Ideal Rock Critics

Before I say anything positive - No No No to the buffoon Collings.

Margraet Atwood because she is filled with vitrol . No one can castrate fred durst faster

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY LIFE I AGREE WITH THE FOX OF PINE.

Anyway, my answer is Norman Hunter ("and myself Ian Dennis"?). Anyone who's listened to Radio Leeds on a Saturday afternoon will agree with me.

Nick Cohen.

Not because I think he'd be a good music writer, but because I'd be interested in just how much, or otherwise, he ideologised everything he was writing about.

On the back of the first Gang of Four single there is a photo of a bullfighter and a bull, with a suggestion that they are having a discussion 'we are both part of the entertainment industry'.

The only value a music critic has is as part of the entertainment industry. I consume their product in the same way I consume the products they are discussing. I don't care about a critic I can trust, or one who knows who all the cool bands are - I can do that stuff myself. I want a critic who's writing is a joy to read.

I was surprised when Mr Ewing recently squelched a message on here discussing Simon Reynolds because he might read the offensive comment it contained. (I've little interest in Reynolds opinions or writing so I might have been biased) but would never make such a distinction about readers opinions on (say) Tortoise who were called 'wank' in the same thread.

Evan as a Tortoise fan I would have to admit that 'wank' would play a role in representing the range of opinions the band can incite. (Though those people are vulgar oafs as I am sure all right thinking people agree).

Anyway it is a curious contradiction the critics themselves have fragile egos and seem to bristle when their product is disected with the same remoteness that they treat music.

Joe Queenan when he was at fighting fitness writing for Spy and Movieline fits the above bill, his writing was fantastically entertaining, I still laugh out loud thinking of his "how to heckle the airplane crashed in the Andes movie Alive" with the comment "eat Vincent Spano first". Of course Queenan soon became marginalised (his movie interview collection is called "If you're talking to me your career must be in trouble".

So thats the second quality, the entertainment must be accompanied by someone who isnt hoping to make a long lasting career choice of music journalism but must be busy burning all available bridges (I still feel annoyed nobody had the guts to review Be Here Now properly).

Fantastic writer, not afraid to upset people... ah, the answer is obvious.

Voltaire.

What's wrong with Matthew Collings? I quite like him.

I'd answer, DG, but I'm still laffing at the image of Voltaire being given Be Here Now to review.

Didn't Taylor Parkes review Be Here Now properly, only for anythign potentially intriguing or derisory removed?

The only value a music critic has is as part of the entertainment industry. I consume their product in the same way I consume the products they are discussing. I don't care about a critic I can trust, or one who knows who all the cool bands are - I can do that stuff myself. I want a critic who's writing is a joy to read.

I'm not keen on the idea that music journalism ought be a seperate vocation entirely to making music. I suppose I'm interested in a critic as curator. Though it's quite easy to imagine perhaps Brian Eno as a critic, his ideas are quite consistently intriguing, his approach to music is often to set in place a System which he records and then examines critically, cf. Discreet Music. I don't think anyone needs to be able to trust a critic, just be intriged by one.

So my ideal critic is an Enonian, a creator who doesn't shy from analysis.

"Sequelching" Reynolds comment - when did I do this? If it's the "...is a Gobshite" thread, it wasn't recent and I didn't from memory squelch anything, just pointed out that the title was a bit rude. My at-the-time judgement was that threads about individual writers were a bad idea, partly because so many people here write about music too and it could all get or seem slightly embittered. Now I think I was being too nannyish.

I liked Mailer interviewing Madonna, especially when they started talking about barebacking. That's what it's all about, primal urges and guilt and redemption. I think he should do more.

I'd like to see Stiffler write music criticism. Or a pre-breakdown Hank Von Velvete. Or any Chris Eigeman character. Or basically anyone so long as their criticism is in character. I don't really care what real people think about records. (Hank Von Helvete isn't really real.)

I don't understand why more musicians don't do music criticism. I mean, authors review each others' books. Ok, maybe the answer to that is a bit obvious (most musicians=braindead ninnies), but I still think it'd be fun. It seems rock crits are often interested more in scenesterism and creating these little wacky personalities for themselves than in actually talking about the music. I think if more musicians doubled as writers you'd see a shift in the critical consensus. Like, I doubt many would've given Kid A the rim job it got from Pitchfork and others.

Authors work with words, musicians don't (or in the case of lyricists, they work with them in a much different way than critics).

I write about art . PAinters paint. It is a translating job.

I'd like The Beta Band to do a full album of record reviews like the Wild Honey one on 'Round The Bend'. I'd like Anthony to paint record reviews. I'm starting to get tired of reading about music but that's probably just me getting lazy. I wish the three kings had let Frank go further into John Wesley Harding.

