Xgau in not taking Ryan Pitchfork shocker

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned here at all? Maybe intentionally. Sorry if I ruined something by starting this thread. [Bandwidth gods, forgive me]

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0350/christgau.php

How seriously can we take an aesthetic arbiter whose idea of strong prose is, "In trading the adolescent kick of Secaucus for ripened resignation, meticulous refinement for crippling maturation, they have realized their magnum opus"?

The funny thing is, though, that in Indieland almost as much as in actually existing pop, bright music happens to dull people. The writing I've singled out is abysmal...

― Vic (Vic), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 21:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Haha I m eant not taking him seriously, of course. I like this title anyway

― Vic (Vic), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 21:30 (twenty-one years ago)

As do I. "Nope, not taking it. Can't take it, won't take it."

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 21:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Ho ho - was that a Ryan Pitchfork reference? I missed that.

― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 21:35 (twenty-one years ago)

this was kind of funny:

They were overrated, not awful, and the overraters were too out of it to get mad at.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 21:36 (twenty-one years ago)

This paragraph gives me a headache:

"Our old pal alt snobbery, which sucks, meets our new enemy friendly fascism, which sucks worse—sucks as bad as boho exclusionists always think the prevailing culture sucks, so bad that it may be unfair to expect the virtuous to want in."

― bad jode (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 21:39 (twenty-one years ago)

needs more "sucks"

― nate detritus (natedetritus), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 21:43 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't understand who the "friendly fascists" are in that paragraph. Does he mean like the Ryan Pitchforks of the world? I don't understand how they are "fascist" - or "friendly", for that matter.

― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 21:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Yay, more parsing!

Shouldn't it be "fair" instead of "unfair" in that last clause? It seems a bit less contradictory that way, unless he's using some other meaning of "virtuous."

― Vic (Vic), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 21:49 (twenty-one years ago)

"Friendly fascism":

He means, like, the government, Onate. And maybe their pals Clear Channel. Etc. Friendly 'cause they're supposedly on our side, geddit?

― olga, Tuesday, 9 December 2003 21:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Uncle Sam!? Clear Channel?! Now I really am puzzled. Is Clear Channel secretly controlled by corny indie fuxx0rs?

― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 21:52 (twenty-one years ago)

"Unfair," cos the fascists are probably not worth joining up with after all, so maybe the nice alt kids have a point about distinguishing themselves from said fascists, and telling them TO join would be unfair even if it's what nice alt kids always did before.

― olga, Tuesday, 9 December 2003 21:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Hey, at least Xgau admitted he missed picking up on a good record.

Baby steps.

― Baked Bean Teeth (Baked Bean Teeth), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 21:55 (twenty-one years ago)

he never says indie cornballs ARE the fascists. he says in this day and age they come face to face against each other. i.e., they "meet."

― olga, Tuesday, 9 December 2003 21:57 (twenty-one years ago)

No, Vic, he's saying that he's normally predisposed to laugh at the cloistered world of corny indie fuxx0rs, but that given the current climate he may have to grudgingly concede that they have a point; "virtuous" used ironically, one assumes.

― Broheems (diamond), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 21:57 (twenty-one years ago)

x-post

By the way, he actually makes me want to hear these Wrens folk. Oh, and hey look Baked Bean Teeth likes them too, eh? Hmm.. I will definitely investigate.

― Broheems (diamond), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 21:58 (twenty-one years ago)

This is the difference, though. Christgau invistes parsing. Ryan Pitchfork invites outright scorn.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 21:58 (twenty-one years ago)

I took the 'friendly fascism' to mean the bright shiny pop-pop-pop world myself.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 22:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Hahaha if nothing else, creating this thread was worth it for giving me the image of Ryan Pitchfork as an evil Clear Channel drone!!

― Vic (Vic), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 22:01 (twenty-one years ago)

One interesting thing though is that after labeling Pitchfork's writing "abysmal", he praises the record using the same qualifier ("magnum opus")!

― Broheems (diamond), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 22:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Mojo, not necessarily saying the Wrens are good -- just that Xgau actually admitted he missed what in retrospect was a good record, despite his omniscient indie-binsweep tendencies.

I'll be cracking open a copy of Meadowlands shortly, though; it's been 'on the radar'...

― Baked Bean Teeth (Baked Bean Teeth), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 22:04 (twenty-one years ago)

sub "what in retrospect was WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS a good record."

― Baked Bean Teeth (Baked Bean Teeth), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 22:04 (twenty-one years ago)

wow broheems, what a coincidence!!

― mitch lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 22:04 (twenty-one years ago)

I haven't heard Secaucus in enough depth to comment.

