Criticism of Criticism

I have always been really into critics and have admired my favourite crits much more than my favourite pop stars so it doesn't surprise me that a message board I set up and ran shares this sort of preoccupation. I suppose it might look a bit mental though.

But this forum really seems obsessed with dissecting music criticism as an artform in and of itself. (Yes, of course, criticism, being writing, is an artform, but it's like we're taking that one step further...)

I don't think its an obsessition. I mean we had a 700 post xgau thread but theads on critics never go to those lenghts. not many crit threads go to that lenght.

I'd rather discuss that than have another retarded shoegazing thread.

Maybe one day Kevin Sheilds will post to a music crit thread, and then the WORLD WOULD EXPLODE!!!

(but given that KS is perplexed by ATM's, it's unlikely he could grasp the concept of the interweb)

''think too that it has something to do with the fact that a few posters are now starting to write criticism professionally, at least some of the time, and they're going through a lot of doubts/growing pains/adjustment over it, so that's what's occupying their minds and they want to work it out w/others in the same boat.''

b-but everybody's a crit now.

I've honed my most recent column down to 1500 words, and I've STILL got to get it lower. I *do* cut out all the "you know's" and the "I think's" and tightening my sentance structure, but goddammit, I just ramble! I can't help myself!

Should I just randomly delete every third sentance until it's under 1000 words? Or what?

This information is third hand by now, but it's a faily reliable source, so *I* believe it! Or rather, I want to believe it!

Since most examples of what I write are 300 word AMG pieces, all I can say is that practice makes perfect. In fact, to be frank, I have a hard time sometimes getting *up* to that point. But so long as you're conveying the basics -- sounds like this, here are some names and references, it's good or bad or indifferent -- then everything else can be seen as something extra, if you like.

I know there's been a lot of criticism over how such capsule reviews aren't worthwhile because they're too short or can't say a lot or whatever. As someone whose natural style in writing is to sprawl, I understand, but ever since I've been writing these reviews, I've learned to appreciate them as miniatures, pieces in their own particular style and approach. And I've gotten enough compliments (even from some musicians I've reviewed!) on them, so hey.

-haiku
-no complete sentences
-stenography
-ascii art

m.

Well, I think 300 words can be fine. I like AMG reviews, and often find them helpful and informative, with no fat, no smoke and no mirrors. As someone whose natural writing style is to agonize over every word, I like to see other people trying to use exactly the right ones.

But like I said in the Xgau thread, it begins to break down at about 100-150 words, much less 25.

Thread about big-name critic's opinion of Solomon Burke - 151 answers

Music lovers talking music criticism = "I like this. Why don't you like it?"

It also gives us more of a jumping-off point, yes? That is, I may not know exactly what to say about Solomon Burke -- but I know I definitely don't like Xgau saying all those mean things about him, so I'll waste no time writing about that. (I actually haven't heard Solomon Burke myself.)

love music, hold the criticism

Newspaper article calls for fewer newspaper articles

My main problem aobut cricism of criticism is that one tends to criticize critics for what they like rather than what they don't. I usually have a lot more problems with critics for what they dislike than for what they like.

The very idea of music criticism — of applying some objective standard to the experience of listening to music — suddenly struck me as petty and irrelevant. I spent several more months as a critic, but my essential belief in the pursuit evaporated.

I’d come up against a concept I’ve since come to think of as the Music Critic Paradox: the simple fact that even the best critics — the ones, unlike me, with actual training and talent — can’t begin to capture what it feels like to listen to music. Because listening to music is a collaborative endeavor. Fans don’t just sit there (as critics do) parsing the technical merits of a song. They bring to each song their own emotional needs: their lust and sorrow, their hopes and heartbreak.

Am I suggesting that music criticism is a pointless exercise?

Yeah, I guess I am.

Steve Almond’s new book, “Rock and Roll Will Save Your Life,’’ will be published in April.

