Classic or Dud: Chuck Klosterman

I do think the earlier thread on the Ratt/Ramones deaths brought out some suprising defensiveness in the responses. I'm not sure why people saw his fixation on Ratt's "popularity" as such a weak point. I think his arguement is that, on the surface, it might seem strange that Dee Dee's death got "more attention", since Ratt had more mainstream exposure; and that it's the weight given to an artist by the critical apparatus that ultimately trumps the importance of mere sales / airplay numbers. I don't think he's proposing that the situation is unjust because Ratt were truly somehow "better", just that the critics' history-making tends to obscure significant (by some measure) bands or artists that aren't judged significant (by a select set of other measures). This is not a particulary insightful observation, nor is the situation it describes limited to music-crit, but I do think it holds some water.

That said, one not particularly insightful observation such as this is not enough to hold up an entire book, much less an entire approach to music criticism (although to be fair, I haven't read much else of Klosterman's writing).

And so: neither classic nor dud, but his writing works a lot better when he's just talking about himself, and acknowleging all his biases and emotional attachments, rather than letting these create a righteous-contrarain critical voice that approaches dud.

Hadn't met him or read him before that, but I loved his rock lists in the recent Spin. That shit is so much harder than it looks. Classic so far...

But what is the measure if not supreme personal concern or interest? In which case the popularity card is a red herring on his part. Personally I think James Blount's take says it all, and explains why he's so frustrating in the end.

He's like Bangs without the talent, or the heart, or the ideas, or the balls, or the curiosity, or the drugs. He might have the gut though, not sure (willing to bet though). Probably a similar wardrobe.

http://velvetrope.starpolish.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=249342&page=&view=&sb=&o=&fpart=1&vc=1

I've actually been buying SPINs a lot lately, even though its been six months or so since my subscription ran out. The last one was REALLY disappointing. The Dischord article was haphazard, the Linkin Park piece blatantly unenthusiastic (understandably but still disappointing), and the Good Charlotte piece, despite being on the cover, was only half a page (for relationship advice, reaffirming Joel is the nice one). Plus the review are pretty bland.

I thought the lists issue was pretty funny though. Cute song quotes.

Agreed that the Spin list issue was terrible. It looked like something you'd find in some one-off 'zine stacked in some forgotten bar alcove.

Ira Robbins and Chuck Klosterman see the world differently, no news there.

nf

1. anybody else wish SPIN reviewed more records? their section (and RS's, admittedly) gets punier and punier. and don't try to sell me on that "more records, more opinions, let's do this" thing.

2. anybody wish more than 15 people - with some writing 2-3 reviews per issue - were writing the reviews?

Of course he's motivated by his personal concern AND interest--is that so awful? I'd say yes, when he tries to pretend that's not what's motivating his writing--but when he occasionaly owns up to it I think it's hardly a problem. I'd argue that many people want their critics to be motivated by their particular emotional attachments; part of the fun of reading them is getting a glimpse of someone's possibly irrational passion for something that you don't feel so strongly about yourself. This is not to bolster up Klosterman's writing, cause I think it's got plenty of problems, as described throughout this thread. And so yeah, his playing of the popularity card is a problem cause it's disingenuous, but the personal motivation that he's trying to cover up doesn't seem as bad as the effort to obscure it.

Certainly not! I think we're agreeing here. I have no problem with him talking about what he loves, but as you say, trying to justify something on the basis of its former popularity evades the issue.

"The Guns 'N' Roses it's OK to like"

I think people here will likely have a bit of the Narcissism of Small Differences thing going on with this book -- the subject matter is so exactly the sort of thing covered here, and the approach to working through it is very similar, that the immediate response is to recoil when he gets this or that bit of it horribly wrong. (There's an unfortunate comment about Dexy's that would make some people's heads explode. And he has absolutely no clue what he's even saying about soccer.)

So, even though he is defensive about 80s hair metal, and twists himself into a pretzel trying to defend its sexism and so on, there's almost a hollowness in the middle of his argument. I mean, I wish he'd simply take the idea that Theatre of Pain IS better than Tapestry, run with it, and see where that leads him.

however I agree it's not always fun to hear people try to tease out and pontificate on those reasons.

and agreed that the retroactivity of it all often feels like a dud.

?!?!??!?!? can we have a definition of avant-garde plz?

this is horrible. what an embarrassment for a paper that i thought had been all embarrassed out for years now. insult to injury -> this'll fuel chuck k's underdog complex even more!

(my guess is k's schtick reminds him of his own, but he's languishing in the ussr writing for an awful paper while chuck gets big. i'm embarassed for him)

It's like barely disguised aching homoeroticism or something.

the press rarely writes about music (or any other subject); instead, it writes about what other writers are saying about music. and it always claims, of course, that they are wrong. it's as if the paper is staffed by a roomful of people who don't go to movies, don't listen to records, don't go outdoors, and probably don't socialize with other humans. they just read about all that stuff in other newspapers and magazines.

the thing that's amazing to me is that in spite of all that, they've managed to publish a number of really good writers over the years, including another guy named ames (jonathan) who i hope is no relation to this one.

