Why to you folks seem to dislike the ones who makes a living writing about music?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I've noticed that the music writers who get dissed here the most--DeRogatis, Klosterman, Hilburn, Christgau, etc.--are also the ones with the sweetest gigs. Hmmm. Jealous much?

― wank, Thursday, 19 February 2004 15:59 (twenty-two years ago)

The music writers who get dissed here the most are also the ones with the shittiest taste. Think much?

― Nate in ST.P (natedetritus), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think it's jealousy. I think there's a general sense that writing about music as a professoin is sort've a silly thing to do.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:05 (twenty-two years ago)

um, yeah, Christgau gets tons of love on this board.

― chris herrington (chris herrington), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Erm, except for Xgau I've never heard of those guys. I reserve my ire for Mark Beaumont.

― Enrique (Enrique), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Why is it silly? People write about all kinds of things.

― wank, Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:06 (twenty-two years ago)

I hate all you music writers equally, even the ones I like

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Wank is actually Hilburn lurking, isn't it?

WRT Hilburn in particular -- to be sure, I wouldn't mind his job. If it meant writing like the dullard clodhopper he is in order to get and keep that job in the first place, then fucking fuck fuck.

Friend ML Compton told me a story about how back in the seventies he did have something going for him but his moment of truth was when he enthusiastically raved about an upcoming Throbbing Gristle show (!). Various fashionistas and pillars of the community showed up and were nonplussed at the racket, and word got back to Hilburn that if he tried something like that again, he'd be out on his ear. He has since turned into the 'stay the course, upset nobody, repeat the platitudes' mofo that he is today, decades worth of fishwrap.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Why is it silly? People write about all kinds of things.

True, but the world doesn't really need music writers, y'know? Not that you have to have a job that saves lives and betters the world, but writing about music for a living (and, by the way, for a long time period, writing about music was my only way of making a living) is a needless sorta job.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:09 (twenty-two years ago)

I think there's a general sense that writing about music as a professoin is sort've a silly thing to do.

sillier than posting to ILM all day and night? :)

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Heh heh, nice one

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Alex in NYC OTM

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:13 (twenty-two years ago)

sillier than posting to ILM all day and night? :)

Well, ILM doesn't pay a thin red dime, so no.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Alex, maybe you're just projecting your own bitterness about your former life.

― Tabitha Soren's Nipple, Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:16 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm not bitter about it. I'm merely trying to answer the question above. I had a great time doing it (and I still write about music in a freelance capacity on the side). It's a lot of fun.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:17 (twenty-two years ago)

I find it hard to resist taking pot-shots at the big mahoffs. I'm not an aspiring music writer, so I don't think it's genuinely jealousy. (I think if I ever learn Spanish I might be interesting in covering Latin music though.) Anyway, I try to restrain myself because driving away famous or semi-famous writers pisses people off (and I admit it's kind of fun to have recognized names on the board) and arguing with professional critics is usually a losing battle, at least when it comes to factual issues. Also, it makes you look like one of those microscopic dogs that has to bark at every golden retriever.

I've never especially liked most rock journalism that I've read, long before coming to ILM.

― Rockist Scientist, Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:32 (twenty-two years ago)

with professional critics is usually a losing battle, at least when it comes to factual issues

Not true

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Writing about music is as necessary as listening to it

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:34 (twenty-two years ago)

(i mean you get paid to do both technically)

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:35 (twenty-two years ago)

It's also sort've a limited run. It's hard to remain credible and "an authority" as a music journalist after you pass a certain point/age. You can't stay hip or in the know forever.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:35 (twenty-two years ago)

that's true of musicians also Alex - i feel like defending hacks today...

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Not true if you really know your subject in depth, but I would be careful in choosing what to argue over.

― Rockist Scientist, Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Of course, but none of the music writers I've ever known have ever been especially knowledgeable

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:40 (twenty-two years ago)

It's hard to remain credible and "an authority" as a music journalist after you pass a certain point/age. You can't stay hip or in the know forever.

i know that's a widely held belief, and i see the point to an extent myself, but i wonder WHY that's so for music critics but not for, say, movie critics or TV critics. no one automatically questions a 55-year-old taking his or her seat at a screening of the new ashton kutcher movie, do they?

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, they bloody should. Film critics dry up too. Obviously there are talented film writers of all ages -- but weekly reviewing should not be a long-term job for obvious reasons.

― ENRQ (Enrique), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:42 (twenty-two years ago)

I think it's slightly more respectable to be a film critic than a music critic because it's easier to quantify the merits of a film than it is the merits of music (the appreciation of which is a much more amorophous, relative thing).