From Publishers Weekly
The goofiness and magnetism of rock is celebrated in this exuberant memoir. Rock critic and memoirist Almond (Candyfreak) describes himself as a drooling fanatic of rock and roll with a morbid passion for obscure bands, arcane record collections, and proselytizing his musical tastes

This freewheeling mix tape recounts the central role music played in his relationships, sexual encounters, and life transitions, while sprinkling in idiosyncratic lists, from Rock's Biggest Assholes to Silly Names of Rock Star Spawn, and tragicomic exegeses of songs great and terrible

sounds great

jesus

btw article title made me think of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwuiHI0-z3c

Drool over this fanatic

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2007/10/steve_almond.jpg

steve almond OTM

Another Almond beauty.

Hey, I agree with him, I just wish he hadn't written about it

He lost me when he actually used "Many moons ago" in his first sentence.

Alfred, the byline on that article says "Steve Morse"

different steve, alfred

they all look alike to him

clearly The Boston Globe loves hiring guys named Steve to write badly about rock.

http://www.stevenalmond.com/

Criticizing a particular band or song might make you, and some of your readers, feel smart or sophisticated. But it rarely does anything to advance the cause of art. After all, you can’t rescind the pleasure someone derives from a particular piece of music. All you can do is deride that pleasure, which strikes me as a fairly stingy way to make a living.

pretty otm

xp well yeah that's def true. steve morse was their boring old rock crit guy FOREVER until the paper essentially fired its entire arts staff a couple years ago

oh man, he's going to be in cambridge tomorrow!

loooooool

he does zines

http://stevenalmond.com/thetip/archives.html

Fans don’t just sit there (as critics do) parsing the technical merits of a song. They bring to each song their own emotional needs: their lust and sorrow, their hopes and heartbreak.

Nothing's stopping critics from writing about their lust/sorrow/hopes/heartbreak, too.

this goes out to my buddy ksh

* Wilco
* Sky Blue Sky
* (Nonesuch, 2007)
* Something scary good just happened to Wilco: Jeff Tweedy ate Abbey Road for lunch. The result is a disc to enthrall the rest of us. Gone are the meandering alt-country sound experiments, replaced by lush, yearning songlines, scalding guitar riffs, gorgeous piano fills and, when required, pulsating drum work. Consider me indoctrinated.

Criticizing a particular band or song might make you, and some of your readers, feel smart or sophisticated.

If by "criticizing" he means "analyzing" instead of "picking on" (which is what it sounds like), he's wrong.

But it rarely does anything to advance the cause of art.

I didn't know critics had a mission.

After all, you can’t rescind the pleasure someone derives from a particular piece of music. All you can do is deride that pleasure, which strikes me as a fairly stingy way to make a living.

Why is conflating "criticizing the art" with "criticizing the audience"?

xpost to Que

Consider me indoctrinated.

lush, yearning songlines!!

Something scary good just happened to Wilco: Jeff Tweedy ate Abbey Road for lunch.
Something scary good just happened to Wilco: Jeff Tweedy ate Abbey Road for lunch.
Something scary good just happened to Wilco: Jeff Tweedy ate Abbey Road for lunch.
Something scary good just happened to Wilco: Jeff Tweedy ate Abbey Road for lunch.
Something scary good just happened to Wilco: Jeff Tweedy ate Abbey Road for lunch.

I didn't know critics had a mission.

All writers have a mission or a thesis, whatever you want to call it. You know this!

ha, his reviews are pretty ick

I think the problem with this thesis statement is that it isn't an argument against music criticism. It's an argument against bad, lazy music criticism.

(like, for example, his own)

like his

All writers have a mission or a thesis, whatever you want to call it. You know this!

Make money?

http://www.stevenalmond.com/assets/images/SteveAlmondwithErin.jpg

All writers have a mission or a thesis, whatever you want to call it. You know this!

Sure, but the mission of music writers is certainly not to "advance the art." That's a tall order.

I can't speak for "all" writers. I write because it gives me pleasure.