― Baked Bean Teeth (Baked Bean Teeth), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 22:05 (twenty-one years ago)

(sorry that was unnecessarily snarky)

― mitch lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 22:06 (twenty-one years ago)

One interesting thing though is that after labeling Pitchfork's writing "abysmal", he praises the record using the same qualifier ("magnum opus")!

I'm certain that was intentional. And I've seen Christgau reevaluate his opinion lotsa times.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 22:07 (twenty-one years ago)

second "magnum opus" = ironic. but you knew that, right broheems?

― olga, Tuesday, 9 December 2003 22:07 (twenty-one years ago)

after labeling Pitchfork's writing "abysmal"

i'm sure he meant this part: "meticulous refinement for crippling maturation". it just doesn't scan right! the phrase just sort of hangs there in the middle of the sentence. and the way it sort of echoes the rhythm of "ripened resignation" is just awful. and what the hell is "crippling maturation" anyway? is that when your joints hurt?

― vahid (vahid), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 22:08 (twenty-one years ago)

the whole sentence has the tone of voice of a high school valedictory speech, adn the "meticulous..." part is like when the valedictorian looks up at the parents in the front row for a few words!

― vahid (vahid), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 22:09 (twenty-one years ago)

All right, this line:

How seriously can we take an aesthetic arbiter whose idea of strong prose is

Is it really necessary for a writer to have "strong prose" to in fact have a role as an 'aesthetic arbiter'? I wouldn't think so.

― Baked Bean Teeth (Baked Bean Teeth), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 22:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Vocab flexing is a tricky thing. Harlan Ellison can do it. Ryan Pitchfork cannot.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 22:11 (twenty-one years ago)

To mitch and olga: of course I knew the usage was intentional, you drillrods. I give Chuck that much credit. What I thought, though was that he was sort of "reclaiming" that tired noun by employing it, when actually now that I think about it he still may have been making fun of it.

― Broheems (diamond), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 22:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe that's why I no longer look to Christgau for recommendations, and haven't since about 1988.

― Baked Bean Teeth (Baked Bean Teeth), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 22:11 (twenty-one years ago)

You know, I don't either, now that I think about it. But I do wonder what he thinks about things.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 22:14 (twenty-one years ago)

The Wrens are worse than Poole and Edsel combined.

― Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 22:17 (twenty-one years ago)

can i be a drillo pad instead?

― mitch lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 22:18 (twenty-one years ago)

how about, "a pox on both yer houses!! all y'all die painfully!"

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 22:20 (twenty-one years ago)

I guess I'm not sure what the point of making snide comments about indie webzines is, if it's all just a lengthy intro to a review of the Wrens. It reminded me of Andy Wang's Broken Social Scene review in the NY Press, which contained a bitter swipe against ILM for no discernible reason. It's one thing to talk about how sites like Pitchfork are functioning as groundswells of attention for certain indie bands -- which is a potentially interesting article -- but why the potshot against the writing?

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 22:36 (twenty-one years ago)

fwiw, I really wasn't, um, inspired to track down which other webzine he is referencing here in this quote (which is for the Shins or Wrens album I presume?). The pitchfork one just jumped out at me since it's on that metacritic page.

Indieland broke off relations with the actually existing pop world years ago, reconceiving it as an evil empire so despicable that its inner workings could safely be reduced to the gross clichés that alt folk favor. Really, what level of understanding can we expect of a review that climaxes: "The album's a real winner, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that these guys are definitely the genuine article"?

― Vic (Vic), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 22:43 (twenty-one years ago)

ott otm

― jack cole (jackcole), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 22:47 (twenty-one years ago)

I agree that Christgau dissing the prose style of a zine writer, even if he doesn't name names, is bullying. Shouldn't he be picking on someone closer to his own size?

― dylan (dylan), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 23:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, but he is picking on a zine that has publicly dissed him (by name) in its reviews - so perhaps he is justified.

― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 23:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Ah, I almost forgot:

"Unbelievably, the Village Voice's Robert Christgau-- exhibiting distinctly lecherous tendencies in his old age-- hailed the track's money line (it's about voting for Gore) as a gem. It needs to be said that most of the critical ink-jizz lavished on Northern State squirts from Christgau's pen: Voice coverage aside, it was he who gave their home demo a four-star review in Rolling Stone, setting them firmly on track to a recent deal with Columbia."

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 23:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, maybe that merits a response. Maybe Pitchfork should respond by going after some pompous high school critics:

"Corey Jenkins from the Roosevelt High Tiger-Picayune couldn't write a shopping list without making three grammatical errors or trotting out five florid adjectives. And if he thinks the new Shins album is the ninth best album of the year, he simply hasn't heard that Rod Stewart collection of standards."

