Why are music writers so annoyingly cynical?

(NOTE: I agree with most of the sentiment, albeit maybe not the tenor)

Whaddya say guys? Do we take this at all seriously, or is it time to bring on the sparkly swans?

(pet theory: same reason they're afraid to write about love)

Maybe. I also get "you're only writing for other critics" a lot, too. We can't win on that one.

(my wrist would break it'd be up there so fast.)

That's sometimes true, sure. But critics are never given the benefit of the doubt. Maybe, just maybe, there's not a lot of love because music writers are cynical, and sincerely don't feel like giving out a lot of love. And "anyone in their right mind" is a pretty sweeping value judgement. Just because it might make most people yawn doesn't mean they don't love it. Sometimes writers are disingenuous, but -- and I mean this from the bottom of my cold black heart -- sometimes they say what they're thinking.

How does this matter? Do people review love? Is making judgements on love really a worthy endeavor that you're dying to see in print?

Dave Smith.

now that we have installed a coiterie of cliquy drunks in his place, it's all good

This matters because somewhere between 50 and 80% of pop deals with love in some depth, and most crit fails to engage in fruitful discussion of this.

Reviews of love would be cool though.

"Fling, Summer of 95: Angular, like Mission of Burma meets I Love Lucy except really drunk. Some high notes padded out with too much filler, etc."

But seriously... isn't love going to be the one element that each listener can't be told about? The one element that they must bring with them? Love may be universal, but it's stubbornly indescribable. I'm curious as to how exactly you think reviews should deal with it. Personal anecdotes? Dud.

But they hated Dennis Miller.

But calling me a troll? Honestly, I wouldn't put that much effort into a troll. And really, that would assume that you were all critics.

Some responses:

He's saying that people who dare to sound like they know what they're talking about piss him off.
-- Kenan Hebert (mondria...), April 22nd, 2003.

Why should sounding like you know what you're talking about be important at all?

why do people who post to internet message boards think anyone cares?
-- jess (dubplatestyl...), April 22nd, 2003.

Point being: Don't post?

oh dear. I hope he figures this part of ILM out sooner rather than later.

Anyway. I can think of at least a dozen reasons the phenomenon exists when it does, from the "other critics" audience onward. But the number one thing is that it's sort of unfortunately built into a critic's job to be that way. Enthusiasm for any given band is always on display: that's what fans do. Part of the job the "critic" erects for him or herself is to be the person who supposedly sees beyond the plain enthusiasm into something bigger. And if the critic has something supposedly better to offer -- you know, "this present record sucks, it's just a rehash of a much better record from 1979 that you need me to tell you about" -- then the critic takes on some sort of purpose that the "fan" can't serve.

And to be honest, I don't even know how I feel about that. I think there's loads more room for enthusiastic criticism, because surely there are ways of approaching music critically and still enjoying it, even finding ways of talking about it that simple fandom doesn't provide. On the other hand, critics aren't fans, and they're not really meant to be; there remains a sort of sensible purpose to their being critical. It's vexing.

I suddenly realize that I was accusing of being disingenuous in exactly the same way as you were accusing music writers of being disingenuous. So, ok, I'll give you that. It wasn't a troll. It was a letting of bile.

I mean, how is what you're arguing any different than any other 'dumb it down' memo to have come from corporate over the past x years? it's like a sloppier version of that pete bart jeremiad in variety
-- James Blount (littlejohnnyjewe...), April 22nd, 2003.

I didn't really feel they should dumb it down, as much as not use their own stupid genre-terms and labels (which they tend to expect people already know.)

Also, thanks Nabisco, you put a lot of the critic thing in perspective.

also, the fact that most writers are actually doing it to begin with seems in itself to be a very non-cynical act. that person's wading through mounds of records to find good stuff and tell you why it's good, or trying to put the bad stuff in some perspective? on the public-service scale that's not exactly firefighting or anything, but the initial impulse tends to be pretty well-meaning, even if the writer/writing curdles into, yes, cynicism after awhile. (hi, guys!)

I have no idea which names he has in mind, but the first thing that popped into mine when I read "music that would make anybody in their right mind yawn" was Yankee Hotel Foxtrot. I mean, honestly...

But as that example suggests, I don't think the problem has to do with cynicism, exactly. Misplaced enthusiasm is just as chronic and emblematic. And most of the responses sound about right, too.

An implicit question here is, "Who cares what music writers think?" The funny thing is, people who genuinely don't care what music writers think never even get around to asking that question. They don't even know there are music writers, and they'd find the whole enterprise about as interesting as a Rotary Club meeting. I think that's perfectly fine. People who don't care about music writers can carry on not caring, and people who do care can carry on arguing about how much they care, who cares more, and whose care is more legitimate.

Why feel guilty? Bring it on, bitch!

And art criticism exists in a totally different universe from most people, so it never occurs to anyone to slag on them. At least, not in the magazines we read.

A better question might be "why are so few music writers brilliantly cynical?"

i.e. if they want to write about "music as commodity" why do they have such a shallow understanding of a commodity?

[Blount is this really the case? If so anyway my answer is bad editors and bad writers (ones who flaunt instead of spread their knowledge). Not that I know jack-shit about sports but also sports commentators aren't critics -- their job isn't to tell you what team you might *like* but how to understand the team: its assumed you'll follow who you do for *entirely other* reasons. Also its cool to drop water-cooler knowledge *about* sports but dropping water-cooler knowledge *about* music implies a stronger commitment to the qualities of the music. Also in sports its cool to root for the underdog, while i music it makes you a nut. New thread -- "What can music crit. learn from sports commentary?" Or maybe sports lends itself to pointless kabbalistic arcana of knowledge-dropping better than music coz nobody thinks they can *really* understand sports (its all about the surprise upsets etc) while everyone intuitively knows they understand something about music?]

I can only answer for myself, but it's because I find him indulgent to the point of tedium.

Isn't that tantamount to asking, "Why aren't more people brilliant"?

Kenan Hebert mentioned he was a critic, so I looked him up on Google. I'd just like to say, the things he wrote for Artandlies.com were really great. I enjoyed them. The White Stripes review has been the only Elephant review worth reading amongst all of the ones I read. Criticism does have hope.

:)

Thank you.

David, wait till you start getting packages filled with records from all over the world, for absolutely free.

Wait till the novelty buzz of getting all these free packages wears off and you come to the conclusion that 95% of all promo material is absolute fucking vomit. Then you have to wade through all this bad music every week in hopes that there is something good waiting to be found. Then you realize that you have to maintain these relationships with the people who are sending you records that you don't like (the records not the people) because their labels are either hit and miss, or have the potential to grow into something truly important in the future, or you just plain don't want to be enemies with them even though their label fucking sucks. Meanwhile, you start to become acquainted with the business side of the music business, there is a reason a lot of A&R people come from college radio, and the whole situation is just ugly and stupid and completely vulgar.

If you ever want to ruin your love for music, have a bunch of people send it to you for free.

I would not go so far as to call myself a music critic even though I have been in print a few times, but I would call myself a college radio DJ. My time spent in radio made me so bitter and jaded that I don't listen to electronic music because of it. I can understand why critics become cynical.

Sort wheat from chaff, sell back chaff for even a small amount of credit somewhere, pick up good things with the accumulated credit = achieve inner peace. However, Mike's description is truly told damn accurate. The difference between this and mp3s' free music situation is that presumably you're actually wanting to download something and listen to it.

I definitely am feeling what EH has to say about radio.