National Review spills the beans on critics

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

National Review talks tough about critics in a review of prog band Spock's Bears:

"The dirty little secret about contemporary music is that almost none of the industry people, broadcasters, and music critics actually know anything about music. Rock criticism has always extolled lyrics, artistic personae, emotional directness, and visual presentation because those are things a writer can observe without having studied music. This ignorance is the main reason the biggest critic-driven trends of the past four decades — folk, punk, disco, and then, simultaneously in the past decade, grunge, rap, metal, industrial, and Lilith folk — have been based on these things rather than music."

Does he have a point? Is there any way this article isn't torn apart by ILM regulars? Do you even know who Spock's Beard is?

― dleone (dleone), Thursday, 3 October 2002 18:48 (twenty-two years ago)

In next month's National Review: Peter King never played football!

― Yancey (ystrickler), Thursday, 3 October 2002 18:51 (twenty-two years ago)

On the other hand, Lilith folk?

― dleone (dleone), Thursday, 3 October 2002 18:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes, they are like pixies, but they have snake-like tails.

― Lord Custos Alpha (Lord Custos Alpha), Thursday, 3 October 2002 18:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Some of this is absolutely hysterical...

"The Devil's got my throat
I'm goin' down; that's all she wrote.

The song giving Snow's reaction to his fall, "All Is Vanity," clearly alludes to the Book of Ecclesiastes, and after a few more compositions describing his degradation, we encounter the source of his redemption."

I'm convinced. Up with masturbatory musicianship for the sake of musicianship!

Didn't he learn anything when the Warner Bros. cartoons single-handedly deflated Wagner's opera?

― aaron, Thursday, 3 October 2002 19:05 (twenty-two years ago)

well, it's bold, but it's completely laughable, too, not unlike most prog rock.

― M Matos (M Matos), Thursday, 3 October 2002 19:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Fave line: "During the rest of the decade, the Beard released three more albums of original material..."

The Beard!

― A.N., Thursday, 3 October 2002 19:43 (twenty-two years ago)

"Some of these bands received strong reviews initially, and several achieved such popularity that they are still making music three decades later. By the late 1970s, however, '60s-generation critics were on the lookout for any evidence of artistic pretension, and newer groups of this sort had increasing difficulty breaking into a market dominated by unmelodious punk and disco sounds. Progressive rock fell by the wayside. In the 1990s, however, two trends brought the form back (although most music fans are not yet aware of that, thanks to the critics' and industry people's preference for simple music with angry, openly left-wing lyrics). "

Another American scared of socialism?

― Ian, Thursday, 3 October 2002 19:57 (twenty-two years ago)

"unmelodious punk and disco sounds"?! my god, have you HEARD people trying to hum ELP?! HORRIFYING!

― M Matos (M Matos), Thursday, 3 October 2002 20:00 (twenty-two years ago)

i haven't read the article but music is much more than notes written on a page.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 3 October 2002 20:03 (twenty-two years ago)

The Beard! The Stuffies! The Dan!

Yes yes EVERY critic fawned over disco from the very beginning!

(I can hum the Manticore part from "Tarkus," or whatever part has the crazy Moogs.)

― Andy K (Andy K), Thursday, 3 October 2002 20:04 (twenty-two years ago)

rap and metal are "critic-driven genres"? who is this dimwit? isn't national review william f. buckley's mag?

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 3 October 2002 20:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Pioneering prog bands such as Yes, Genesis, King Crimson, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull, Procol Harum, Kansas, and Emerson, Lake, and Palmer created ambitious, complex compositions blending classical, folk, medieval, and jazz influences with rock foundations.

Those lemmings liked the critic-driven trend of folk? Bah! Aqualung is rolling in his grave.

― Andy K (Andy K), Thursday, 3 October 2002 20:08 (twenty-two years ago)

The dirty little secret about contemporary music is that almost none of the industry people, broadcasters, and music critics actually know anything about music.

The dirty OPEN secret about contemporary music is that almost no music fans -- including most fans of Yes, Genesis, King Crimson, Pink Floyd, etc., etc. -- know anything about "music," either. It's hardly JUST a critic problem. To blame critics for prog's demise as a cultural force is like looking for Saturn at the wrong end of the telescope.

I remember seeing a U.N. study about musical literacy that placed the number of Americans who could read music at below 1%. Maybe I'll try and find it when I get home -- it does seem absurdly low.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Thursday, 3 October 2002 20:20 (twenty-two years ago)

''I remember seeing a U.N. study about musical literacy that placed the number of Americans who could read music at below 1%. Maybe I'll try and find it when I get home -- it does seem absurdly low.''

yes do check. it does seem very low...