I'd go along with Eno.
Scrub most novelists their taste is dubious at best e.g Therouz/Stranglers, Alan Warner/Verve, Irvine Welsh/Primals.
I'd like to see what Pat Nevin (the thinking man's (ex)footballer) would have to say, he did a great programme when he had to buy a piece of art for less than a grand I remember,, plus he's a keen music lover.

Sandy:

I presume that one of the main reasons writers get more bristly when they find themselves attacked is there is no tangible audience to defend them. If I was to dismiss a writer as wank, it would be unlikely to return to them, but similarly ego-massages couldn't. You're mostly writing into a void, whereas bands constantly have the opportunity to be validated whilst on stage (or even in terms of record sales- if the NME sells well, it's not because of one writer, it's the product as a whole).

Also, I find it difficult to remove my writing style from myself, to change it at will (perhaps this is because I'm a bad writer, fair enough), whereas the bands I've been in it's not been so hard. Either you abdicate responsibility to let someone else get on with it, or it's a tight enough group to not give a shit what anyone else thinks...

Anyway, back on topic, I'd like to see Ben Marcus (author of 'The Age Of Wire And String') write about music. Also Mark E Smith.

Morrissey. It's time to revive his critical career, dormant for c.25 years now.

Pinefox: I doubt I could stand an extended piece from him, but he could probably deliver some stunning one-liners. The last interview I read had him being asked, regarding comments on Marr and their rhythm- section legal battles, "How about the other two?" His response: "Apparently, Gillian's keyboard technique has been compared to Jo Brand pole-vaulting."

Serious response: This might sound dumb, but I think David Foster Wallace would have some great things to say about chart-pop, not "musically" but culturally. This based on his pretty-amazing essays on film: the massive David Lynch piece, or the "special effects blockbusters = porn" one.

Mordecai Richler reviewing something thats new and approved by MTV/MM. He'd make a good jazz reviewer too.

DFW did write a book about hip-hop called something like Signifying Rappers. I've never managed to lay my hands on a copy, so I've no idea if it's any good or not, though the few mentions of (specifically rock) music in Infinite Jest don't bode well.

I've heard it's dire. Never made time for it though.

I guess I have to assume that I could stand an extended piece from Morrissey an awful lot better than I could stand an extended piece from almost any other clown writing about pop music today, or yesterday for that matter.

Authors work with words, musicians don't

I think this is a bit flip. We all use words. Whether critics work with words can be debated. I think the major reason artists aren't allowed into the critical game in music is it'd give away how easy it is to write music criticism, at least of the major rag sort. I'd love to see Eno and Morrissey take a stab at reviewing.

Well, there's also a seeming conflict of interest in both making music and commenting on it -- one mode asks for a sort of passionate, un-self-conscious dedication to a particular sound, the other for an omnivorous, semi-objective overview...

Plus, for a musician to write criticism is somehow dangerous -- all of these fingers can suddenly be pointed at his or her material, or motivations for praising or panning something. You can just imagine someone like Morrissey panning something and then having to deal with a chorus of "But Maladjusted sucked, so who are you to talk?" Or its converse: "Well, of course he'd like that stuff."

But Nitsuh, this is why I brought up the example of authors reviewing each other's work. Certainly the sort of thing you're talking about happens, but not as often as you'd think. So are pop music people just potentially more petty?

Here's my pet theory (hardly original, but still): The aura of personality that gets thrown up around performers accounts for about 90% of their appeal, and if you had Noel Gallagher reviewing the new Blur album, that aura would vanish and they'd be forced to admit there are only about 6 different songs in pop music anyway. Hence the reason people who have original and unconventional things to say like Eno are kept out of the arena, and only allowed to voice their opinions from the "artist's realm", ie the interview with the journalist establishing the necessary distance between artist and consumer.

I also don't think the distance between being an artist and being a critic is as great as you make it sound. Every artist has a latent critic in him/her just in what they choose to use in their art from the culture around them and what they choose to exclude. So, say Teenage Fanclub's records are saying, "We believe chiming guitars and pretty melodies are good things." Convincing you they are good things is left up the the strength of their execution, but having musicians justify their artistic preferences verbally would be a new and interesting thing, at least in pop music. Again, I think Eno's an excellent example of someone who does both very well.

Chzza: I think the differences with literature are that (a) it's a much more unified field to begin with, with a hundred times less splitting of stylistic hairs and a million times less in-fighting and ridiculing of others, plus (b) it's a bit easier to be objective about it -- just based on the form itself -- plus (c) people who read book reviews are more likely to be less cynical than music folks and intelligent and even-handed to boot, and thus more likely to give such a review a fair hearing without getting all personally invested like a 17-year-old music fan. Lots of assumptions in there, I know -- but hopefully the core of it holds up.

