"what, lousy writers can't be critics too?"

Oh, fine...

http://www.ilxor.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=009kVP

you can be an amazing stylist and an atrocious thinker. (and vice versa.) the two aren't incompatible.

Like it. Can't wait to see what the regulars around here make of this one...

As for me - I think being a good critic doesn't necessarily mean being a good writer. I think a critique such as "that was fucking shit" is just as powerful, critically charged, engaging and challenging (and thus valid as a critical response) to some well researched, flowery speil about context and cultural impact.

I think a critique such as "that was fucking shit" is just as powerful, critically charged, engaging and challenging (and thus valid as a critical response) to some well researched, flowery speil about context and cultural impact.

Bullshit.

(see? SEE?)

I don't think there is an inherent relationship between the two. I wish there was -- and this goes for writing about anything.

"Being a good critic" - what does this mean? Depends what you're using a critic for. If you're using a critic as a means of finding out about new music you might like, then the requirements are to discover new music and have trustworthy taste - writing ability has nothing to do with it. But there are all sorts of other things you might want out of a critic - and some of them are helped by good writing.

Though the word 'good' wasn't even in Josh's original question!

Good writing is a necessity. Absolutely. They're not even seperable. The writing is the criticism.

And Roger, please...

Is that a wind up??? I can never tell when you guys are joking.

As for me - I think being a good critic doesn't necessarily mean being a good writer. I think a critique such as "that was fucking shit" is just as powerful, critically charged, engaging and challenging (and thus valid as a critical response) to some well researched, flowery speil about context and cultural impact.

This reminds me of something I see at ILM a lot. In these "C/D" threads, many people flesh out their responses with the reasons why they like or dislike the artist, but some posters see fit just to drop a smug one-word "classic" or "dud" reply (or "Steely Dan's the better group, hands down"), and it may be the honest response, but as critical discussion, it's pretty useless. There's definitely a difference between criticism and mere opinion -- this'll sound defensive, but some of us critics work very hard to take our opinions and back them up with specifics, and that can require a little flowery spiel from time to time.

Being a good critic = being a good writer ... does mean that in order to be a good critic, you need to be able to communicate well. That doesn't mean you have to write in prose, or using perfect grammar... "good" doesn't necessarily mean "proper." In fact, some critics write too well - and they come off as arrogant (or just boring.) Ya gots to keep it on the level of the reader. Dig? SO what do you mean by "Good"? (Good is one of those words that a good writer would not use - because what the fuck does it mean, anyway?)

good means nice, only with less fluffy hair

I think the term 'good critic' is an oxymoron.

Unless you are the creator of a work, critisism has no importance to that work. And probably not even then, unless the critic is extraordinary.

yeah yeah yeah, I know you all disagree. I should repeat however that I have a narrower definition of critic than seems to be the accepted standard. Writing about music isn't always critisism, there was a great article recently in NYLPM about Stockholm Monsters, it was very personal writing, it was opinion, but it sure wasn't what I call critisism.

a good critic is someone who thinks intelligently and cogently and makes good points, and isn't just knee-jerkily dismissive or embracing; it points to the quality of the thought that goes into the observation. you can be the most appalling stylist in the world and still be a good critic; I can disagree with 99% of everything you say and still think you're a good critic. I disagree CONSTANTLY with critics I like; I know critics I agree with most of the time who I think are terrible critics.

pretty useless? it depends who's making the curt judgment. and who's reading it.

What nobody's done is provide any examples yet to flesh out their assertions.

Here's mine:

Greil Marcus: Great critic, lousy writer. Why? 'Cause Marky Marc provides deep and informed insights into C20 pop music and its context (which I mostly disagree with but find challenging none-the- less). But I can't think of a single memorable line from his work. And I have to fight the urge to fall asleep during some of his sentences.

So there you have it. GM = the Habermas of music criticism

But can you be a bad thinker and a good critic?

Matos, I agree that a good critic doesn't necessarily = one you agree with. But neither does a good stylist necessarily = a good writer, or vice versa. If you like someone's criticism, and it arrives in written form, then you like their writing.