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:43 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think it's jealousy. I think there's a general sense that writing about music as a professoin is sort've a silly thing to do.
Is that the woman in you talking? (just kidding!)

― nathalie (nathalie), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I wanna be a wine critic. Like the guy whose bio I posted on another one of these "what's the use of critics" threads who is listed as a professional Bon Vivant.

― My Huckleberry Friend (Horace Mann), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:45 (twenty-two years ago)

why do you think its more amorphous or relative?

― stevie (stevie), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:47 (twenty-two years ago)

However, you could write volumes about why I shouldn't like, say, "Live Wire" by Motley Crue, but if I've heard it and it connected with me in that indefinable way that music affects a listener, then there's nothing you can really do to alter or erase that impression or appreciation.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I love movies with visible boom!

― My Huckleberry Friend (Horace Mann), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Film is 'easier' (and harder) to write about partly cos film 'went academic' and in any case there's a much more substantial body of writing. It draws on pre-existing art theory more than music journalism, and prolly has a better-established critical vocab.

― ENRQ (Enrique), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:52 (twenty-two years ago)

film is also easier to write about popularly. because it has a very accessible language and set of standards by which to judge.
You can say, "this movie is a stinker because of the terrible dialogue and Jennifer Love Hewitt," and people might argue with you, but if you say "this album is a stinker because of the ridiculous basslines and Jennifer Love Hewitt," and people will say you missed the point or that you're too old or too rockist!

― My Huckleberry Friend (Horace Mann), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:56 (twenty-two years ago)

ENRQ otm. Said more eloquently than I could muster.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, you can say "Nine to Five" starring Dolly Parton and Lily Thomlin is a bad film because the fuckin' boom microphone dips into every other shot, thus rendering the entire production a sort've shoddy, unprofessional endeavor.
However, you could write volumes about why I shouldn't like, say, "Live Wire" by Motley Crue, but if I've heard it and it connected with me in that indefinable way that music affects a listener, then there's nothing you can really do to alter or erase that impression or appreciation.

but i've seen 'nine to five' and wasn't aware of the boom mic. if i enjoyed the movie (and many movies overcome shoddy or cheap production values) then similarly you couldn't argue me out of that belief. similarly, there are many people for whom 'shoddy productin values' on a piece of music is intolerable. i don't think that holds up.

― stevie (stevie), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Chuck Eddy and Simon Reynolds also have some sweet-ass gigs, too, and they're not attacked...well, not as much as those four guys. (They were well-liked before they contributed here, for what's it worth.) (Also, FWIW, I like Christgau a lot and find Klosterman generally OK if problematic.)

Anyway, ILx treats critics much the same way it treats music: nothing's beyond an especially juicy savage attack.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:58 (twenty-two years ago)

"sweetest gigs"?

jesus christ i'd rather be sent to hades than have to sift through a zillion new lps a month

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:58 (twenty-two years ago)

I think music has more leeway in terms of being shoddy than cinema does. Often times, a piece of music's arguably shoddy production is part of its charm. I'm not saying that shoddy production in a film is automatically a bad thing (witness the rise of independent film in the last twenty years), but it still has to adhere to more parameters than music does.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:00 (twenty-two years ago)

You want someone to attack Simon Reynolds? Form a disorderly queue behind me.

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Regarding film vs music criticism -- there's also so much more work involved in making a movie than an album, in both planning and execution. I think this allows for many more variables which can affect how well the intentions of the creator[s] are realized, in turn providing a lot more fodder for criticism and analysis on the "objective" front, ie discussion of quality as opposed to content.

― Hurlothrumbo (hurlothrumbo), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:07 (twenty-two years ago)

It's very hard to write about music as such; see any thread abt Dizzee Rascal and any attempt to explain why *this* sound is 'newer' than *that* sound. A lot of the best music writing is associative: the Streets 'sounds like' London in 2002. But of course it doesn't, it's a big suspension of disbelieve thing. You can talk in more concrete terms about 'Dirty Pretty Things', which 'looks like' London in 2002, somehow.

― ENRQ (Enrique), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Shouldn't The Streets sound like Birmingham in 2002?