Also there's the fact that big readers tend to enjoy a little letters-to-editor catfight between two authors, whereas with music it just seems embarrassing.

Uh, Zacko, Richler is dead. It would be hard for him to review anything, let alone MTV/Much Music approved.

I agree with you, Chzza -- I'd love to see artists spend more interview-time offering actual defensible analyses of what they're doing and why. I just think that mode of presentation gets knocked aside by this "It's all about the music, man" thing, to the point where artists won't even explain basic decisions like what prompted them to write certain songs. "It all just comes from inside," they say, or "We just wanted to make the best record we could," or "The lyrics can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people."

But yeah: I'd be completely in favor of grilling artists to get opinions out of them beyond that kind of crap. Like the Onion's "Justify Your Existence," except with persistent, annoying follow-ups: "That's not an answer! Seriously, why do you think your band is good? Form a coherent argument!"

i. i like eno, but the idea that he is "kept out of the arena" = hilarious (kept out only by extremely low pay dircted at critics); actually there is music crit in swollen appendices, that wd be interesting if the technique was applied to actually non- worthless gps (ie not JAMES!!)
ii. writers don't work with other writers; musicians do, mostly — awkward if guitarist [x] is good buddies with the singer you just said couldn't for toffee...
iii. musicians talk a language to each other which outsiders don't get and don't want to get [flatted fifths blah snore] [i realise not all musicians talk THAT specific language, but insert free jazz or glitchcore tech equiv]
iv. consider idea that eg the strokes use music more imaginatively eg than average mid-20s rock hack? that really true? (i have not heard them and cannot comment)

to answer the question, i can think of few if any — ie pynchon on lotion = not much, and n.hornby = classic example of someone whose crossover into "crit" is a major rubbish disaster — but perhaps unexpected ppl wd surprise? ie by being weird and personal rather than giving you consumer guide tips ("I have Rammstein on my walkman while I cruise trannies on 43rd and 3rd, w. the tape speeded up": Paul Schrader...)

i like eno, but the idea that he is "kept out of the arena" = hilarious

Agreed (I type these things in a hurry, no time for verification!). My suggestion was just spurred by my being someone who loves pop but hates pop writing. Seeing as how I like to intellectualize it and discuss, this seems strange. Conclusion: something is wrong w/ music writers. How can change this sit.?

Sometime back in review pointed to an interview with Steve Erickson where he rambled about music quite nicely. Pynchon on Lotion is GRATE, just not rockwrite. Pynchon on Spike Jones, on the other hand... I want more reviews like Mailer did of his contemporaries -- sizing them up and deciding if they're anywhere near as good as him. Only Albini has this vibe, and he's so... grrr.

Also, having some idea of the writer's background is essential when evaluating whether their review is accurate or useful or not. Famous musicians already have well-established profiles, so I'd have a pretty good idea of whether I could trust Jarvis Cocker's tastes, for instance. But music writers have to spend an inordinate amount of space writing about themselves in order to come off as interesting and 3-dimensional personalities, often to the detriment of what it is they're supposed to be writing about: music.

B-B-but then why are you writing about pop on a pop writing forum?

We may or may not be all prostitutes. We are certainly all critics.

Clarification: I'm not advocating replacing pop writers w/ musicians, just introducing the musicians into the game to spice things up a bit.

Tom: these forums have pretty much completely replaced published-review type things as places to get interesting opinions about pop. I'm talking specifically about the prostitutes (your word, not mine).

I mean, replaced them for me.

"We are all prostitutes" = a pop group ref. after Nathalie's referring of the same on the NYLPM thread. I'm not calling paid critics prostitutes because it's a bit unfair on both paid critics and prostitutes.

I just do it for fun. Surely suggesting Morrissey is a bit pointless, although I did enjoy his booklet thing on the NY Dolls. Yes, I say Morrissey should review some stuff for Freaky Trig.

I think it's interesting my little suggestion elicited so much commentary and defensiveness. I realize I was strolling into the lion's den, since a lot of ILMers seem to make their living writing about pop. I'm just playing devil's advocate since I think it's safe to say 95% of music lovers find 95% of rock writing to be irrelevant. Is there some inherent insecurity in being a rock critic, a feeling that your profession could be wiped out by a hundred monkeys w/ a hundred typewriters-sort of thing?

I think the concern is that this wipe-out has ALREADY HAPPENED!

I'd love to see a set of record reviews written by former members of the bands they have to review. Special preference to those who were kicked out of said bands, rather than voluntarily leaving.

David Lee Roth reviews all the post DLR Van Halen albums... all 856,238 former members of Destiny's Child review whatever new crap they just put out...