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 3 October 2002 20:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh this is just too fucking good. Never in my grottiest teeth-grinding hellfantasies would I have thought I would find an article pissing about how noone gives a shit about 90's-era Christian prog (I esp liked his motif of citing the increasingly impressive [impressively increasing?] length of the er compositions) only a click away from the most terrifying incinerate-the-wogs-to-save-them Iraq-talq. Un. Real. Funny, I already have the NRO bookmarked (it's better than caffeine, I swear).

― g.cannon (gcannon), Thursday, 3 October 2002 20:25 (twenty-two years ago)

I think Daddino hit the nail on the head. The reason no one in the industry knows anything about music is because they don't have to, and the reason they don't have to is because the music-buying public knows even less than they do. The same goes for critics. If record-buyers cared about musical chops there would be a market for critics who paid attention to such things. Come to think of it, there must be some critics out there who do care about such things - and not just this guy in the National Review.

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 3 October 2002 20:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes some critics do care. The writers of Guitar World!

"Find out how Linkin Park's Mike Shinoda plays those hot lixxx in 'One Step Closer!'"

"Complete tablature of Creed's 'With Arms Wide Open!'"

AND

"Another Joe Satriani retrospective!"

PLUS

"We take another look at Rick Wakemen's forgotten ode to the '76 Olympic Games, White Rock!"

― Yancey (ystrickler), Thursday, 3 October 2002 20:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I often "care about such things" nate, but you're right: Daddino is otm. Thing is, there are places where writing about chops (or at least musicanship) is *very* relevant, especially in classical music circles, and IMO to a lesser extent, prog circles.

― dleone (dleone), Thursday, 3 October 2002 20:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Sure, in the jazz world too. I'm not exactly a musical expert, but I appreciate it when a critic flatters my musical knowledge by not assuming that I am unable to understand anything about the "technical" aspects of music.

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 3 October 2002 20:45 (twenty-two years ago)

I can't find a citation for that figure anywhere on the net.

Now that I think a little harder about it, I think I found the stat either in one of Simon Frith's books, or in a Frith or Kyle Gann article from the Villge Voice back the late 80's/early '90's.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Thursday, 3 October 2002 21:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I feel the same way. I can understand some things in technical terms, but I'm not an expert. However, I like reading material that's a little bit above my level of expertise -- it keeps me alert and helps me build upon my own knowledge -- and I LOVE music articles that discuss songwriting, playing technique, recording, production, and equipment.

I'm often frustrated at how lyric-focused a lot of music writing is. The lyrics (while they can be important) are only one component of a much larger system.

― Jody Beth Rosen, Thursday, 3 October 2002 21:55 (twenty-two years ago)

I LOVE music articles that discuss songwriting, playing technique, recording, production, and equipment.

I admit, I don't (as anyone who has read my writings will understand thoroughly ;-)). I'll appreciate it's there and once or twice may notice something in particular that stands out (Phill Brown as engineer for making the Walkabouts sound so damn good, for instance), but in terms of extended discussion, it doesn't appeal to me, mostly because I'm not thinking of it when I listen to it. I don't necessarily wear my lack of technical knowledge as a badge of pride -- I hope. But without training, whatever it might be, I can still be moved by something regardless of what it took to create it, and that experience is what is paramount, and I try to capture that -- however fleetingly and haltingly in words.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 3 October 2002 22:21 (twenty-two years ago)

totally ridiculous...

however...rock criticism's (especially british) anomosity towards prog rock is massively irritating

― geeg, Thursday, 3 October 2002 22:48 (twenty-two years ago)

sure, lyrics are overdiscussed, absolutely. and so what does the NR guy do in response? he overdiscusses the lyrics!

― M Matos (M Matos), Friday, 4 October 2002 00:12 (twenty-two years ago)

God Save John Simon!

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 4 October 2002 00:16 (twenty-two years ago)

that, matos, and he hardly discusses what it would be like to know anything about music. maybe less than junior high school music students. time signatures! wow!!!

michael is probably right that in a certain sense musical literacy (the kind grounded in the western art music tradition) is terrible in general, but I don't like the way people have been talking: everyone making all the music this guy disses know a LOT about music. and listeners do too. it's not necessarily amenable to the kind of treatment he pretends to want to give music, though.

