Why are all music critics boring but music is exciting?

I'm sure you look in the mirror every day when you ask this question. Trolling on a Friday afternoon = being bored in the office, clearly.

Momus? You were on Alan McGee's last record label for a decade or so? Any ideas? It's got me stumped.

Ask Lenny Kaye.

Because some of us are no longer straightforward indie kids.

Criticism done well is fascinating, music done well is amazing. Bad music is easily beaten by good criticism in the interest stakes.
< BR> I often find descriptions of music more exciting than the thing itself. I was at an Oval / Mouse on Mars concert the other night and it was somehow very boring and very exciting at the same time. The music was loud, repetitive, brutal, abstract, innovative. There were a couple of moments during Mouse on Mars' set when I said to myself 'Fuck, that's a good idea, I'm going to steal it!' (my highest praise. These moments were mostly when the drummer sang in the style of early Yes). But actually I was looking forward to getting back out onto the Shibuya streets to mingle with the passing show of life. How could music -- or writing -- compete with that?

It also attracts lots of boring people who can do it , so what do you expect.

Tom, can you explain the Alan MCGee comment for us 'murkins? He ran Creation records, no? I just saw him DJ last week...! He was a righteous selecta... as soon as anyone plays "White Horse" I'm in the palm of their hand.

Question answering: I don't think it should be any suprise that many music critics are boring, given that the corporations that fund most of the crap you read are interested mainly in getting their readership in the "buying mood" (real marketing term) rather than actually appraising the music in its creative and social context. Point blank. But saying "all music critics are broing" makes me woner why you're here?

Most music critics are boring for exactly the reasons you'd expect. Some wit like David Lee Roth said that music journalists like Elvis Costello because music journalists look like Elvis Costello; you can follow that to its logical conclusion, which is that they all think like Elvis Costello too. Both share a conviction that a lack of spark and flash, or the transcendent and blinding fuck-me flame that bends in all directions or what have you, can be overcome with artisan stuff and tactics. Because they're demonstrably wrong, they get defensive or go into denial or some other bullshit, become arrogant and distant and keep babbling to fill the silence, and in the case of music journalists, they talk about: new this and that, the life and times of such and such/what I did once while I listened to Dylan or The Smiths or The Clash or, in another 6 years, Manic Street Preachers or Belle & Sebastian ("Why They Were Like The Velvet Underground And Also The Stooges" by Josh, hi I'm Josh, you might have read my "piece" about Belle & Sebastian, would you like to go to the pictures?).

I don't know exactly how this differs from anyone else who ever spent any time writing about pop music, but I assumed that the first thing you have to consider is that you're writing about something that's a.) "good" or "bad" for reasons that are for the most part abstract, impossible to plot and difficult to discuss without resorting to the kind of language and metaphor that would hasten your dismissal from the space program, and b.) in its purest ideal form, a distillation of revolution (emotional storms, fury, lust, outrage, idealism, subversion), rather than something that can be indexed or evaluated. Therefore, writing about music can only be pointless unless it somehow captures - not just attempts to capture - *some* of that heat and light and emotional thunder, and somehow meets pop music on its own terms: abstract, outraged, subversive, lustful etc. Or funny, or chaotic. Doing this is hard, and if you get it a bit wrong, it's a disaster and people are watching. Also, working up to it is often embarrassing and painful (a lot of my stuff was bad because I was 21, 22, and simply couldn't write well enough (and didn't know enough) to pull it off; once I learned to write, it was only ever embarrassing when it had been hacked out fast, or when some blockheaded editor had ruined it). Anyway, I suspect Stuart Maconie or someone would snigger at this line of reasoning, but 1.) Stuart Maconie sniggers at everything for a living while never having contributed one item to civilization that even measures up to the magic of fucking Soda Streams or someone's hair out of Fat Larry's Band or whatever he's fucking smirking on about this week on 24 channels, and 2.) that's why he's such a waste of time, obviously, of course.

The most boring music writers don't actually see what they do as criticism. There are (were - I don't read the music press anymore, there *is* no music press anymore) some dolts who take the high academic or theoretical route without raising a smile, much less a valid point, with no self-awareness or sense of the absurd, and they're the worst of all. But the boring ones see themselves as historians (at the Mojo end of the speculum) or reporters/on-the-page (kids') TV presenters/funsters (the snappy claptrap stuff). Personally, it was never my "only aim was to criticise and then dissect something I could never do." When I came across something I could never do, I tended to like it very much, or at least admire it: whatever, I'd "criticise" it, in the literal sense. The problem was, since like many people I can play guitar and keyboards adequately, and bash a tune together if necessary, most of the indie flop-outs whose records I was served up to review were doing something I could have done quite easily, but which would have bored me stiffer than listening to other people do it: that is, make average guitar rock. I genuinely believe that most indie fans' tolerance of Travis, Stereophonics or Ash stems from ignorance of the fact that, if they tried, and not that hard, they could probably come up with something just as accomplished themselves. I don't watch many bands these days, because I don't want to and I can't afford to, but when I do I'm always baffled by the all-pervading tolerance in the indie world. It seems that anything at all is good enough. If the level of your imagination is such that you accept so many groups, and take them pretty much as seriously as you take anything except your ca-reeeeer, it follows that listening to your thoughts on this dull music, or on anything much (phrased simply and plainly) is going to be absolutely fucking miserable.