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:09 (twenty-two years ago)

yet somehow there are nearly as many shitty film critics as shitty rock critics

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:09 (twenty-two years ago)

... or is he not very good at what he's endeavouring to do? (The Streets I mean)

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:10 (twenty-two years ago)

no because the album was recorded mostly in London

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:11 (twenty-two years ago)

i think film and music writing are two very different things, each difficult in their own ways. pop songs tend to be more impressionistic than the average full-length film, inviting -- even demanding -- an entirely different type of criticism. but my question isn't why one is easier or harder than the other, but rather why one is assumed to lend itself to a 55-year-old critic's eyes and the other is assumed to *not* lend itself to a 55-year-old critic's ears.

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:11 (twenty-two years ago)

hahaha god I thought he was from London. it's all one big conurbation, right? (xpost -- phew)

amateur!st otm, unless he's talking about me.

― Enrique (Enrique), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:12 (twenty-two years ago)

... well so was Lou Reed's first album, sounded pretty Noo Yawk to me

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:12 (twenty-two years ago)

...and The Streets sounds pretty Brummagem to me

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:13 (twenty-two years ago)

what's your point? that 'OPM' doesn't sound like London? that he wasn't living in Brixton when writing most of the material?

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:13 (twenty-two years ago)

I've thought about making a living out of writing about music. My grandma really thinks I should. I just want to be a writer so much. I just would like to be a critic the people like. Musician will hoped to be reviewed by me. Well, some.

― Aja (aja), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Was he stevem?

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:14 (twenty-two years ago)

I bow to your superior knowledge, in that case

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:14 (twenty-two years ago)

... you're not a professional music writer by any chance?

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:15 (twenty-two years ago)

He would be but he doesn't get enough time off from his full-time wig modelling job.

― Tim (Tim), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:16 (twenty-two years ago)

he was living in Brixton but to hand i don't know from which point but i would imagine he relocated well into the writing process - why else would he feature so many London references in the lyrics, far more than Birmingham ones (only a couple i can think of, the most prominent on the opening track)

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:17 (twenty-two years ago)

It's hard to remain credible and "an authority" as a music journalist after you pass a certain point/age. You can't stay hip or in the know forever...OTM, baby. I thought I could do it forever around 36 y.o. then came forced retirement and I learned the truth of the above the hard way. When you've been replaced by Jim Derogatis, it's time to get out. After a bitter readjustment I now have a healthier relationship to music -- less jaded,etc. Really enjoy the anti-critic digs on ILM though, so I guess Im still a little twisted.

― lovebug starski, Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:18 (twenty-two years ago)

... you're not a professional music writer by any chance?

if he was, i guess that'd make him more especially knowledgeable than any music writers you know

― stevie (stevie), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Errrrr, don't understand that last post

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:20 (twenty-two years ago)

this just in: dadaismus hates the streets, stevem doesn't

moot point though because with London and Birmingham both being large urban areas, and ignoring lyrical references, what differences can really occur in music emanating from both places that isn't just coincidence/circumstance? (i.e. you only hear grime and think 'sounds like London' because you KNOW it's from London or assume so...no?)

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:21 (twenty-two years ago)

you said no music writers you know are especially knowledgeable. stevem, on this evidence, is.

― stevie (stevie), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Why do you think I hate The Streets? Because I said he comes from Birmingham?

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:22 (twenty-two years ago)

you've slagged him off on other threads before haven't you? or am i thinking of Audio Bullys? apologies if mixed up.

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, this was what I was trying to get at: how London does grime sound? The UK is so homogenous, that i'd say: not very, necessarily. Also the Luda track on 'Clones' reminds me of 'I Luv U' so much that I get them confused all the time -- so maybe grime is a VA/ATL thing???

― ENRQ (Enrique), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Come on stevem - I don't expect anyone to remember anything i say on other threads! Anyway, speaking as someone who lives in London, I cannot imagine why anyone would want to listen to the "sound of London" - what a fucking awful thing to contemplate!

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:25 (twenty-two years ago)

The UK is homogeneous? Really?

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:26 (twenty-two years ago)

what do you hate about london that you don't want to hear in music?

― stevie (stevie), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:26 (twenty-two years ago)

you said no music writers you know are especially knowledgeable. stevem, on this evidence, is.

It was couched in deliberately vague terms in case just such an eventuality as this should occur.

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:27 (twenty-two years ago)

what do you hate about london that you don't want to hear in music?

Oh fuck, how long you got?

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:27 (twenty-two years ago)

I suppose in answer to fact checking cuz's question, music is very much about the culture in which it inhabits, which is often 'youth' culture. For example, you can start talking about Dogville (or whatever) without talking about the people who go and watch Dogville. Write about The Strokes and you at least need an understanding of what The Strokes 'stand for' in terms of your audience. I'm not saying film isn't a 'social' medium, it's just that it's not as 'social' as music. Of course this depends on music crit being tied to the release schedule/what's hip.

