worst review for you

If so, is it because of knowing how wrong a certain reviewer had been in the past?

That was embarrassing and just plain bad!
*cringe*

This one's my favorite.

'Eating white man's food is ignoring the existence of black man's food, and therefore, black people, completely. That’s not very nice as far as I’m concerned. When I encounter white food fans (and there are an alarming number of them), I can’t help but think that that’s part of the attraction: this is the food of unabashed, preppified Anglo–saxondom, something not-so-common in our Tex-Mex dominated and increasingly ethnic world.'

(I know how wrong this is and I know hardly anything about Radiohead)

>> There’s a track on Kid A, “How To Disappear Completely”, which is like Nick Drake singing on one of ELP’s acoustic numbers, but with Beatlesque string flourishes. There is absolutely nothing about listening to this music that makes me feel like I’m living in the 21st Century. Destiny’s Child sounds more modern to me than Radiohead.<

>>Kid A has recently been called, as the TV commercials morbidly announce, a “post-rock masterpiece”. What the fuck is that? I thought critics got that shit out of their systems when Pavement blew them wet indie farts throughout the early nineties. And if this is the stuff of which great pop is made, where’s the praise and ass kissing for Monster Magnet, or Rush for that matter? As prog goes, nothing Radiohead has done could even touch “Tom Sawyer”,<<

>>I don’t understand how something can be considered “post-rock artistry” when it ignores the existence of anything else going on in music other than itself.<<

>>In the early seventies groups like Pink Floyd, Yes, and ELP used many of the same devices seen some 30 years later on Kid A: freaky, repetitive ARP-like synths, dreamy reverb-soaked soundscapes, long, exploratory intros; all out of some Sherwood forest fantasy or something. But there’s a glaring difference between the aforementioned and our subject – Radiohead has no groove,<<

>>British rock once provided us with the fattest head bobbing beats, ever (Bonham, Moon, Bonham), yet its current torchbearer appears far too hip to present any song in the human-friendly 4/4 time signature.<

>Yeah, Thom Yorke has a nice voice - so the hell what? He’s an Oxford-choirboy pussy carrying on about bullshit, over bullshit.<

>>this is music of unabashed, preppified Anglo–saxondom, something not-so-common in our Hip-Hop dominated and increasingly ethnic world.<

(Also, I doubt "our world" is any more "ethnic," whatever that means, than it's ever been. So yeah, the guy needs a good editor. But still.)

Wouldn't this be an issue if the band specifically talked about it, ie otherwise made it a specific dare? Otherwise the argument isn't about the band so much as it is the band's defenders who might specifically invoke that trope, which while no less legitimate a target perhaps means that this really isn't a criticism of Radiohead anymore.

As it is, I find this type of approach implicitly lazy, or at least begs a question of, "Well, okay, do you specifically search through everything you ever do, enjoy, participate in as being in a 21st century context, are you modern to all extremes and do you complain about everything and anything that isn't?" The only person I could think of that even tries to do that is Momus and even that's meant to be a conceptual game in part -- it's not like people don't talk to him face to face, for a start. ;-)

The whole 'ethnic' argument, meanwhile, is one of those cases where a good point ('there's a lot out there to potentially enjoy and love beyond what's heard here') is coupled with an implicitly nasty supposition about what the band's fanbase thinks like/consists of, and says a hell of a lot more about the reviewer than the band. It reminds me of similar complaints about the Smiths twenty years back, which in light of Morrissey's massive Latino fanbase here in SoCal these days demonstrates how radical assumptions about what a kind of music is 'supposed' to reflect/engage with don't always work. A more recent example -- I swear that the crowd at the Iron Maiden show a few weeks back was not only pretty young but noticeably Latino as well. The reviewer would seem to have all these folks solely listening to hip-hop and 'ethnic' music in turn, or would rather complain that Maiden doesn't reflect that reality either -- and it doesn't. But try telling that to the fans cheering along like crazy, yes?

Well, yeah, that occurred to me, too - Again, the playing of the race card is easily the worst part of the review. Yesterday, on a different thread, I posted the following:

"Judging from Pazz and Jop ballots (and this is really generalizing, I admit), hip hop critics tend to have HORRIBLE taste in rock music: If I remember right, in the past couple years, there were several scattered ballots with all hip-hop albums except for like, one token U2 or Radiohead or Coldplay or (especially) Fiona Apple album. Given the rhythmic ineptness of all four of those acts, I'm totally stumped. Though if I thought about it a lot, I bet I could come up with a theory. (And yeah, for Radiohead it's probably the "sonic" whatever of the production sound effects. Not that I give a shit.)"