I think culture can change more quickly in some periods and more slowly in others though. For example, when you see interviews of aging Hollywood stars in the early 1970s they're all very aware that the culture had just changed radically over the previous ten years. And the general public seemed to recognize this as well. You wouldn't find nearly as many people saying that about the last ten years.

But there's a certain irony in what Klosterman is saying, on one hand "the 1990s was the last decade with a fully formed culture," and yet things aren't like they used to be in some profound way - the latter which would suggest we live in a different culture today.

xxxp - probably, obviously I've missed a ton of what's gone on the last decade, these ILX year end countdowns are sometimes the only way I keep up with things. but thinking of the stuff I have from 69-81 it is comprised very heavily of records that could not have existed 5 years prior; entire scenes broke big and collapsed in the time it takes most bands to record a new album today

cf. the entire recorded catalog of the Beatles spanned... nine years

Anyway this is an insanely stupid argument and it makes sense that the dude literally makes money selling insanely stupid arguments

https://www.chuckklostermanauthor.com/books/hypertheticals-nt

cf. the entire recorded catalog of the Beatles spanned... nine years

It’s so hard for me to wrap my head around this, and watching that doc series just brought it to the fore…

I guess it comes back somehow to that Zappa clip where he's talking about the times when old A&R dudes would just go "hmm, interesting, go throw some money at that" rather than try to dictate the culture as they understood it. the two periods I think of where there was just an overwhelming amount of movement happening was the mid-70s and early-90s which were both boom eras for the music industry leading to bands like Ween and Boredoms getting big major label deals. idk if anything quite like that has happened since, especially not since Clear Channel took over everything

I mean, look at some of the albums that sold 8 figures during the mid-70s: Tubular Bells, Oxygene, The Six Wives of Henry VIII...I can only imagine some teenager puzzling over how that shit got so popular

The Beatles recordings people know are really from about seven years, no? Summer '62 to Summer '69 (w/ mostly touch-ups afterward)

the Beatles only recorded for less than a decade, but most of the band had been on the grind doing shows for five years before that

surely they'd have had a soundcloud much earlier if they started now

By comparison, here are some artists who released their first album 9 years ago (2013): Ariana Grande, Lorde, Run the Jewels, Haim, CHVRCHES

the first two are just making adult contemporary now, RTJ were always old, Haim and chvrches probably doing ok within their niches

(yes, I'm being purposefully cynical)

The New Yorker had some words
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/02/07/chuck-klosterman-brings-back-the-nineties

brief excerpt of the extended tear-down

His response to the recent progressive vilification of Bill Clinton’s Presidency is delivered in two thudding single-sentence paragraphs that encapsulate his attitude toward those with a darker story to offer: “But you know, it didn’t seem that way at the time. It really did not.” He has no patience for partisan rashness, for passionate convictions that would break upon his ghostly solitude.

obviously I take great issue w/them calling him the sharpest music writer of his generation when I've been on ilm for long enough to know much better

his shtick definitely affected writing styles overall, no doubt

also, lol that I missed this

its more difficult to tell the difference between a 2005 and 2020 film than a 1965 and 1995 film because one time period is twice as long as the other

He didn't say that. He compared 1965/1995 to 1990/today. He said it was hard to sense that 2005 was 16 years ago.

musical change was a mass culture one (e.g. of disco in 1976 giving way to post-punk in 1980).

except in 1980, mass culture wasn't post-punk - it was Pink Floyd, Billy Joel, Bob Seger, Queen, Kenny Rogers, etc

xp ah, I was quoting a tweet, and while not strictly on the lines...

klosterman has never had a serious conversation with anyone who isn't white or born in north america in his life

there might be evidence to the contrary, but I'm skeptical

klosterman has never had a serious conversation with anyone who isn't white or born in north america in his life

― mh, Wednesday, February 9, 2022 2:45 PM

lol otm

fuck this trey anastasio looking motherfucker, amazing that he's kept up his streak of being both wrong and super annoying about everything for two decades now

the stupid quote in full

If you show someone an obscure film from 1965 and then an obscure film from 1995, anyone viewing those clips will be able to recognize which one is older. But I do not think that would be the case if you showed someone a movie from 1990 and a movie from now — the difference would seem much less.

Would someone really struggle to notice that Slacker or What's Eating Gilbert Grape weren't from the last couple of years?

they should go back and CG the Captain Jack Sparrow costume on to Depp in all his old movies

except in 1980, mass culture wasn't post-punk - it was Pink Floyd, Billy Joel, Bob Seger, Queen, Kenny Rogers, etc

my point was about the inherited narrative, not the reality.

that's very klosty of you

man notices that color films look different from black n white films

xpost ah sorry misunderstood

My son was just telling me the differences between the old Minecraft and the new Minecraft so obviously things are changing

Like it's absolutely undeniable that the last 10 years in music (Future's 2012 to Lil Baby's 2022) is equally as stark and different as the change between, say, Chuck Berry's 1957 to Sly Stone's 1967.

