piece above. She was a terrific writer about rock, politics and feminism, separately and together.

Obviously, the Guardian piece is focused on the UK but my sense is that the dynamic is the same here on the specialization aspect but much different on the web v. print thing. Seems like almost everything here is at least web based if not web only. I don't know anything about profitability, but would be curious if anybody has any info on that.

[Kudzu Guillotine]

Hey, KG.

Really surprised that I didn't comment on the Ellen Willis piece above. She was a terrific writer about rock, politics and feminism, separately and together.

Are you familiar with Jessica Hopper (also mentioned upthread)? I've heard good things about her new book Night Moves that's set in Chicago.
https://utpress.utexas.edu/books/hopper-night-moves

Obviously, the Guardian piece is focused on the UK but my sense is that the dynamic is the same here on the specialization aspect but much different on the web v. print thing. Seems like almost everything here is at least web based if not web only. I don't know anything about profitability, but would be curious if anybody has any info on that.

While I'm sure I get the majority of my music news via the web, it's UK magazines like Mojo and Uncut that I read most often.