― dylan (dylan), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 23:12 (twenty-one years ago)

I really doubt Christgau had read much more of Pitchfork than the review he quoted.

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 23:13 (twenty-one years ago)

that's like that sedaris article where he picks on third grade christmas plays.

― vahid (vahid), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 23:15 (twenty-one years ago)

you can always tell which threads will be over-whelmingly american.

― charltonlido (gareth), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 23:21 (twenty-one years ago)

cor! blimey! (or whatever it is)

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 23:24 (twenty-one years ago)

that's like that sedaris article where he picks on third grade christmas plays.

Ha! You realize, of course, that you're not defending anyone with this statement.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 23:25 (twenty-one years ago)

they're both funny!

― vahid (vahid), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 23:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Skipping 46 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

Xgau's writing style gets on my nerves to no end.

― David Allen, Wednesday, 10 December 2003 06:21 (twenty-one years ago)

I always feel weird when people bitch about Christgau's obscurantism because he almost always makes sense to me, and it's only when people start complaining about his "impenetrability" that I have to go back and read it again to make sure that I understood it the first time, usually to find that it still seems perfectly comprehensible. It's not like he uses a lot of big wonky words or anything. The key with him is you just have to follow the bouncing ball -- read every word, basically, because he's disciplined himself to make every word count. I think his best Consumer Reports blurbs are near-perfect models of clarity, concision and coherence. Really. I guess I wouldn't want everyone to write like that, but I think anyone who's serious about writing can learn a lot from how much information, opinion, humor and style he can pack into a smaller space than I've wasted just in this post.

As for the Wrens...I first read about them in the New York Times. Whether the Times read about them in Pitchfork, I have no idea.

― spittle (spittle), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 06:59 (twenty-one years ago)

I've been reading Christgau for a very long time, but I'm disappointed by this article. It just seems in poor style for a writer of his stature to even bother picking on (admittedly often bad) writing of webzine like pfork. I also found the transition from the first part of the piece to the second to be awkward. Strangely, while his early stuff was the bible for me, I rarely look to Christgau for musical guidance; I read him just to get off on the style, which is mostly terrific. I'd just rather hear him put down a bad record than bad music journalism.

― Sean (Sean), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 08:26 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the think that most turned me off about Xgau's bully tactics with Pfork was that he chose to pick on a writer who was actually gushing about something he really really loved...now, irregardless of whether you think the praise was warranted (I don't either, but still) or whether you think Pfork does have an odd definition of pop perfection, I just think it's a little fucking low to slam someone when they're trying to sincerely write about something they like...shit, there are PLENTY examples of snarky, self-consciously bad writing in Pfork that would make excellent fodder for such a critical condemnation....i'm not saying that 'bad writing' should be excused, it just seems kind of pointlessly cruel to pick on someone when they're repping their favorite band and not really hurting anyone in the process.

― Josh Love (screamapillar), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 08:28 (twenty-one years ago)

...unless you happen to be making a point about the unreliability of scene-oriented writing.

― M Matos (M Matos), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 10:08 (twenty-one years ago)

and not one about Pitchfork specifically. I mean come on--he doesn't even mention who wrote the piece he quotes. wouldn't that indicate to you the fish he's frying has less to do with the piece(s) in question than the fact that it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff in indie rock because its partisans are so eager to be the first on their block? or--HERE'S a wild guess--did you not bother reading the article itself and just the thread about it?

― M Matos (M Matos), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 10:13 (twenty-one years ago)

for instance: I read the article and thought, "gee, I wonder who wrote that piece he's quoting? oh well, it doesn't matter nearly as much as his larger point does." end of discussion. or so I thought at the time.

― M Matos (M Matos), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 10:14 (twenty-one years ago)

"the larger point" has nothing to do with the what I was saying...certainly i see the need to indict Pfork and its ilk in terms of his angle, i just personally find it childish and unprofessional to arbitrarily pull quotes from someone else's writing and then hold them up as abysmal. i just honestly can't see the need for it.

simply put, it's incredibly condescending, much like your haughty little conclusion there - "HERE's a wild guess--did you not bother reading the article itself and just the thread about it" (why yes i did read the article, sir yes sir).