And then, for more fun, the band members get to review the ejected members solo efforts.

Am I the only one who thinks this would be endlessly entertaining?

I just read Ally's post on some other thread that "pickaninnies" is a racial slur. I had no idea. Sincere apologies all around for my use of "ninnies" in above post. Ignorance wins again.

That word has a different meaning, with a different etymology.

Yeah, ninnies is short for nincompoops. SO IT'S OK!

Nope, 'ninny' is older.

>>> Surely suggesting Morrissey is a bit pointless

Why? I don't think the thread was about 'realistic propositions'. And anyway, the way M's going, he will probably become a reviewer soon. Lloyd Cole's becoming an interviewer.

"paid critic" = oxymoron
consumer surveys show that magazine and newspaper readers want short stupid reviews and long stupid artist profiles
or perhaps not, but readers must bear some responsibility for the fact that rock criticism has become so dire.

I think that (for instance) Ally talking about herself or about her friends, or her telling lies about real people (or truths about imaginary people and lies about real people) while her favorite music played would represent the music better than most rock critics could. It would be great rock criticism.

Mary Gaitskill's novel Two Girls, Fat and Thin is the best thing ever written about garage rock, though it rarely even mentions music: just briefly the Troggs' "Love Is All Around" and Skid Row's "18 and Life" video, if I remember right. But it reminds me of what a friend of mine once said about punk rock: "This sounds like junior high but more intense." Read the sections in Two Girls about Dorothy and Justine in junior high (Justine's was supposedly in the 1970s, but I know 1967 when I see it, which is when Mary went to junior high) and you'll know the world of "96 Tears" and "Pushin' Too Hard" and "Hanky Panky" and "Too Much to Dream."

I think that (for instance) Ally talking about herself or about her friends, or her telling lies about real people (or truths about imaginary people and lies about real people) while her favorite music played would represent the music better than most rock critics could. It would be great rock criticism.

Why am I being talked about without being informed? Anyhow, that's how all my music reviews work out, I just tell stories about people I know and then I'm all like, "Oh, and I think Jay-Z was on in the club, and it was the best song ever" and everyone's like, Yeah! Woo hoo! Great writing, girlfriend! And I'm all, uh, okay. I should start writing again, I have loads more stories now that tangentially relate to songs in some very vague way.

Seriously though, I agree. I know nothing about theory, I'm bad at spotting all but the most obvious samples and nicks, and I'm not good at historical analysis. So I go on gut feelings and explanations and self-referentialness when I write music reviews. I think magazines should hire more people who do that because I do think it's less self-concious and more understandible to your average magazine browser, which is important. Saying that an album is reminiscent of a New York Dolls b-side says nothing to someone who doesn't even know who the New York Dolls are, so I just don't bother bringing up even vaguely obscure bands/artists as my reference point in reviews.

So, like, if I was forcing someone to write a music review as my ideal rock critic, it'd be Mr. T, for the record.

i liked the comment on 'everyone being a critic'.

i dont believe that critism and the arts are to seperate islands at all, they go hand in hand. a critic needs passion and an artist needs critism.

the benifit of having an artist as a critic is that they know what it feels like to be the artist.

people are very easy influenced by a majority vote, if something is popular then it must be good.

a good critic should make people make there own discision rather than trying to bombard us with there own mindless cutting remarks (or worst of all pretentious fancy language). - fashion kills so many things.

we should be less lasy in our descision making and think through things through a little more - however, there is also such thing as time, and i do still believe in intuitiveness, and it is a pity to become overly self concious.

i would love to see a more open minded but descisive audience (now is that a contradiction?)

nothing should be exclusive. everyone is an artist. everyone is a critic. and it is your own job to make the most of it.

i think that mattew collings is great reading and makes you think about your own appions, his writing has a personality, it is concise yet he can still produce interesting side tracks - nothing sees to be irelivent , i would love to see him write about music.

Actually I'm glad this thread has been brought up again because I missed Ally's response last time around (and in light of this whole VV Sonic Youth review, Frank's comments have a certain relevance).

I actually like Ally's take on approaching music -- it isn't mine, to be sure, but it makes perfect sense for the reasons she's outlined. The one thing that comes to my mind, though, is that it seems to always presume a tabula rasa regarding Mark S.'s favorite vexed term influence with every new release -- for the reviewer, for the audience, presumably both. Is that necessarily the case, and how would that change over time -- does the reviewer assume the audience is experiencing more music along with him or her? Then again, it could just be the flipside to an approach that grounds anything and everything in something else, the same way that one reader of the review of the new album by the Soggies could just as easily pick up on the joking reference to the 1972 Estonian prog classic Minced Quince on the Baltic where another doesn't.