This Los Angeles-based foursome comes at you like a rocket, all power chords, and then—watch out—they turn sweet and lowdown, all caresses and sugar kisses, poppy like you like it. Swoon is godly in all the right places, but the two preceding records, "Pikul" and "Carnavas," are every bit as worthy of your worship. And you will. Kneel now. Do it.

I think I hate this guy most for pointing out irritating things I do in my own writing, for which I am not getting paid.

Swoon is godly in all the right places
Swoon is godly in all the right places
Swoon is godly in all the right places
Swoon is godly in all the right places
Swoon is godly in all the right places
Swoon is godly in all the right places

Sure, but the mission of music writers is certainly not to "advance the art."

Arguably, I would say they did until the mid 70s. By then, they would give good reviews to talented musicians, often "veteran" acts, who were musically and technically above the rest. Starting with punk, music criticism became more ideological than musically based though.

Geir, who programmed you this morning?

Steve Almond

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b2aGe8_Ag0

shirt would be better if it said "WILL WORK FOR BOOBS"

the manifest wretchedness of everything i've just mentioned

I went to one of his readings at my school and he is quite hilarious and very intelligent, everyone was laughing hysterically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YERh72W_zA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pu74dwySCpM

first video he talks about "teaching craft" and quickly "unloading all the smart things [he] has to say"

http://gawker.com/news/gawker-book-club/steve-almond-to-oprah-i-dont-give-a-shit-how-many-books-you-sell-299521.php

that toto video--what the fuck

PRICELESS quotes from that first part of the interview i posted

"so i kind of became the mini-Cindy Sheehan for a couple of weeks"

he's a fairly well known fiction writer as well. i wish he had saved me the time, though: instead of reading his article about everything that's wrong with criticism, i could have just read his reviews on his website and gotten the same message

he's a fairly well known fiction writer within the little current american literary mag bubble

also I read an article on dave grohl by the dude in a magazine provided by southwest airlines a few weeks ago so I don't really get his grappling with music criticism shit at all

I used to read a lot of reviews to find new albums to check out. Now that I can hear at least a couple songs from just about anything over the internet, I don't need critics as much.

One huge turn off from today's critics is the consensus found in the year-end lists.

oh man, i wonder if he submitted a P&J ballot

damn, nope

steve almond's arms are too short to box with oprah

I think the problem with this thesis statement is that it isn't an argument against music criticism. It's an argument against bad, lazy music criticism.

― big time (HI DERE), Monday, March 22, 2010 12:59 PM (42 minutes ago) Bookmark

(like, for example, his own)

― big time (HI DERE), Monday, March 22, 2010 12:59 PM (42 minutes ago) Bookmark

weirdest part is the article is basically him admitting to be a shitty music critic. did it for the snobbery, doesn't actually enjoy music, etc.

he seems like a decent enough dude & like he actually cares about his teaching work, but the little bits of his writing i read were O_O

Paradox: the simple fact that even the best critics — the ones, unlike me, with actual training and talent — can’t begin to capture what it feels like to listen to music.

Well... at least Mr. Almond got one part of his piece OTM.

criticism of criticism of criticism

criticism of criticism of criticism of criticism

are you saying he doesn't have training or talent? which one? he has an advanced degree in writing and has published 3-4 books. just curious.

No, Steve Almond is saying he doesn't have training or talent.

yeah i got that part jaymc, thanks. i was referring to ilxors *agreement* with the statement made by Mr. Almond.

I don't know what goes into a writing degree; I assume some component of it must focus on critical writing, but is that portion directly transferable to music criticism without, say, spending some time learning about both music theory and music history?