In this regard, how interesting is it that a lot of the big name music journalists move away from music towards TV talking heads/other forms of writing: Maconie, Baker, Morley, Burchill, Parsons et al?

― Jim Robinson (Original Miscreant), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, music critics often say 'x is good cos it sounds like London right now'. Or 'x evokes y'.

UK is quite homogenous: fucking ugly housing done on the cheap by successive, prole-hating governments of both sides, thin walls, small kitchens, derelict parks, noisy roads. That's what the Streets (on the slowie especially) sound like to me.

― ENRQ (Enrique), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:28 (twenty-two years ago)

as Enrique said 'sound of London' is more a journo term useful for zeitgeist purposes only. i can see grime tracks coming out of Birmingham easily...not sure about the other big Northern cities - but why not i'm not sure - i guess this is tied to population of young black people in those places. how many white people are making grime as opposed to just warped electro beats and similar? a few i know, but they all seem to be based in London...just because...

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:29 (twenty-two years ago)

It was couched in deliberately vague terms in case just such an eventuality as this should occur.

arf! good answer...!

Oh fuck, how long you got?

actually, it was a serious question (and while i love london and have lived here all my life, it wasn't remotely confrontational)...

its weird... i grew up on a council estate in south london, and the music i remember hearing most there was reggae and two-tone, neither of which originated from there. everytime i hear specials or madness, its like i'm 4 years old again running around the back of the Colliers Wood sewerage...

― stevie (stevie), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:30 (twenty-two years ago)

'OPM' is the 'sound of the suburbs' more than anything else, but that's still just London suburbs. and in any case you'd be just as entitled to describe Lost Prophets as the sound of same suburbs, even though they come from Welsh (but sound American)

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:30 (twenty-two years ago)

can i just say that i'm enjoying this thread so much, that its seems illuminating and discursive in a way the more troll-dominated threads rarely do.

― stevie (stevie), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Madness, though, were from London, right? ;) I've never been to Coventry, but the Specials certainly sound provincial (erm 'Ghost Town').

― ENRQ (Enrique), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:32 (twenty-two years ago)

It's all subjective but I don't really find the UK to be all that homogeneous - and certainly London is very different from the rest of the UK

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:32 (twenty-two years ago)

i guess you're right but as far as music goes i still find it strange that certain styles and scenes never progress outside Zone 6

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:33 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, Madness were, of course... also Dexy's have the same effect (and Jo Boxers).
i'd also agree that the UK isn't homogenous. London certainly isn't homogenous.

― stevie (stevie), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:34 (twenty-two years ago)

London contains multitudes, but the differences between the suburbs and any other suburbs are overstated I think.

― ENRQ (Enrique), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:34 (twenty-two years ago)

The self-importance of London is an extreme pain in the arse - just for one example.

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:34 (twenty-two years ago)

the thing about London and it's musical legacy though is that so much of it is down to people coming in from other areas - the reggae and two-tone stevie grew up hearing for example, Suggs wasn't born in London i don't think, nor Skinner, nor Albarn...but they all embrace the city and integrate it into their messages when they get here. hard to resist i guess.

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:37 (twenty-two years ago)

(this would be true of most cosmpolitan cities of course, with New York being the grandest example)

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Albarn makes a BIG DEAL of the fact that he was born in the East End actuellement, a little like a poster of whom I am fond, but who does lay this point on a bit thick...

― ENRQ (Enrique), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:39 (twenty-two years ago)

The most musically and culturally significant aspect of London is the black population - the whites are fucking useless. Ha ha.

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:39 (twenty-two years ago)

...as a quick trip to Camden will surely confirm.

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:40 (twenty-two years ago)

but it's the white people who get in the charts...

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Indeed

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:52 (twenty-two years ago)

"I don't think it's jealousy. I think there's a general sense that writing about music as a professoin is sort've a silly thing to do."

I wish this were the real reason, but I don't think it is - my impression has always been that the real antagonism comes from aspiring but less successful (at least on career terms) writers. I don't see posts saying "established writer X is a dickhead who doesn't realise that writing about pop music is essentially trivial" I see posts saying "established writer X is a dickhead (expicitly) because he is wrong/is a bad writer and (implicitly) because I could do better".