So to assume that hip-hop fans and black people in general couldn't stomach Radiohead is just plain wrong; many love the band. But that still doesn't negate what the reviewer says about the band's *music*, and even about what said music's lack of black influence might mean to *certain listeners.* (I remember people on this board getting pissed off when Christgau wrote something similar about Radiohead's lack of black influence in his recent Radiohead essay in the Voice. But Bon was right. Radiohead's music DOES sound extremely white. And some people DO find such music safe in a time of hip-hop. And a lot of these people seem to like Britpop, which is right up there with alt-country and '90s indie rock as one of the most rhythmically rigid and timid-sounding musics of recent decades. But yeah, it's possible to overgeneralize such things. I don't necessarily even think "disco sucks" was a racist or homophobic movement, when you get down to it --and not just 'cause lotsa disco-sucksters like Thin Lizzy and Queen. And I like lotsa Scandinavian gothic metal, which is probably even whiter than Radiohead. And so was lots of L.A. hardcore, and so on.)

And so was Bob. (Actually, I doubt Bon Scott ever voiced an opinion about Radiohead. But I do know that Angus Young told me once that he didn't understand Metallica because they sounded like an opera, and didn't have any blues in them. And besides, AC/DC were a disco band.)

"There is absolutely nothing about listening to this music that makes me feel like I’m living in the 21st Century. Destiny’s Child sounds more modern to me than Radiohead." I don't need any reminders that I live in the 21st century. I do know that for four dollars, you can get me to listen to a Destiny's Child song....once.

"Radiohead has no groove" - newsflash....Radiohead ain't Bohannon. I know that and I ain't nevered really heard them.

"He’s an Oxford-choirboy pussy carrying on about bullshit, over bullshit." So is Lemmy. It's just he's a really bad Oxford-choirboy pussy.

"this is music of unabashed, preppified Anglo–saxondom, something not-so-common in our Hip-Hop dominated and increasingly ethnic world."
Read: "I prefer different poses."

It is at base a tangled issue but I think it's one where if you can draw the distinctions between fans and bands and methods of reception then there's many interesting cases to be made. Mr. Xgau was right I suppose but then it becomes less about the criticism and more how it's received and interpreted in Our Theoretically Great Country (and beyond -- well, actually that's a great question for you, Chuck; given the web and all these days who do you see your primary audience as? New York readers of the Voice or music fans worldwide?).

You honestly think they aren't all huge jazz freaks? That they actually choose Krautrock over jazz, because it's white? That's so incredibly bizarre and cynical and blinkered that I don't know where to begin.

It is possible to listen to both. They're music fans, they have wide tastes just like anyone else.

But that stuff tends to be further down my list of likes. If Radiohead is near the TOP of your list, then you have to deal with cherishing groovelessness. And you can't wave it away by saying "I'm sure some of their favorite records are funky."

I hear a lot of hip hop in Radiohead's music. *shrug*

I can wave it away if the implication is that their music is grooveless on the basis of racism in their record collections.

Oh, fine -- let's just say "acknowledge -- with whatever implications or lack of them you so desire."

Now let's get on to the much more fascinating concept of where all this "jazz" is that supposedly soaks recent Radiohead. Specifics?

Now...not saying all those are ripoffs, just a bit obviously influenced by the artists/pieces mentioned. And whether you think they're successful ventures or not, they're quite obviously jazz-influenced.

Glad you can hear it.

But, if you pull influences back far enough, you get into classical-conservatory. Fully pre-rock. Pop as practiced before Der Bingle. Now, classical-romanticism influences in Radiohead I can hear.

Does this guy see more influences from African-American musics in Pavement?

Britpop, alt-country and 90s indie rock are timd for sure and I have no love for any of them, but surely the most rhythmically rigid would have to be that which uses digital drums, like Hip Hop, RnB or Industrial (some of which I love).
What do you mean by rhythmically rigid?

I mean, even Radiohead's "groove", when they have one, insamuch as they have one, seems stolen from Aryans -- namely, Can (who, okay, may well have had brown eyes and dark hair, I really don't remember. And I have a feeling they stole some of *their* groove from Miles.)
-- chuck (cedd...), September 18th, 2003.

Some of them had brown eyes and dark hair, but more to the point, one of them was black and another Japanese.

Insert sophitry:
Black people have a weak sense of rhythm, and the Japanese are just as bad.

(Artie-the-producer voice) Good comeback!(/Artie-the-producer voice) Is this part of the smart defenses I was hearing about? (Now that IS condescending.)

Of course, none of that makes any difference to how the old albums sound now (and btw I think they’re if anything a bit undervalued these days), but since the heavy hand of lit and film themes now lies on Springsteen’s work for real, you gotta wonder if it was such a good idea to bring them up so early.

As for the ostensible topic of this discussion, I think the decision goes in the review’s favor. Since this immediately became a pro-and-con about Radiohead (and related themes) and not a debate about good and bad reviews, people obviously understood the review’s points and had strong reactions to them. And if that’s the case, it cannot be one of the all-time terribles.

