"Good reviewers tend to fall into 2 categories: enthusiasts or wits. The first excels at positive reviews, the second at pans, and seldom do the twain meet in a single soul."
What do you think of this definition? Are you an enthusiast or a wit? (You don't have to be a reviewer per se, just a poster here.) And what about your favorite, least favorite or other well-known music critics--enthusiasts or wits?
― Mary (Mary), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 17:11 (twenty-two years ago)
― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 18:13 (twenty-two years ago)
― alex in mainhattan (alex63), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 18:51 (twenty-two years ago)
― jess (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 18:52 (twenty-two years ago)
Appolonian hatas and Dionysian Bangses. Wowee, it's a first-term Humanites seminar. "seldom do the twain meet in a single soul," eh? Let's find these seldom, gorgeous few and give them jobs!
Guess I'm a wit then.
― g.cannon (gcannon), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 19:05 (twenty-two years ago)
― g.cannon (gcannon), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 19:08 (twenty-two years ago)
I think she said Lane is a wit when he writes about movies, but a literary enthusiast lurks within.
― Ben Williams, Tuesday, 3 September 2002 19:10 (twenty-two years ago)
― Kris (aqueduct), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 20:13 (twenty-two years ago)
― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 20:24 (twenty-two years ago)
Of course, all of this completely disregards "critics" like me, who are trying very hard to be as boring as possible. (Okay sorry that's a whiny joke but on some level lately I do want to try and write boring reviews, reviews consisting of nothing but short declarative sentences about what bands sound like and whether I like that or not.)
― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 20:43 (twenty-two years ago)
― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 20:44 (twenty-two years ago)
― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 20:55 (twenty-two years ago)
Sorry if these quotes sound pompous when taken out of context: the article is quite interesting when read in full.
I read the enthusiast as the type of person who is bowled over by the movie, book, etc. and whose quotes are pasted onto movie ads: "Remarkable! Groundbreaking! Breathtaking!" etc.; while the wit uses the space of the review to impress with their own cleverness.
Maybe this will clarify, again from Miller:
"The enthusiast tends to be too impetuous and undisciplined a writer to master the precise language and timing of the bon mot, and the wit is too intent on executing a flawless performance to risk affixing his heart to his sleeve."
― Mary (Mary), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 22:21 (twenty-two years ago)
― Lord Custos Alpha (Lord Custos Alpha), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 23:19 (twenty-two years ago)
― Lord Custos Alpha (Lord Custos Alpha), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 23:21 (twenty-two years ago)
― Nate Patrin, Tuesday, 3 September 2002 23:48 (twenty-two years ago)
That was kinda cynical. It was also kinda fun. Thanks, LCA!
― Matt C., Wednesday, 4 September 2002 00:14 (twenty-two years ago)
― Pete Scholtes, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 01:38 (twenty-two years ago)
Thus, Laura Miller says that Anthony Lane is a wit when it comes to movies, because fundamentally, he's not really passionate about them. He doesn't have an agenda to push, he's not trying to persuade; whereas, if you ever read his literature stuff, it's instantly apparent that he's much more strongly involved.
This is why I think music critics are all enthusiasts. Music tends to play a much stronger role in people's sense of their identity than any other artform; music critics are usually fairly passionate, heavily invested in a particular sound or movement, wanting to convince you of its importance.
Name one music critic who's a wit (Tanya Headon doesn't count; far too relentless and serious about disliking everything)...
― Ben Williams, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 13:13 (twenty-two years ago)
― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 13:27 (twenty-two years ago)
― Ben Williams, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 13:59 (twenty-two years ago)
Warning: the opinions expressed by Lord Custos in this post may not reflect the opinions of Lord Custos.
― Lord Custos Alpha (Lord Custos Alpha), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 14:01 (twenty-two years ago)
― Ben Williams, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 14:03 (twenty-two years ago)
― Lord Custos Alpha (Lord Custos Alpha), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 14:04 (twenty-two years ago)
― Ben Williams, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 14:05 (twenty-two years ago)
What are you talking about Ben? You've never found Danny Baker funny? What about those "Danny Baker's Wackiest Throw-Ins Volume 7" and "Danny Baker's Zaniest Applications of the Backpass Rule" videos? A laugh a minute.
And Steven Wells would be funny if he was a completely different person.
― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 14:38 (twenty-two years ago)
― Mike (mratford), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 15:05 (twenty-two years ago)
― Lord Custos Alpha (Lord Custos Alpha), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 16:12 (twenty-two years ago)
Me too, of course. But I think that dichotomy exists within individual critics as well--when I write about dance music, it tends to be Enthusiastic, and when I write about indie rock, it tends to be Wit-based (not witty, exactly, I wouldn't make that claim, not that I can't be funny, but humor isn't the point as much as the detached viewpoint I look at it with). Or someone like Christgau: he's an Enthusiast about African music, a Wit about post-rave dance stuff. it's not a hard-and-fast dichotomy, but it's useful in a very rough kind of way.
― M Matos (M Matos), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 16:36 (twenty-two years ago)
― Ben Williams, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 16:37 (twenty-two years ago)
― dleone (dleone), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 16:47 (twenty-two years ago)
why?
― dleone (dleone), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 16:48 (twenty-two years ago)
― M Matos (M Matos), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 16:54 (twenty-two years ago)
― M Matos (M Matos), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 16:55 (twenty-two years ago)
I dunno. I do take pleasure in ripping a particularly bad album a new asshole, but I don't do it that often anymore -- I try to write about things I like, if I can help it. I guess I'm an enthusiast because I look on the bright side and make an attempt to draw on an album's strengths rather than make myself look like an asshole of the I WHO STAND ON A MOUNTAINTOP AND PROCLAIM THE TRUTH AND YOU ARE ALL SUCKAZ variety. But that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm particularly good at "enthusiast" writing -- I think my "wit" side has produced better results. But I'm afraid to be a wit; there seems to be a big anti-enthusiast backlash at the moment, and the so-called wits who are in cultural favor strike me as being very dumb, dilettantish, and ignorant.
― Jody Beth Rosen, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 18:33 (twenty-two years ago)
― Lord Custos Alpha (Lord Custos Alpha), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 19:09 (twenty-two years ago)
Helloooooo, Ceefax pages 562-564.....
― Mr Swygart (mrswygart), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 19:20 (twenty-two years ago)
― Mr Swygart (mrswygart), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 19:21 (twenty-two years ago)
I guess it all comes down to how secure you feel in your reactions to art, how much you consider your likes and dislikes bedrock upon which to play. But there's no dichotomy between the approaches you mention when it comes to loving and hating art. Kael's paeans and pans follow similar rhythms. She even gained a light touch with a pan in her late (underrated) years.
― Pete Scholtes, Thursday, 5 September 2002 00:36 (twenty-two years ago)