The standard of most (indeed almost all) writing about pop/rock seems to me fairly dismal (the standard of jazz writing is much higher). Despite that, I'm interested enough in the subject matter to skim through quite a lot of it. I rarely notice individual writer's names, though, so there's not much chance of me forming any deep antipathies to particular writers.

But then I've never written anything about music that was intended for publication.

― ArfArf, Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:09 (twenty-two years ago)

arf arf otm

its not the idea of rock writing that bothers me its the practice

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Jazz music is much older and far more musicological. There are actually more filters to understanding it, maybe a reason why it died commercially.

I wonder who arf arf was talking about in that first para...

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:20 (twenty-two years ago)

"far more musicological"

do you mean that jazz musicians have a greater and more productive rapport with their critics, or more musicologically oriented critics?

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:21 (twenty-two years ago)

the latter.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:23 (twenty-two years ago)

but you said the MUSIC was more musicological

is that what you meant?

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:25 (twenty-two years ago)

i think julio means that jazz is canonized enough to have a set "musiocological" standard for discussing it.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:29 (twenty-two years ago)

i.e. they teach it at school now and no one cocks a snoot.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:29 (twenty-two years ago)

but maybe it's in the academy BECAUSE cirtics like schuller were better and more rigorous than their pop music counterparts to begin with...

these are just ideas, i hope i'm not coming across as being pedantic or testy

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:31 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't like Christgau at all, because I think his actual worth and value is microscopic next to his ego. I don't care if he's successful at all.

And really, i think the critics that get it the worst on here are the relative unknowns of Pitchfork.

― Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:32 (twenty-two years ago)

i guess i do sort of feel like being unable to actually explain what a piece of music you like is doing is ok for ilm, but a little suspect when you're getting paid for it

i'd be happy to see people raking it in if they knew what they were talking about

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:33 (twenty-two years ago)

i mean jim derogatis strikes the same nerve ending in me as george bush in that regard, just people blatantly unsuited for the role they've assumed

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:33 (twenty-two years ago)

haha sorry that came out muddled.

Its more difficult to compare rock and jazz writing bcz jazz is older, and has had far more time to 'develop' along diff paths. I don't think its a big leap to say that the older the music gets the more musicological the criticism (not all jazz crit is like that, but its more likely that the approach will be tried) (haven't any meltzer tho').

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:37 (twenty-two years ago)

multiple x-post nightmare.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:38 (twenty-two years ago)

i'm sure there was a lot of purple prose devoted to free jazz in the late 60s too. jazz writing is probably more "academic" than pop/rock writing because the genre itself never "wallows" (it gets "ecstatic" zzz) so a critic attempting to write in a vernacular OTHER than that of the medium itself (i.e. like the trad bangs/meltzer rock crit cliche) would never be accepted by the audience who reads jazz criticism. it's a "minority viewpoint" of the music. (witness why meltzer never "made it" as a jazz critic.)

that said, a lot of the people who seem to continually contrast jazz and rock/pop writing seem to be the type of people for whom losing in public or making an ass of yourself because you're so caught up in the moment would be an act of transgression on par with child rape.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:42 (twenty-two years ago)

maybe jazz music has a difft kind of criticism because it emerged in a different era when the popular media and mode of criticism was different

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:43 (twenty-two years ago)

that too.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I just emailed Meltzer about doing jazz reviews for the Voice, by the way. We'll see what happens...

(In fact, if anybody knows of anybody else who writes with comparable-to-Meltzer energy + life + humor about jazz, especially if they're young and they live in New York so they can go to shows a lot, I'd love to hear about it. If you know them, tell them to put some clips in the mail to me, pronto, so I can see what they write like.)

Strongo OTM in his last longish post, by the way.

― chuck, Thursday, 19 February 2004 19:06 (twenty-two years ago)

god knows meltzer would be more fun to read than gary giddins. I really respect the man's knowledge and commitment, but jesus he always made listening to jazz sound like DUTY, something akin to taking vitamins or doing your homework.

― lovebug starski, Thursday, 19 February 2004 22:22 (twenty-two years ago)

I liked that there was some Francis Davis stuff recently, chuck. is he gonna be writing more? I got to know him a little bit in Philly. He's a swell guy. and i'm a fan as well.

― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 19 February 2004 22:26 (twenty-two years ago)

chuck- tell meltzer to post on ILM!!!

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 19 February 2004 22:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Um Julio *coughrememberhislastgighack*

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 19 February 2004 22:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, I remember it. It was funny stuff. Glad to see he may possibly be in the Voice, though, doing what he should have been doing all along. God, his description of walking into a jazz club right at the beginning of The Night is one of my favorite passages of jazz writing ever. Nicely balances the personal and the musicological.