I'm as ignorant as anyone here, so I decided to try this out. I listened to "Turn On the Lights" and "Voice of the Heroes", and while the emotional mood is different, the similarities (repeated keyboard arpeggios, stuttering hi-hats, squelchy bass) were striking, and there didn't feel like any particular progress from one decade to the next.
Then again, what would someone who considered themselves musically literate, born in 1917, have said comparing "Johnny B. Goode" and "Dance to the Music"?

I mean, part of the inability to hear particular differences is down to inexperience. I'm pretty sure anything my grandfather heard, when he never listened to anything past the big band era, all sounded the same

I just watched “Pretty in Pink” and “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers” and can’t figure out which one was made earlier.

The hobbits in "Pretty in Pink" were real, the Hobbits in "Two Towers" were CGI.

Yeah but can you tell the difference between Breakfast Club and Meet the Feebles?

The former is puppets, the latter is CGI.

obviously I take great issue w/them calling him the sharpest music writer of his generation when I've been on ilm for long enough to know much better

his shtick definitely affected writing styles overall, no doubt

xpost - mh what about Future vs Lil Baby vs Jazzy Sensation by Bambaataa (81) vs How I Could Just Kill a Man by Cypress Hill (91), that's way more different

or, the best selling rap album of 2012 was Drake, the best selling rap album of last year was...Drake

i wonder where the growing easier access to music since the late 90s factors into all of this. i don't really have any solid thoughts on it either way, but surely that's been a big contributing factor to the uber-nostalgia overload that we're currently living through. i know for those of us who grew up relying on magazines, music videos, and word of mouth, pre-napster/internet feels very much like "the beforetimes" — and, for better or for worse, will inevitably be romanticized. not trying to sound like a "well back in my day" story, but i'd liken it to my grandparents preferring to listen to the radio instead of watching television.

(not that i preferred "the beforetime", i.e. not being able to hear new music as easily as now, but the feeling is the same. it was just "a different time" and some folks probably were young and carefree then, so look back on it fondly? idk.)

just trying to make sense of this obsession with such definitively stated time periods. i don't understand.

never read much ck, but he seems a doofy blowhard (takes one to know one, i suppose).

yeah I think streaming has a lot to do with it

right the whole career of "professional pop culture/movie/music dork" like Kevin Smith, James Murphy, or Quentin Tarantino didn't seem to really exist before the 90's, and now that basically everything's available 24/7 in your pocket its kind of like half of what all media is now

There used to be 10 music journalists and now there are 10 million.

frogbs is right but I don’t think it has to do with “everything is in your pocket” but instead “criticism is monetized by having constant streams of content about lots of subjects, and Young Sheldon is not going to recap itself”

There used to be 10 music journalists and now there are 10 million.Only ten are making any money from it tho.

FYI, they had a feature with Klosterman and on 90s nostalgia on CBS Saturday Morning last week.

Only ten are making any money from it tho.

Has anyone written about alt-weeklies being forced to discontinue sex work ads and the effect on being able to make money as a music critic/journalist?

Rightly or wrongly, I decided early on that Klosterman's interests weren't mine, and then there seemed to be a certain amount of celebrity attached to him, so I didn't read any of his books. The Nineties is the first one I've read.

Thought it was good--raced through it. At lot of that, I'm sure, has to do with my own positive feelings about the decade. Definitely the last time I was completely plugged into new music, from the start of the decade to the finish. Films and politics too. So I was interested in most everything he covered. (The only chapter I was completely uninterested in was the one on clear sodas--Zima, etc.--and the Biosphere...but there was other stuff in that chapter that did interest me.) Liked the two political chapters ('92 election + Clinton in general), and his memory of all that more or less aligns with my own. (Although he didn't mention some of the early forgotten stories I associate with Clinton: Zoe Baird, Jocelyn Elders, Cristophe.) He's good on movies and sports--liked that he highlighted Michael Jordan's season playing baseball. I wasn't really looking for deep analysis...there's analysis, but it didn't feel like work. If I wrote a book on the '90s myself, it'd probably be a lot like this one. I'd just say "I" a lot more.

Somebody like Jonathan Lethem once said something like you can enjoy reading Klosterman even if you have zero overlap of taste, with the added bonus of not spending one cent on new music, although I haven't tested this theory in a while.

I'd say music accounts for a quarter of the book, maybe less. I don't think I found anything egregiously at odds with my own memories of the decade...he says there was "an overwhelming consensus" that "Achy Breaky Heart" was terrible; I think that's overstated (really overstated in view of the fact that he doesn't mention critics, although that's the implied consensus). Some critics liked it, and at least one loved it.

Overheard at bookstore a few minutes ago: "Like, that guy Klosterman wrote a book on the '90s, and he really got it." Clearly the guy yelling this moistly into his girlfriend's ear hadn't watched the bookstore scene in Annie Hall.

now they're in the art/photography section and he's still yelling his opinions at her and I'm about to call thec cops

Pretend to be on the phone, walk by and loudly talk about how much you enjoyed that one particular sequence in the _Barbie_ movie as you pass.

"I'm Just Terrified"

https://i.imgur.com/QZ1DEyI.png