― Josh Love (screamapillar), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 10:45 (twenty-one years ago)

*on a side note - that Mu article from Pitchfork that Chris Ott mentions is the only review ever to have persuaded me to by an album, and if it doesnt live up to the review then i'll be pissed off*

― ambrose (ambrose), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 11:04 (twenty-one years ago)

the need for it = to demonstrate the unreliability of scene-oriented writing/thinking/excuse-making/whatever. which is pretty obvious from the piece and the reason I questioned whether you'd read it or not. also, it's not as if there isn't a major precedent within arguments like this one for people to jump on stuff like this without knowing the work being discussed--this isn't just Josh Love I'm talking about here, and I certainly include myself in that boat.

― M Matos (M Matos), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 11:09 (twenty-one years ago)

i.e. I've jumped on things w/o knowing the work in question. we all do it. it's human nature and it's the nature of the way this board works. I don't think I was being unfair by asking why you didn't get something that seemed obvious to me. I'm sorry if you believe otherwise.

― M Matos (M Matos), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 11:10 (twenty-one years ago)

that's fair, you just sounded a bit more snide than i suppose you intended to sound.

and certainly i see his point, i just feel like maybe there was a more constructive, professional way to do it...which i know is incredibly naive on my part, that's just the nature of the beast.

― Josh Love (screamapillar), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 11:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Bah, I think there are a number of lines of thought in that one piece. Some I find interesting ("....Alternia, now a half virtual domain that includes both Web and clubs..."; "Poised for takeover? What's to take over? Indie stars are already masters of all they survey.").

Others I feel are sad pot shots at writing by people who are simply gushing about music they love as pointed out by a poster above (and I do not put Pitchfork in this category, housed mainly of pseudo-intellectuals who think using 5 syllable words and convoluted logic somehow equate to knowledge) .. comments like " How seriously can we take an aesthetic arbiter whose idea of strong prose is, "In trading the adolescent kick of Secaucus for ripened resignation, meticulous refinement for crippling maturation, they have realized their magnum opus"? - although even here I think the point is more subtle (and perhaps more true) than it appears at first. And the point being, how can we consider someone an 'arbiter of aesthetics' if their prose is, when dissected, vacuous and meaningless such as the phrase above?

I think Xgau's piece is worth exploring for the ideas he puts forth in them, like Matos suggests. it is an indictment on a SCENE not a writer or website.. and I think the idea raises a number of points worth exploring.

― nothingleft (nothingleft), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 16:07 (twenty-one years ago)

it is an indictment on a SCENE not a writer or website.. and I think the idea raises a number of points worth exploring.

I think you're probably right about this, and perhaps I didn't read the piece as closely as I should have. "How seriously can we take an aesthetic arbiter..." is probably less of a rhetorical question that initially I took it for. I thought it was Xgau being like, "Can you believe this awful writing!" -- instead of "How trustworthy is all of this webzine stuff when it's all just vapid cliches?" (i.e., "How much thought has actually been put into it?") I'd just prefer he emphasized that he's interested in the tone of the writing (its blind inclusiveness), rather than its style (not being "strong prose").

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 16:27 (twenty-one years ago)

i must admit that one of the things that kept springing to mind as i read the piece and this thread is mark s's quote about "one of the major values of bohemia being it's disdainful self-quarantine" (i am probably butching this.)

― fiddo centington (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 16:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Totally unrelated, sort of:

Does anybody else wish Pfork articles were shorter? Personally, I'd read more of them if they halved the current lengths...this is something that I'm elated the VV did recently.

― Raymond Cummings (Raymond Cummings), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 16:42 (twenty-one years ago)

clearly he wants to say that a) indieland is bankrupt, and b) these two albums are pretty good. i can't figure out if he thinks the two bands are complicit in that quarantine/bankruptcy, or to what degree, or if it's just a sad fact of their uh milieu; what does he mean by "bright music happens to dull people"? fans or musicians? little of both i guess.

i read that times article on the wrens, too; i kneejerkily hated them because of it ("wtf, why is this news? who cares? what's the fucking headline here, 'alt band from jersey goes nowhere,' is this the onion??")

― g--ff (gcannon), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 16:49 (twenty-one years ago)

sometimes i wish there was a "laughing out loud" thread just for ilm.

― fiddo centington (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 16:54 (twenty-one years ago)

he got started saying this (and did so in shorter-form, i.e. better) here (scroll to fifth paragraph)

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 16:57 (twenty-one years ago)

i was most surprised that ryan's (admittedly pedestrain) prose was recognizable on sight for most people. who even spotted the other quotes of pop shots (or is it pop matters)?

― Beta (abeta), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 17:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Jess DON'T DO IT. I have been channeling your spirit in UK time wrt sheer irriation at ILE and ILM has seemed like a breath of fresh air!

(Blimey eh?)