― Broheems (diamond), Thursday, 19 February 2004 22:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually, considering that last gig, I hope Meltzer's VV gig pans out 'cause it sounds more appropriate to his talents. (Christ, I'm talking about him like I'm in rockcrit middle management or something.)

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Thursday, 19 February 2004 22:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Scott - Francis Davis will definitely be writing more. In fact he's filing another page's worth next week. (I don't think anybody should really get their hopes about Meltzer, though, before I've actually heard back from him and he's actually sent me a piece!)

― chuck, Thursday, 19 February 2004 22:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Seen Meltzer's latest book 'Autumn Rhythm'? Doubt he'll be seen around these parts. He hates the Internet.

― Tab25, Thursday, 19 February 2004 22:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Fwiw I don't write about music and have no ambitions to do so -- I just hate people like Hilburn and DeRogatis because they're very dull writers with terrible taste in music.

― El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Thursday, 19 February 2004 23:03 (twenty-two years ago)

The "you're just jealous" argument usually betrays a lack of imagination in my experience. But I suppose that's a given for somebody who'd post anonymously using the screename "wank".

― El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Thursday, 19 February 2004 23:06 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't even know who "Hilburn" is. That's not faux-naif. I honestly have no idea who this person is. And I do read a lot of criticism.

― Broheems (diamond), Thursday, 19 February 2004 23:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Be glad. (He is the lead pop/rock music critic for the LA Times and has been for decades.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 19 February 2004 23:57 (twenty-two years ago)

the only reason i know who he is is cuz of the one great idea he (or his editor or whoever, the mailroom maybe) had - that ombudsman taking questions from his readers thing (that is hilburn right? someone in the l.a. times). sorta like derogatis' crossfire type rockcrit radio show - good idea, pity about the guys executing it.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 20 February 2004 07:43 (twenty-two years ago)

i wish there were more rock journalists as opposed to rock critics though

― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 20 February 2004 07:44 (twenty-two years ago)

and if anyone was just 'jealous' of derogatis sweet gig (as opposed to his sweet tooth)(sorry) surely jon pareles would get as much or more hate? surely the ny times is a sweeter gig than one of the chicago dailies?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 20 February 2004 07:48 (twenty-two years ago)

nevermind sasha frere-jones, who between the times and slate reaches hella more eyes than any of the above and gets much gush (deservingly) than any of the above

― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 20 February 2004 07:50 (twenty-two years ago)

''Seen Meltzer's latest book 'Autumn Rhythm'? Doubt he'll be seen around these parts. He hates the Internet.''

:...(

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Friday, 20 February 2004 09:29 (twenty-two years ago)

why, then, is writing about movies and books and whatnot being more "respectable" than writing about music when doing the latter is so much harder to do interestingly or well? because as far as I can see/read the latter pair of professions are AT LEAST as glutted with received wisdom, pat observations, and dead-dull prose as way too much music writing is, and that's saying a LOT. I mean, music critics don't get the luxury of spending 50-plus percent of their space recounting the fucking plot, or letting that plot act as a chronological guide for their review. (song-by-song album reviews are a partial exception. but those are rarer and rarer anyway, as space shrinks.)

also, book reviewers tend to be a lot lazier intellectually than music writers do. here's an example: the last Klosterman book was excoriated by lots of folks because--gasp!--he wrote about Pamela Anderson and The Real World and breakfast cereal. that's why a lot of folks dissed it--because of the subjects he wrote about, not for how he wrote about them. that's the mentality behind a lot of book reviewing--a very cloistered, sheltered, hierarchical idea of what is "high" and valuable and what is "low" and not valuable--whereas when you write about pop music those rules go kerblooey, and good, because they're fucking useless in the real world. unless you're a rockist hack creep (and I am totally aware that the great bulk of music writers, in fact, are), there are no rules, no easy guidelines, to what makes a piece of music "good," and that mutability starts to look, as Alex in NYC intimates above, "childish," because as you get older I guess you're supposed to, you know, stagnate and stuff. There’s the whole “I give up” aspect, too, e.g. “you mean the fact that it’s guitars and on an indie label doesn’t mean it’s automatically worth more than some drum-machine thing? wtf?!” meaning not “haha guitars suck” but that perceptions and therefore the canon changes all the time, and it’s harder to take a solidified position when you’re walking on quicksand. Plus the fact that pop music has only been taken seriously a fraction as long as the novel.