Like, what does "critical writing" actually mean when taken in isolation from the specific subject the writing is about, and how common is that core across various critical disciplines?

just for the record, i would agree that he sucks at writing music criticism.

i would disagree with the thought that he doesn't have training in writing (he has an MFA, he's taught at BU i believe) and he's published enough that i don't think he's untalented.

i think he went to UNC-Greensboro--not sure how much critical writing you do there, but i'm sure he at least wrote a couple of big critical papers on various lit topics.

does not excuse those awful reviews!

so basically we're agreeing with the "talent" portion of his statement

I know plenty of people who have taught after receiving and mfa who are untalented

I know some who are too but wtvr

I know plenty of people who have taught after receiving and mfa who are untalented

i didn't say it was his mfa that made him talented

is it his WILL WORK FOR BOOBKS shirt

yes you did its right there

anyway his fiction is pretty bleh--i'm just glad someone came out against music criticism. maybe congress can put an end to this travesty, and soon.

he seems like a nice dude and all, but where's the evidence of his writing "talent"?

he seems like a nice dude and all, but where's the evidence of his writing "talent"?

two books of short stories, two non fiction books--that kind of stuff doesn't just "happen."

yes you did its right there

two separate thoughts for you

1. i would disagree with the thought that he doesn't have training in writing (he has an MFA, he's taught at BU i believe)

2. he's published enough that i don't think he's untalented.

these two thoughts were separated by the word "and" so I can see where you were confused.

you can italicize whatever you want but you can't italicize the truth

the truth

*rolls on floor*

*head explodes*

*thinks of Jack Nicholson*

heard from someone that the almond dude hit on one of her friends by going "yo I have a huge bag of weed and I love to eat pussy" so he can't be all that bad right

fwiw I would argue that this dude's complete inability to express his reactions to music in an empathic manner are why he comes across as such a terrible music critic

so basically we're agreeing with the "talent" portion of his statement

^

maybe his book will be better than his blog

I've been freaking out over van dyke parks shit lately, it's just so nice to have music to go crazy over. Haven't really had a book to obsess about in a while.

xp to myself: like, the sentences are there and they are perfectly good English, but instead of inspiring thoughts about the music, they inspire thoughts of sudden, awful violence perpetrated against the man who wrote them

hurry dan he's waiting there for you

he seems like a nice dude and all, but where's the evidence of his writing "talent"?

two books of short stories, two non fiction books--that kind of stuff doesn't just "happen."

bad books are published all the time

bad books are published all the time

bad is relative here, though. you might not dig his stuff, but someone at his publisher likes him. someone keeps publishing him! writing a book is hard. i tend to give writers the benefit of the doubt with this sort of thing.

but someone at his publisher likes him. someone keeps publishing him!

Jedward to thread. Someone keeps publishing their music!

music and writing=two different things

the music industry and publishing industry=two completely different worlds

Two completely different worlds, yes. Both of which are absolutely crammed with people trying to make $$ who are eager to publish and release total shit books and/or music to the greater public.

Both of which are absolutely crammed with people trying to make $$ who are eager to publish and release total shit books and/or music to the greater public.

well, Random House is publishing his new book. so you're saying Random House publishes shit books, is that correct? or are you saying Random House only publishes untalented writers like Steve Almond?

haven't read his new book, but if I were to make a blind wager on this one I would say, yes, they'll be publishing at least one shit book this year

mr. que otm here; i don't really know why this is an argument

maybe you guys should give it a try--write a shit book and send it off to Random House. hey that's weird! they don't take unsolicited submissions. okay so, write a shit book, get a literary agent, then sell your book to random house. go ahead.

http://www.randomhouse.biz/manuscripts/

by guys i mean ksh and ilxor

there are tons of lame books just on their home page

101 OPTIMAL LIFE FOODS

there are tons of lame posts with your login underneath: write a book! sell it to random house!

i mean, if there are so many shit books out there, it must be easy to get published, right?

UNDATEABLE

Did your date show up wearing socks with sandals? Are tighty-whities a deal-breaker for you? Do fanny packs make you want to run for the door? Now, for the very first time, we’re revealing the secret list of things that so many perfectly eligible guys manage to wear, say, or do to make themselves completely undateable.

i mean, if there are so many shit books out there, it must be easy to get published, right?

