Lazy Music Critic-isms

"eclectic", "eccentric", "individualistic", "quirky", "Northern", "astonishing", "amazing", "pretentious", "self- indulgent", "ambitious", "over-ambitious".

-- "And the English air would soon be reeking with petrol fumes."

"portentous" = in minor key

I don't like critics who try to be objective. I don't like critics who pretend they're writing outside of a particular or personal context (this is the same thing, really).

I don't like critics who don't try to get into why they like things, or rather why it's a good thing that music does something (experiment, maybe) instead of something else (entertain, maybe). You don't need to explain that all the time but too many critics just seem to operate with some kind of mass critical opinion as unspoken backup.

I dont like words like astonishing or incredible but it's difficult sometimes to find the good words.

I don't think critics should see themselves as gatekeepers or filters. I also don't like critics who feel they owe the artists something.

I have no problems at all with the rock and roll lifestyle but I'm not interested in stories about hanging with the stars, because the stars as people I generally couldn't give two fucks about.

Probably lots more too!

A related point: It seems to me, Tom, that when you exclude the "filter" notion from how you approach writing about music, your audience is limited to those who have already heard the music, and the writing becomes after-the-fact criticism and discussion among those with a shared experience. Would you agree with this? If you exclude the filter idea, it seems to me, then you also forgo the idea of trying to explain what the music is like to those who haven't heard it. That is the essence of "filtering" in my view.

other peeves: "soul" and similar white-guilt groovyisms used to cover up reactionary aesthetic prejudices. especially absurd when used by postpunk critics. the indie-rock version of rockism (cf carducci) also rankles.

'objectivity' is pathetic, i agree.

pop stars of the 60s are high culture by which all else is to be judged.

canadian nationalism.

comparing every new british act to the smiths.

the idea that punk was all about stripping rock down to its basic 3 chords. *aerosmith* was all about stripping rock down to its basic 3 chords.

taking into account a band's record company affiliation.

Suffice it to say that I share all Tom and Sundar's dislikes, though I think the net will greatly reduce the gatekeeper / filter mentality.

I also hate music reviews that for no apparent reason tell you that you should buy, say, Radiohead or the Magnetic Fields because they are more "real", "interesting" than Backstreet Boys (or fill in the blank pop artist). What makes them more real or interesting other than a snap judgement most likely made by someone who hasn't heard much of the maligned artist's work? This is absolutely worst when it comes in a review of a former traditionally teeny pop artist; ie Melanie C is "better" than Geri Halliwell because Melanie C "does" indie; Madonna is "better" than (enter whatever teen pop female you like) because she's realized the error of doing pure dance pop, etc. It's ridiculous. It usually just means the music is more boring and less polished, two things I don't particularly care for.

As for the idea Tom put forth of writers as gatekeepers...hrm. Well, I don't think of my reviews as "gatekeeping" because ten times out of ten, my review is more interesting than the record being reviewed, unless it's a REALLY good record, of which there aren't that many. So yeah, on one hand, you should operate as a filter to let people know just what happens in the album, but pure filtering is a bit duller than dirt. I mean, one example of bad filtering that would probably illustrate Tom's point is virtually all Village Voice reviews. There was one a few weeks ago, I forget the albums being reviewed, but the majority of the review seemed to talk about Radiohead, which wasn't being reviewed and wasn't similar to the artists being reviewed. So it made no sense. That's what I'd call self-indulgence, and as a reviewer you shouldn't be purely self-indulgent because you're writing to inform, not necessarily to entertain, and you're trying to inform about a specific thing. That being said, without some self- indulgent, the writing is extremely dry. You have to hit a balance between a filter and a novelist, quite frankly. Otherwise no one will read it.

for that matter, does sincerity really matter?

I just want to say that I've tried to address a couple of the qns in this thread in a piece I've written during my weeks 'in exile', so expect that soon Mr. Richard-San and others. Cheers.

was this really the first ILM thread to mention "rockism"?