― Sarah (starry), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 17:29 (twenty-one years ago)

arrr more sociology in place of music criticism arrr

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 11 December 2003 00:26 (twenty-one years ago)

why aren't they the same thing?

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 11 December 2003 01:22 (twenty-one years ago)

I SLAP YOU.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Thursday, 11 December 2003 01:24 (twenty-one years ago)

there is nothing beyond the *song*.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 11 December 2003 01:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I SLAP YOU AGAIN.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Thursday, 11 December 2003 01:47 (twenty-one years ago)

tune into the cosmic harmonies, dude.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 11 December 2003 01:48 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm down with that.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Thursday, 11 December 2003 01:50 (twenty-one years ago)

it must be a funny world where "criticism" is divorced from ideas like context and sociology.

― fiddo centington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 11 December 2003 02:07 (twenty-one years ago)

or cosmic harmonies.

― fiddo centington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 11 December 2003 02:07 (twenty-one years ago)

oh geddofit. I never said they were divorced. I just didn't wanna hear Sterling get all blabbity claiming sociology IS music criticism rather than a facet of it.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Thursday, 11 December 2003 02:36 (twenty-one years ago)

replace "facet" with "aspect."

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Thursday, 11 December 2003 02:36 (twenty-one years ago)

hey anthony maybe music criticism is an aspect of sociology, huh? didja ever think of that? didja? didja!?

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 11 December 2003 02:59 (twenty-one years ago)

haha

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Thursday, 11 December 2003 03:05 (twenty-one years ago)

haha i wasnt even talking about you, you big drama queen!

― fiddo centington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 11 December 2003 03:53 (twenty-one years ago)

it's not that they should or could be divorced entirely it's just that the social aspects and political aspects seem like things that should be understood once you really get a really really really fine-grained sense of what the music is about, the musical choices that were made by the artists, and how those choices function/mean in the overall context, etc. perhaps xgau has an intuitive sense but he doesn't work hard enough to share it with the readers and leaps right into the sociology.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 11 December 2003 12:33 (twenty-one years ago)

but yeah i'm like a broken record about this, the situation's not going to change i guess, so sorry.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 11 December 2003 12:33 (twenty-one years ago)

i mean it's easy to judge people and criticize various facets of people's supposed worldview when you haven't really tried extremely hard to appreciate those musical choices, those imperatives owing to personal tastes and immediate context (not this super-broad social context)....

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 11 December 2003 12:35 (twenty-one years ago)

also i think it's more interesting to do and read about the latter.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 11 December 2003 12:35 (twenty-one years ago)

I myself don't like Xgau because his writing never inspires me to run out and buy something.

― Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 11 December 2003 13:17 (twenty-one years ago)

that's why I hate john updike

― s1utsky (slutsky), Friday, 12 December 2003 01:27 (twenty-one years ago)

not even some new golf clubs, slutsky?

― scott seward, Friday, 12 December 2003 01:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Updike never topped his performance on the Simpsons.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 12 December 2003 01:44 (twenty-one years ago)

I couldnt really follow this, but Id be interested to listen if you care to explicate. At the risk of misinterpreting, I dont think Xgau even cares about trying to appreciate their musical tastes, I think he's saying that everything being said is pseudo-intellectual wankery for "I like this album". That is, it offers no 'criticism' from a (historic) musical framework. I dont know..I cant really say the article makese sense to be cohesively though

― nothingleft (nothingleft), Friday, 12 December 2003 02:22 (twenty-one years ago)

well the criticism xgau is complaining about is certainly no better than his own, probably far worse, but that doesnt mean his criticism is anything to shout about either...

― amateur!st (amateurist), Friday, 12 December 2003 11:53 (twenty-one years ago)

but i generally think that people need to write better and make a stronger case if they are saying something negative. IMO poorly written positive criticism is still more worthy (if not necessarily more tolerable), if only because t comes from a genuine enthusiasm, than similarly lazy negative criticism.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Friday, 12 December 2003 11:55 (twenty-one years ago)

You know I think you've articulated my beef with pitchfork far better than I've ever been able to do: it's the combination of negative and lazy that puts me off.

― Charming Tedious, Friday, 12 December 2003 17:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Pitchfork cannot fairly be described as negative anymore.

― Mark (MarkR), Friday, 12 December 2003 17:27 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah they rarely stick their necks out to talk shit about a high profile release anymore...now it seems Ryan just manages to find someone on the staff who likes it.

― Al (sitcom), Friday, 12 December 2003 17:34 (twenty-one years ago)

haha i was sort of defending pitchfork against xgau with that comment actually

― amateur!st (amateurist), Friday, 12 December 2003 17:39 (twenty-one years ago)

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