getting back to the question that started this thread: I think in a few cases that dislike comes from the simple fact that a lot of people are getting paid to do something they’re not very good at, and at a certain level that’s something people SHOULD be mad at. Not to mention that frankly there are people (past and present) on ILM who are just plain fucking better writers than the majority of people who actually do make a living writing about music, so yeah I’d guess some jealousy arises that way, because there’s that whole “I’ve spent all my time thinking about this and you who gets paid to do just that clearly hasn’t, you’re fucking LAZY” aspect as well. I can say that deadlines and overabundance (way too many CDs, not enough time, only you’re getting calls and emails about stuff you haven’t even gotten to yet and blah blah blah) and other stresses do hamper your ability to wade through everything as neatly as you’d prefer, and therefore your thinking about it all, and obviously pro writers choose their lot so shape up. But I understand the non-pro side of it too. Neither is more “right” than the other.

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Friday, 20 February 2004 10:55 (twenty-two years ago)

why, then, is writing about movies and books and whatnot being more "respectable" than writing about music when doing the latter is so much harder to do interestingly or well?

That's the second time someone has claimed that writing abt movies is 'easier' than writing abt music. Could you clarify this?

― ENRQ (Enrique), Friday, 20 February 2004 11:18 (twenty-two years ago)

I didn't say it was easier to do, I said it was easier to do WELL--because there's more to work with in a movie. visual plus auditory plus writing plus performances, not to mention how they interact, equals a higher possible strike rate just because there are more options.

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Friday, 20 February 2004 11:34 (twenty-two years ago)

It's an interesting question: I kind of think that 'writing well' is separate from being an 'authority on' -- but I don't want to get into consumer guide vs X territory.
There probably are more options in film reviewing; but like music reviewing, the discipline has evolved its own traditions, so you don't get much proper formal analysis in film writing; whereas you do in music. At least as regards Hollywood movies there's less space for talking about 'sociological matters' since these don't vary much IMO, whereas a lot of music writing (these days) is obsessed with the sociological -- see any Reynolds post on grime.
Movies also lack 'cool' -- there's less of a fasion aspect.

― ENRQ (Enrique), Friday, 20 February 2004 11:49 (twenty-two years ago)

"I wonder who arf arf was talking about in that first para..."

I was not talking about anyone in particular. Plenty of ILX posts take that kind of form.

The only one of the 4 writers mentioned in the first post that I'd hear of is Christgau, and even then I know very little, certainly not enough to have any strong feeling about him either way. My total knowledge could be summarised:

- He's been around for a long time.

- I have a vague memory he had some connection with "Rolling Stone" magazine and is referred as "The Dean" though I'm not 100% certain about either of these facts.

- He was enthusiastic about "Exile on Main Street" when it was still critically unfashionable. (I'm actually 100% certain about this).

- He published books of record reviews based on decades and graded the record on an academic style A+/A- etc type system. I've flicked through a couple of them in bookshops.

- A particularly difficult to decipher paragraph of his was once the subject of a long thread on ILX.

Knowing that much still puts Christgau in the top 5 pop music critics based on how much I know about them, assuming that you ignore people like Tony Parsons, Julie Burchill and Nick Hornby who became well known for other things.

― ArfArf, Friday, 20 February 2004 12:06 (twenty-two years ago)

matos i think alot of it's just movie/art/and obv. book fans just read alot more than music fans.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 20 February 2004 14:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Nick Hornby was never a music critic, was he?

― Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 20 February 2004 14:25 (twenty-two years ago)

yes, in fact (prepare razor blades people) he's nominated for a fucking national book award for a book of his music crit.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 20 February 2004 14:27 (twenty-two years ago)

See, proof why book critics suck!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 20 February 2004 14:27 (twenty-two years ago)

What I mean is Nick Hornby was not a music critic before he wrote "Fever Pitch" was he? Who did he write for?

― Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 20 February 2004 14:29 (twenty-two years ago)

no, he wasnt a critic bfore he was a novelist, i don't think.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Friday, 20 February 2004 14:29 (twenty-two years ago)

He was, I think, at Time Out.

― NERQ (Enrique), Friday, 20 February 2004 14:37 (twenty-two years ago)

So he wrote like one paragraph blurbs for upcoming shows?

― Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 20 February 2004 14:38 (twenty-two years ago)

I dunno. TO these days does 250wd bits. Not sure what it was like in the late eighties. He also wrote for Modern Review, don't know in what capacity.