There’s nothing interesting about a discussion where “worst” reviews are ones that somebody simply finds wrong, wrong, wrong (and snotty to boot).

Which came first, the beat or the rhyme?

on the springsteen tip tho, he WUZ lyrically avant-gardist in the old-school modernist sense, and hardly revivalist in that sense. I mean going back to his earlier records what struck me was how NOT "rock" they were compared to what i'd stupidly expected.

Bullshit. I don't HEAR Missy or Timbaland or Neptunes or jazz in Radiohead's beat; I don't CARE what they SAY they like. What I hear is Kraut-rock, if I hear anything at all. And usually I hear nothing.

This comment is insane.

Or maybe its referring to the fact that groveless stuff might be easier to write interestingly abt.

I forgot about the black guy in Can, but yeah, Damo Suzuki was hardly Aryan. I dunno, maybe Radiohead should listen to Yellow Magic Orchestra more, too. (By the way, I *like* Can, despite the fact that they never really figured out how to do Miles Davis rhythm. I'm actually a *fan* of Kraut-rock stiffness -- and given Kraftwerk's influence on lots of hip-hop, so were lots of hip-hoppers. Some of whom said the funklessness ultimately made them *more* funky. Which, who know, might be what some hip-hoppers hear in Radiohead, too. But I don't. To me Radiohead sound mostly like elevator background wash , often *pretty* background wash -- and at least in "Creep," pretty background wash with an actual song attached. Pleasant, usually. But I've never felt challenged by them in any way, and they've never moved *my* body. That doesn't mean they move nobody's body (though I can't remember anybody ever dancing to them.) (And oh yeah, by "rhythmically rigid" I mean alt-country and '90s indie "rock" and Brit-pop usually don't move, they don't swing, they don't dance, they don't push, they just stand there and twiddle their thumbs.)

I DID ask for the worst reviews "for you" (ie. the ones that were furthest off the mark IN YOUR OPINION").

And I guess there's only three of them, at most.

>the ones that were furthest off the mark

Oh, ok. Well, to me, "far off the mark" does not mean "bad" in reviews. Incoherent, poorly reasoned, ignorant, dishonest -- those make for "worst" candidates.

true but i think its more of a challenge.

another one that somehow never showed up was my comment to michaelangelo about how the line "He’s an Oxford-choirboy pussy", at least in the context of a review complaining about radiohead's lack of African American influence, IS making precisely the same point that xgau made about Thom Yorke's voice (albeit, yeah, in a more "baiting" way, and seemingly one touching on class distinctions, but so what? why is baiting necessarily bad, and how does it negate the points being made? xgau, sometimes, should bait people in his writing MORE. when he does, he can be really fun!)

i've never understand why people think writing about words is easier than writing about music. but a lot of people apparently DO think that. in general, it's best for those people not to be music critics.

Review the last two, three years of ILx to see how baiting can become bad all too quickly.

Personally, the main reason why I read reviews are to find out about all that great music I feel is out there, but don't yet know about. It might be true that an "incoherent, poorly reasoned, ignorant, dishonest" review doesn't help me find it, but a well-written, coherent, well reasoned, honest review can still steer me wrong. Some of yous who wrote in this thread are very articulate, and may be better than some at winning an argument (at least in their own minds), but how does that help me in my quest.
Actually, the original review that I posted is (I feel) poorly reasoned and ignorant. But is the reviewer more off the mark because they like different music than I do???

Would somebody play "Idioteque" for Chuck so that he can shut up about a lack of obvious groove? No one has yet to explain to me why Radiohead's music so clearly cries out for some "blackness."

Chuck, are their artists you would claim aren't white enough?

p.s.) I also like POLKA quite a bit, btw. and polka isn't black at all, as far as i know (and in fact, evidence suggests that mexico stole its beat when polish people brought accordions to southern texas.) But polka has more propulsive dancebeats than radiohead (who i also ACKNOWLEDGED have some semblance a groove, now and then.)

I never said that either, by the way.

On the other hand, to deny there's a connection between the two is kind of silly.

How 'bout that local sports team???

(which I'm not saying you are, Chuck)

'Cause is the problem not being being black enough, or not pretending to be, or not pretending well enough to be, or ...?

(which I think you touch on above)

keep the revelations coming anthony.

(Seriously: What's there to prove? I thought they put on a really good show when I saw them a year or two ago. The guitarist produced some really interesting textures and the singer has a very powerful and distinctive voice with a lot of dynamics. Their first record is inconsistent and I ended up selling it but it still had some great songs - esp "I Walk Alone" - and they've done some really pretty and some really intense things otherwise, though I don't own any other records. And I'm not someone who's even normally a big fan of lo-fi or singer-songwriter aesthetics.)