― Mr. Que

straw man, Que. i'm asserting that bad books can be published, even by decent publishing houses. sometimes they may even want to publish someone's book not because it's well-written or interesting, but because there's a market for it.

and if we follow your logic, any author who has had multiple books published by a reputable publishing house would necessarily be a "talented writer," and that's just not fucking true. you & cad are 100% off the money.

like i said earlier--i tend to give authors the benefit of the doubt. i don't care for his writing, but i do think writing multiple books for multiple publishing houses takes at least a little bit of talent.

i'm asserting that bad books can be published,

i am asserting that it's impossible to measure what a "bad book" is.

http://wisdomfrombooks.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/the-secret-book-cover-rhonda-byrne1.jpg

so there's a book you don't like written by a guy who wrote an article you don't agree with. get over it.

jesus christ ksh you realize you are asserting that you can objectively identify bad books, right?

i hate this book for the record

http://www.drtoy.com/images/items/6107.jpg

all the examples of his writing in this thread are horrible, whereas no one here knows what his books are like.

plus this was sparked by his own remark that he was neither trained nor talented in music criticism.

so there's a book you don't like written by a guy who wrote an article you don't agree with. get over it.

― Mr. Que

great point

jesus christ ksh you realize you are asserting that you can objectively identify bad books, right?

― call all destroyer

some books are just shit yo

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0533091020

I would argue that, even though it brought me a lot of joy, this is objectively a terrible, terrible book.

hahahahahaa

This is the tale of three African American horses (Latawnya, Latoya and Daisy), who leave the stable and get drugs from four white horses (Connie, Chrystal, Jackie and Angie). It is a timely and poignant tale that will leave you laughing, crying, and making scary noises.

It starkly and accurately presents the real dangers horses in black neighborhoods face from Caucasian equine drug pushers; when one of the horses died of a drug overdose, this reviewer wept openly. This is a lesson all children, foals, calves, chicks and cubs must learn before it is too late.

A classic of our time. Get it while you still can.

http://pixiestixkidspix.wordpress.com/awesome-resources-for-reading-and-kid-lit/latawnya-the-naughty-horse-learns-to-say-no-to-drugs/

for those who would like to "experience" the entire thing

Connie started smoking drugs and drinking, and Connie's sisters also started smoking drugs and drinking

i'm asserting that bad books can be published, even by decent publishing houses. sometimes they may even want to publish someone's book not because it's well-written or interesting, but because there's a market for it.

ksh says it first; I merely check the thread every hour or so, and then copy his posts and put a comment underneath them saying I completely agree and don't have much else to add, and that's that.

ksh OTM, btw.

THE NAUGHTY HORSE LEARNS TO SAY NO TO DRUGS

here's the original thread we had about this, btw

i don't have a problem with Random House. i love books, and i'm sure they've published stuff that i've read and enjoyed. but they also publish some stuff that looks pretty bad. a lot of publishers -- most, probably -- do this, because they're a business, and they need to keep making more money.

my guess is that, while this was published by a big publishing house, its author is not a particularly skilled or interesting writer:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/42/GoingRogue.jpg

i do hope i come across that horse book in a used bookstore some day

hating on Toto's "Africa" in 2010 is pretty lazy and despicable tbqh

step 1 - play audience old song that they might remember
step 2 - make jokes about how bad old song is
step 3 - ???
step 4 - PROFIT!

whoa y'all how'd we miss this (from the link posted upthread about Almond's beef w/Oprah's book club)

Literature, though, isn't supposed to be a convenient shopping experience. It's a solitary imaginative endeavor aimed at arousing the anguish hidden inside us, the bad news of our hearts.

