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

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