When does a rock critic become a rock historian?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

The difference between a rock critic and a rock historian is kind of like the difference between being short and tall. There is no definitive height for being a "short" or "tall" person, but you will know one when you see one.

I've never understood the critera for this. At what point do you graduate to that level? It seems like they're technically the same thing but in terms of respect the "rock historian" is much, much greater. It's like Indiana Jones technically being just another college prof., but you know, he also happens to hunt down the Ark of the Covenant and make it with Karen Allen.

What is the criteria?

― Cunga (Cunga), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 07:05 (twenty years ago)

I'll answer that as soon as I finish nailing all these angels onto the head of a pin.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 07:07 (twenty years ago)

is the respect for 'rock historian' really much much greater?

guralnick vs. xgau

nytimes notable books list vs. macarthur grant, whiting fellowship; i gotta say xgau gets the edge

tosches vs. bangs

bigger paychecks for sure (it helps to stay alive), good notices vs. immortality (it helps to die), probably most namechecked rock writer by non-rock writers ever; even here i give the edge to bangs if only cuz someone actually bothered to publish a bio about him (cf. it helps to die)(+ almost famous) + two collections vs. the one AND arguably the majority of prestige tosches has gotten has come from moving away from rock or at the very least decidedly NOT being seen as a rock writer by the majority of people writing about him/hiring him/hell maybe even reading him. trade bangs for another critic, say griel marcus and 'respect' (which outside of grants and awards = what? likelihood of getting a byline in the ny times mag? being interviewed on npr?) tilts further rockcritwise. trade tosches for any other 'rock historian' (or to be honest someone who fits that description more than tosches, say michael azzerad or whoever - for the field where 'the prestige is' i can't really toss off the names) and it tilts in favor of rockcrit heavily.

― j blount (papa la bas), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 07:26 (twenty years ago)

When? Easy: When he (or she)("she", yeah right!) grows old enough to no longer care about most new music, choosing instead to withdraw & delve ever further into the voluminous old stuff that made him a fan in the first place. I'd say the late Greg Shaw was the archetype.

― Myonga Von Bontee (Myonga Von Bontee), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 08:14 (twenty years ago)

When does a Rock Star become a Rock Legend?

― Huk-L, Tuesday, 22 February 2005 08:55 (twenty years ago)

If you have to ask, then you'll never know the answer. Look deeper inside yourself.

― Lunk Dory, Tuesday, 22 February 2005 09:30 (twenty years ago)

If they like what I like, they are critics. If they like what I used to like, they are historians.

― Dave Vinson (Gaughin), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 11:14 (twenty years ago)

My grandfather was a rock historian. He even discovered a mineral and the Smithsonian named it after him.

― Johnny Badlees (crispssssss), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 11:17 (twenty years ago)

that rocks

― mentalist (mentalist), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 11:31 (twenty years ago)

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