The Bad News of Our Hearts is actually the working title of my heavily fictionalized inspirational memoir, strangely enough.

some books are just shit yo

booming post

also: http://awfullibrarybooks.wordpress.com/

http://awfullibrarybooks.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/dogtraincover.jpg?w=556&h=819

oh man, awesome blog Que

http://awfullibrarybooks.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/dont-call-me-fatso.jpg?w=438&h=529

http://awfullibrarybooks.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/schizophrenia.jpg

http://awfullibrarybooks.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/nobody-likes-you.jpg?w=446&h=495

http://awfullibrarybooks.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/johnny00011.jpg?w=500&h=799

http://awfullibrarybooks.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/dnaclone.jpg?w=416&h=866

most of the time, when someone who's written criticism ticks off their reasons for deciding criticism is pointless, they seem to be to be saying that they were horrible, terrible critics who not only didn't get the point of criticism, but were too unimaginative to find a way to do it better. often they seem not to realize the difference between two meanings of criticism -- the one that involves being negative about something, and the one that involves expressing ideas about something.

I wouldn't feel that way about anyone who turned on criticism because he/she felt that "most critics" or "the general atmosphere/state of criticism" were lacking or petty or stupid. but arguments that the actual endeavor is pointless never seem to have a very clear idea of what the actual endeavor is.

or else they go on and keep writing and expressing opinions about the topic, only they don't consider it criticism anymore because for some reason they thought "criticism" just involved rating things? I mean that is just bizarre, no?

or else they go on and keep writing and expressing opinions about the topic, only they don't consider it criticism anymore because for some reason they thought "criticism" just involved rating things?

are you talking about Almond?

Rather like the Republicans, whining about liberal bias.

xpost

Film writer and rogerebert.com editor Jim Emerson gets into the game:

He is so right about this: "you can't rescind the pleasure someone derives from" a piece of art or entertainment -- even by derision. But why is he even thinking along those lines? Oh, we already established that: He's a bad critic who is only familiar with bad criticism and doesn't recognize what good criticism is.

Further proof is his attitude of "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." If you cared about music -- or food or movies or sex or politics or anything at all -- you would know that passions run in both directions. To feel intense love is also to know intense hatred. If you don't care enough about something to hate the worst in it, then you aren't capable of appreciating the best. You're either numb or have no standards (which is the same thing). So, to say you will only write about what you like is vacuous, dishonest, one-dimensional. If you care enough to write about something, you can't ignore a whole part of your sensibility. Your yin is shapeless and meaningless without your yang. Dammit.

yo dawg we herd u liked criticism in your criticism so we got u a blog

Search: Analyzing and discussing criticism
Destroy: Artists analyzing and discussing criticism of their own works

(Ryan adams to thread plz)

http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2010-03-24/music/crush-exclusive-excerpt-steve-almond-book-rock-and-roll-will-save-your-life/

have at it

ugh

No thanks.

although in fairness at least I have an idea of what the music sounded like, even if his description makes it sound like the most horrible thing in the world

gonna reiterate my line upthread about this guy having all of the same annoying writing tics I have that make me think I could never be a professional writer, only he is a professional writer

Pass.

although I hope without the preening narcissism

like, this is so much more about him than it is about Bob Schneider, it's sickening

and I know it's from a book about himself but he's really fucking boring and not worth reading about

Straight guys discussing man crushes are so embarrassing; they can't resist giggling.

you're welcome, guys. anytime.

Alfred this makes up for those crusty teats yesterday on the politics thread. *shudder*

Touché.

Bob swung his guitar behind his back and sped the time signature.

get a fucken editor

never seen HI DERE write like this

several other ilxors do tho

not the guy from Apples In Stereo then?

hahah no, not that guy

I did read the article thinking: I'm sure he's bald; I thought it was Athens not Austin; Party Band? well sort of I suppose; Sandra Bullock? unlikely but maybe she's a closet E6 fan

steve almond white

awful library books needs its own thread imo

lucky 4 u i made that thread a while ago:

Awful Library Books

http://www.najp.org/articles/2010/03/almond-no-joy.html

http://flashfiction.net/2010/03/thursday-craft-lets-discuss-steve-almonds-mini-essay-on-plot.php

The point at which you began noticing other fans' reactions and how they're different from your own should be the beginning of your education as a critic, not the end.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/movies/04scott.html

I like that Abbey Lincoln record that he quotes.

Wowww, can you even imagine being this guy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9DkKTbyobA