Goddamn! One of my fave writers from the early nineties drops in and drops the fucking bomb. Considering I'm listening to some early Fall as well right now, I think I had the perfect soundtrack to that going.

I think all I could think to chip in right now on that note would be to say that even if, like me, you're not inclined yourself to musical ability and/or singing, you can still spot the overwhelming boredom in a lot of bands -- but I can see how knowing some about music would rapidly decrease the tolerance level further.

And if I can say, don't sell your early stuff quite so short, Taylor. It really did make for some great reading, and people have been talking about the S*M*A*S*H interview here on and off over the last couple of months.

People who listen to only one genre of music and who do so fanatically, tend to develop a great tolerance for mediocrity in their chosen genre, whether or not it's indie-rock.

For the record I would like to point out that I personally have never written a "piece" of any sort on Belle and Sebastian. ;)

Yeah, come on people, somebody must have that SMASH article somewhere, and it's been hyped so much round here I have to see it!

Then you're *NOT* the real Josh. My illusions are shattered, you know they are.

And continuing the Fall tip, more live albums should be like _The Twenty-Seven Points_. It makes no sense at all.

Let me say, perhaps to little end, that I consider the comments on Costello (above) unfair and offbeam.

Tracer - yes, Alan McGee ran Creation Records and now runs Poptones. My comment was in response to Paul's posting the thread, it having spun off from the Poptones thread, which I deleted yesterday when I came back after the weekend to find it had turned into a particularly vicious flamewar. I can't remember exactly what point I was making with the comment but there you go.

Incidentally a quick check of the Radio 4 club playlists on the Poptones website shows the people involved to have really quite good taste.

it only became vicious when it turned to libel. personally, alan mcgee is a rarity. a man in the music industry, behidn the scenes and who honestly loves the music and in a jaded music industry in london it's easy to take the piss but much harder to say fuck people i love music.

I didn't say you were the only one being vicious, Paul. The thread was pretty bad-blooded well before the post you objected to so much. Otherwise I'd have just deleted the last bit of it.

And I honestly don't think anyone posting here would question Alan McGee's love of music.

I can't think of anything more boring than reading or debating about why music critics are boring.

to be honest, a really well written article, gets me excited about music. however, i've just been noticing really lazy writing in that area and it's annoying......

'sides the majority of the music critics that i have met were tossers and they don't actually pay for any of the albums, concerts, ettc....so no real investment, emotional or otherwise................

not like the classic and great writers, describing more of movements than a postage stamp review of an album they don't really care about.

'sides, all music critics have all of the can albums but never listen to them.

ToM SeZ: And I honestly don't think anyone posting here would question Alan McGee's love of music.

I'd question it, as it happens, because I think there's a big difference between a music-lover and someone who is into leeching off older music scenes. You'll be pleased to hear that I don't feel too much like expanding on this.

But

I didn't say you were the only one being vicious, Paul

Well, it sure as fux0r wasn't me who started tossing about terms like "lying sacks of shit". Or mark s, for that matter. I'd like to apologise to any posters who were offended by anything I did post, though.

And Mr doom patrol, please let me explain something - like many posters here I LoVe MuSiC, right? what that means, among other things, is that I hate those who I see as being responsible for shit music. Alan McGee, IN MY OPINION is a major offender! You are welcome to think differently, however, I should point out that among my music heroes are musicians, singers, songwriters and composers. I'll even include a few journos amongst that lot - Mr Parkes being one example, as it happens. But, unlike you, I can't think of a single fucking record label boss I'd include.

Anyway, onto topic.

Why o why does music attract boring people whose only aim is to criticise and then dissect something they could never do?

Well, that's probably because there are just lots of boring people, and you can't make them stay away from that which thrills you, unfortunately.

As it happens, I think there's a lot of interesting and inspiring writing about music (inspiring in that it makes U want to go and check something out) but right now, an awful lot of it is online, and it seems to me that not an awful lot is "in print" - perhaps folks who would have printed fanzines & the like in the past are now posting stuff on web pages, and getting better-paid "proper jobs" rather than hax0ring for weekly music papers, as in the past. Get paid more for working, and put out whatever you like without some divvy editor hassling you because you're not following company policy. Sounds good to me.