― NERQ (Enrique), Friday, 20 February 2004 14:41 (twenty-two years ago)

As a janitor p'haps?

― Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 20 February 2004 14:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Matos OTM on all three points.

A good example (if I could remember all the details) happened recently in Australia, a High Brow Lit Crit was brought in to do a hatchet job on a noted pulp writer. The only reason they did this was to flatter their readers because they don't read such thriller trash. This would be have been fairly depressing in a Pitchfork 101 Rooty review kind of way, but what really depressed me was how the HB lit crit was attacked, not because of the writer's shallow attack on the book, but because it was unfair to intellectually examine such an obviously lowbrow book. Highbrow is highbrow, lowbrow is lowbrow, and never the twain shall meet.

X post x 8

― Jedmond, Friday, 20 February 2004 14:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean, music critics don't get the luxury of spending 50-plus percent of their space recounting the fucking plot, or letting that plot act as a chronological guide for their review...OTM. Every film critic in existence seems to do this, from your local daily hack to the guys in the hallowed New Yorker. Why? Does it have something to do w/Pauline Kael's legacy? I don't get it.

― lovebug starski, Friday, 20 February 2004 17:22 (twenty-two years ago)

>>sorta like derogatis' crossfire type rockcrit radio show - good idea, pity about the guys executing it.
-- cinniblount (littlejohnnyjewe...), February 20th, 2004.
i wish there were more rock journalists as opposed to rock critics though -- cinniblount (littlejohnnyjewe...), February 20th, 2004.<<

I completely disagree with this, as many might expect (most rock journalism is WAY more boring than most rock criticism, and always has been), but who cares. It strikes me as kinda odd, either way, since Derogatis is actually a pretty decent rock JOURNALIST, as near as I can tell. It's his criticism attempts that are completely inept.

― chuck, Friday, 20 February 2004 18:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Also I wanna note that a good film critic can make recounting plot/riffing on it fucking funny and sharp and entertaining. And plenty of music reviews, good and bad, recount the plots of *single songs*. Mainly I think filmcrit (of the masssort) is HEAVILY frowned upon and looked at as funky, but the foax (heroic exceptions aside) have totally resigned themselves to promo-whores. The difference maybe is that there's a "high-cult" filmcrit market with some overlap with the masspress both ways, while no comparable highcult popcrit market exists, so all the contradictions are forced way closer to one another in rockcrit, since ppl. are fighting over the *same space*.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 20 February 2004 19:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Which is also to say that the boundary between art-music and pop-music is far more rigid than between pure-art-cinema (short, plotless, "experimental" etc) and popcinema.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 20 February 2004 19:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Sterling, my beef was less with film crit (though movie writing is WAY more "socially acceptable" haha than pop crit) than with book crit, which is in a fucking hole, and not because of "snark" neither (hell it could use a LOT more of that stuff, albeit more intelligently applied than it seems to have been lately). Keith Harris to thread please!

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Friday, 20 February 2004 20:02 (twenty-two years ago)

John Leonard to thread! (my hero)

― scott seward (scott seward), Friday, 20 February 2004 20:04 (twenty-two years ago)

omg John Leonard is SO GREAT

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Friday, 20 February 2004 20:05 (twenty-two years ago)

the only thing he doesn't write about is music!

― scott seward (scott seward), Friday, 20 February 2004 20:06 (twenty-two years ago)

I'd read him on music even--especially!--if his take on it made Hornby's look like Tom E's or Sterling's!

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Friday, 20 February 2004 20:07 (twenty-two years ago)

no one else on earth can make a valerie bertinelli t.v. movie sound so poetic and beautiful.

― scott seward (scott seward), Friday, 20 February 2004 20:11 (twenty-two years ago)

is "recounting the plot of songs" the same thing as quoting/paraphrasing the gotdamn lyrics? I wouldn't have expected y'all to have much patience w/that timeworn approach. Though there are film critics who do the plot thing w/style & verve, it seems to be a rigid & unforgiving formula in the masspress.

― lovebug starski, Saturday, 21 February 2004 00:49 (twenty-two years ago)

Movies also lack 'cool' -- there's less of a fasion aspect.

Have you ever seen a movie?

― Colin Beckett (Colin Beckett), Saturday, 21 February 2004 02:47 (twenty-two years ago)

it's because with few exceptions anyone able to make a living out of music must suck so much cock and subdivide their soul just in order to survive in a parasitic, ego-infested seeping in-cess pool of an industry.

― queen god awful music, Saturday, 21 February 2004 13:23 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.