"The most obnoxious band currently making a killing on the zonked teen circuit. Not to be confused with Mahogany Rush, who at least spare us the reactionary gentility. More like Angel. Or Kansas. Or a power-trio Uriah Heep, with vocals revved up an octave. Or two." Score: D
"It's to the half-credit of these Bucks County wise guys that the studio amenities of their major-label debut impel them toward fucked-up sounds, which come hard, rather than fucked-up songs, which they write without thinking (and how). But I don't buy the claim that they'll do anything for a laugh. Ever since they went on about pussy for nine minutes (good idea) in a Princey blues-minstrel drawl (bad one), I've assumed they were the kind of rec-room gigglefritzes who enjoy a good nigger joke when they're sure their audience is sophisticated enough to enjoy it. And to be perfectly honest, I don't hear one of those here. "
Score: C+ (a C+ is a not disreputable performance, most likely a failed experiment or a pleasant piece of hackwork.)
Self-proclaimed βDean of American Rock Criticsβ gave both Around the Fur and White Pony his βbombβ rating, which is not a good thing. Basically stating both records are βbad records whose details rarely merit further thought. At the upper level it may merely be overrated, disappointing or dull. Down below it may be contemptibleβ.
I swear this dude has no sense of music AT ALL.
I don't "read" reviews. I watch lips. When I'm at the computer I almost never click on links with words or online newspapers much less criticism, for two reasons-- first, listening is faster than reading, and second, I'm continually using my eyes to watch Anthony Fantano play as Pac Man on the new Smash Ultimate. Moreover, no one I know "discusses" Robert Christgau, a name I barely recognized. Glancing over his Wikipedia entry he seems to have arrived at a plausible brand of 20th century ivycrit taste that runs towards what I'll call dark pretentious--the godfathering PΕ―lnoc, 2009's number one Brad Paisley, and on the hippie end his beloved Joy of Cooking. But clearly he's even narrower than that. Little apparent interest in the jazz end or indeed tune or indeed indeed, however-- always a tragic and arrogant realving lacuna. Christgau seems to have figured out a way to make some kind of living by disseminating his own criticism in the stone age. That's an achievement. But until he starts putting it on Youtube, I'll live without
I enjoyed yesterdays foray into rock critisism. Lets try some more. Check out the Christgau consumer guide post a tune and offer your opinion on his opinion in your comment.
What does everybody think of his writing and ability as a critic? I started reading through his online consumer guide a few years ago, and I'm appreciating and referring to it more and more with each album I listen to. He's a contrast to Pitchfork for me, where although I don't agree with his scores all the time, he justifies his findings and reviews around artistry and innovation rather than his own personal taste. Christgau's absurdly complex rating system is actually beginning to grow on me, and I finally understand how he gets away with using letter grades and stars.
If you're unfamiliar with Robert Christgau, his capsule-review style has been massively influential on many rock critics over the years; one peak of his influence, it could be argued, was the creation of Pazz & Jop - an annual poll of musical releases compiled by The Village Voice.
From the official Robert Christgau website:
> Each year since 1974 (plus 1971, maybe?) Robert Christgau and the Village Voice run a Critics Poll. Here are Christgau's year-end essays, the Critics Poll results, and Christgau's own "Dean's List" year-end lists.
I've started taking his Dean's List (essentially his year-end best-of lists) and am turning them into playlists on spotify; I'm going to try picking away at these as often as I can, in hopes of re-creating every one.
I've tried not to miss songs, but there are cases where the albums are not on Spotify - in these situations, either alternative or compilation cuts are provided, but in some cases (a few Neil Young tracks especially) they are just not available, and I'm not down for taking cover versions as I feel like that wouldn't fit.
Here's what I've got so far:
- 1971: What Does It All Mean?
- 1974: Our Own Critics' Poll
- 1975: It's Been a Soft Year for Hard Rock
- 1976: Critics Cheer Debut Albums
- 1977: Pazz & Joppers Dig Pistols--What Else Is New?
- 1978: New Wave Hegemony and the Bebop Question
- 1979: The Pazz & Jop Critics' Poll (Almost) Grows Up
- 1980: The Year of the Lollapalooza
- 1981: The Year the Rolling Stones Lost the Pennant
- 1982: Funkentelechy vs. the Placebo Syndrome
- 1983: Who Else? A Goddamn Critics Band, That's Who Else
- [1984: The Rise of
Daytona got an A
Kids see ghosts got an A-
Ye got a *
Nasir got a *
from http://www.salon.com/2001/05/09/xgau/
>In the Court of the Crimson King [Atlantic, 1969] The plus is because Peter Townshend likes it. This can also be said of The Crazy World of Arthur Brown. Beware the forthcoming hype--this is ersatz shit. D+
Wow, I guess review standards in 1969 were not high. Why is this guy considered music critic royalty?
To make this argument I'll first lay out what I think we collectively expect from a critic. The definition of a critic is simple: βa person who judges the merits of literary, artistic, or musical works, especially one who does so professionally.β Now, Christgau certainly does this. I'm not arguing whether he qualifies as a critic or not, I'm arguing that he is bad at being a critic. This is because in truth what a good critic does goes beyond that basic definition. Here are a few of what I see as commonly-agreed-upon methods of good criticism:
-
They make their opinions on the work clear. This is the easy part.
-
They provide a justification for those opinions, based on the work, so that they are credible.
Those are the most vital two. As long as you fulfill those requirements you are essentially doing the job of a critic. Your actual writing may be poor but your criticism is still good. However, there are a few further elements which, though arguable, also help:
-
Criticising not the artist, but his art. That is, you call the music idiotic, but you don't call the muscians idiots. Basically, avoid ad-hominem attacks, both because you're an art critic and not a people critic, and because it's highly unprofessional.
-
Forming your opinions based on what the art is trying to achieve rather than what you desire. I.e. don't criticize Hamlet for being sad. It's a tragedy, and is meant to be sad, so that means it succeeds in what it's doing.
-
Consistency isn't required, especially if a critic has a long career like Christgau's and thus their outlook changes over the years. However, a critic's tastes shouldn't be constantly jumping around or they become unreliable and arbitrary.
There are probably more, but those are the basics, and no matter how many requirements you set up, it ultimately doesn't matter, because Christgau violates every last one. To be clear, I'm not saying that all of his reviews violate all of these criteria, but that he fails at least one of them in seemingly every review I've seen of his, and that those few reviews in which he doesn't (I give him the benefit of the doubt and assume they're out there, because of the enormous breadth of his work and the likelihood that I've forgotten the particulars of some that I have read) are so rare as to constitute only a tiny fraction of his critical output. In short, he fails to be a good critic more often than he succeeds, and is therefore bad.
Now, to get onto his actual mis
... keep reading on reddit β‘
Just suggesting some reading: New Yorker critic Alex Ross and the legendary Robert Christgau (perhaps an unwelcome name in this subreddit) take on Radiohead, with different approaches and opinions. Each is a great writer, too--they put pitchfork to shame.
Here ya go.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/08/20/the-searchers http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/rock/radiohead-03.php
Hey everyone, here's the Dean's A-, A, & A+ albums, sorted by year. He catches heat in some quarters, but nobody has exposed me to more great music. I made these lists out of realization I was avoiding his recommendations for acts I'd never heard of. It was meant for personal use, but hey what's the harm in sharing.
It'd take years to get through these, but hopefully you can find them of use... pick a year and explore!
[1994](https://open.spotify.com/user/12168
... keep reading on reddit β‘