If anyone saved the "poptones" thread, BTW, you may have a later version than the one I saved. The last thing I've got is me posting weeeellll...about 30 seconds, perhaps....

Is there anything after that? Could you post it to me if there is, because I'm curious.

x0x0

As to the events and exchanges of Saturday Night Preceding, um, ahem, no spikka da engleesh....

I'd hilariously quote Shaggy at this point — but I'm not (entirely) sure I'm entitled. Nevertheless, thank you, Norman.

As to the question: seriously, as somone old enough to have actually read the Oz Schoolkids issue actually when a Schoolkid — the one that got the editors jailed, inc. Charles Shaar Murray's debut and (somewhat more to the point, prison-wise) a hardcore porn parody of Rupert the Bear — I think it's astonishing (and in a way quite heartening) that the music-press carried traces (ideals, attitudes, strategies) of the late 60s UK Underground Press as *long* as it did.

For me, music criticism is a process of damage limitation. How much of a fool you make of yourself depends on who's reading. But sometimes, if the tone's appropriate to the subject, they strike a balance, the author's opinion doesn't obscure, in fact we forget there's anyone between us and the music. But we don't need these moments to justify criticism, it's a medium that inadvertently offers snapshots of culture and society, the tastes and mood of the times. Also, isn't it a valuable format, the limitations of a review force the author to be succinct and creative (I'd rather read my friend's music reviews than their poetry any day) and apt for communicating new ideas - fewer people persist with books, and it's easier to relate to abstract concepts in relation to an example such as music. A precious resource however I look at it.

whose only aim is to criticise and then dissect something they could never do

This reminds me of a Nazi festival (featuring acts of Germanic vaudeville) which was given bad press by a vaudeville critic in a Bavarian regional paper. The Nazi organisers forced the hapless critic onstage the following night in front of a jeering audience with some juggling balls and concluded after his humiliating failure that because he couldn't juggle he wasn't fit to review juggling. (cf "A Social History of the Third Reich", Richard Grunberger). Your attitude is just as bullying, immature and irrational.

Actually, I thought of something else re. music critics - you know how it is sometimes, when you either think something is fantastic, but it actually turns out to be a bit weak on repeated listenings, or vice versa? What do you do when you read the review U wrote, and realise you were wrong? I always thought a kind of "second look" review would be quite interesting to read under these circumstances. Another advantage of net-based music crit over print-based, I think?

x0x0

mutual arse kissing.........kills music.

there is no advantage to a critic.

ps. if alan mcgee feeds off of scenes, then the music critic is the bottom feeder, surely?

d00d, 533!|\|g 4z Y00r thee b!g p0p+0|\|3Z / /\/\cG33 ph4|\| o|\| +|- |!Z l!Zt, kan U tell uz, !N z!/\/\Pl3 \/\/0rdz und ZyllableZ th4t LAYMURZ like uz kan UnDaStAnD, \/\/0+ !Z Z0 g00d abt thee "p!ng- p0|\|g B1ZNiTCH3Z".

JuZ+ Kur!0uZ.

x0x0

sexy, young and they rip off donna summer's i feel love but sing beat you up. every girl that i know loves them.

I rest my case.

how so?

yer telling me 'I feel love' isnt a classic? bobby gillispie (rock god) has deemed it so.........

!f y00 th!nk !'m r!z!nG 2 th4t one, d00m/paul darling, y00've g0t an0th3r thing com!ng.

kiss kiss

i never kiss strangers....

They won't let you.

only yer mum and then she slips me a fiver for the trouble.

Play nice.

My mum? I doubt it. She likes Destiny's Child, so probably has 'no soul'.

love destiny's child....those girls are full of sass! Haahahahah...Josh you are a hypocrite, a thread about 'freedom and democracy of the internet and then you delete my posts!'

hahahahah...........

I suspect you do not actually understand the word 'hypocritical', but rather have gotten the idea that if you combine the mention of words like 'freedom' in one context with the not unexpected deletion of your bilious posts in another context, you have somehow uncovered 'hypocrisy'. Whether or not this is so is mostly moot, because I don't care about being a fascist moderator anyway. Be civil and follow the simple rules and you can post all you like.

*yawn* you discovered a typo!

Which word did you mean to type? Or is 'typo' another typo?

He's referring to my changing 'hipocrisy' to 'hypocrisy' in the post I made. God, I'm even censoring MYSELF. Oh the horror.

Reading Taylor Parkes' impenetrable, self-absorbed paragraphs, I realized that we need yet another metatopic: "Why Are Music Critic Critics So Boring?"

What was 'impenetrable' abt Taylor's post? Seems entirely 'penetrable' to me.