― Josh (Josh), Friday, 4 October 2002 01:13 (twenty-two years ago)

um.....i may be out of my league in this one but i didnt think music trends were critic driven...? i dont think i have ever been THAT guided by a critic in my choice of music.
plus, as said previously in this thread, it is hardly a huge secret that critics rarely have the knowledge of that they pick apart......i often felt the biggest noisiest ones were a kind of sad-failed muso-breed.
and does it really matter whether someone can read music or not? to a purist yes maybe, but to those who just like listening to what we find good, no matter how we discern that, it isnt so relevant (and i can read music by the way ).

― donna (donna), Friday, 4 October 2002 02:36 (twenty-two years ago)

It is interesting to note that a good deal of the most vibrant and inventive music of our time is being produced by Christian artists.

Okay this is bullshit. . . this is just his circular way of saying that only music made by white Christian guys is WORTH talking about. He's not really talking about this band any differently than ANY other critic does.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 4 October 2002 02:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually some of the most worthwhile posters on ILM do know their chops (or talk a good game). I've not looked at the link but judging by the responses that's not *really* his agenda...

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 4 October 2002 06:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Read the link, Tom. I think it *really* is his agenda. This IS the National Review.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 4 October 2002 06:30 (twenty-two years ago)

I got the impression his agenda was promoting good christian rock - ie supercomplex satanic prog probably wouldnt have floated his boat. I will read it when I feel stronger.

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 4 October 2002 06:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh wait, Tom, we are agreeing completely. Yeah, it's the positive Christian thing that he seems most into (he spends 50% of the article talking about their LYRICS and the biblical aspect of them)--the prog thing is almost just a secondary argument for him.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 4 October 2002 06:46 (twenty-two years ago)

''I'm often frustrated at how lyric-focused a lot of music writing is. The lyrics (while they can be important) are only one component of a much larger system.''

i do like writing that focuses on the sound too. then again i can't focus on lyrics when i'm listening to music.

but anyway, a lot of the time the music is more like background to the lyrics so soemtimes writers do it for a reason.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Friday, 4 October 2002 06:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Had the subject of this year's EMP conference been more amenable, I would've proposed to a piece on the vexed relationship political think-piece magazines like The National Review, The New Republic, and The Nation have always had with popular music. I tell ya, some of the things I've read in these mags! Hooboy! This review has most of the usual sins -- the expository generalizations about half-understood subcultures and the hapless tea-leaf reading -- though I suppose I should be grateful Warnick doesn't succumb to the temptation of connecting the dots between gangsta and welfare.

One thing: is this an online-only article, or was this actually printed in the magazine itself?

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Friday, 4 October 2002 08:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Derek Dull lives!

― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 4 October 2002 08:47 (twenty-two years ago)

almost none of the industry people, broadcasters, and music critics actually know anything about music.

The dirty little secret is that this is actually totally factually WRONG. Considering how many critics are actually failed or wannabe musicians themselves, it's kind of extraordinary that someone can actually make this claim.

― kate, Saturday, 5 October 2002 13:14 (twenty-two years ago)

I got the impression that he meant theory when he said "anything about music", on a classical training level. It's the old red herring that a lot of fans of dead white males haul out every time they want to piss on something that actually favours emotion or immediacy over technique (and consequently also manages to exclude huge swaths of people from the ability to appreciate music or, indeed, CREATE something that could be considered music by their definition, possibly dividing along racial lines in many cases).

― Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Saturday, 5 October 2002 15:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Actcherly, Daddino, In These Times has decent music crit every so often. They actually made a convincing case for the Gorillaz live tour as a brilliant postmodern exercise in artist/audience performance disassociation. (Only I don't think they used such flatulent terminology.)

― Nate Patrin, Saturday, 5 October 2002 15:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Daddino - online only I'm pretty sure, the National Review online tends to be a little loopier than the print. The Nation, The New Republic, and National Review (before John Simon retired) are/were worth reading for their movie reviews, but the rest of their popculture forays are inept or bizarre (Aaron McGruder's Nation covers excepted). The Weekly Standard wrote a rave of Buffy in it's second season that was a) knowledgable and b) heartfelt.

― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 5 October 2002 16:25 (twenty-two years ago)

They actually made a convincing case for the Gorillaz live tour as a brilliant postmodern exercise in artist/audience performance disassociation.

As opposed to a way for Damon to tour without revealing that he is now a sad old man?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 5 October 2002 18:29 (twenty-two years ago)

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