Where is Greil Marcus' column moving to?

it allows for that "hey, maybe I'M the weirdo but..."

Critics using "we" is probably the thing I hate the most. "Why Do We Love Bruce Springsteen So Unconditionally?" Um, who the fuck is this "we"?

croup the crit you're looking for is pitchfork 1998-2003, cf amy phillips, the collected writings

I'd probably bring James Agee up first, as someone who did great film critic without fearing a more diary-like tone

Between the fear of standing alone and the relative profitability of suggesting those who agree with you are legion - I'm sure more people want to read (and publish) Why Do We Love Bruce Springsteen than Why Do I Love Bruce Springsteen - I totally get why it's done, though

He's expressing his reaction, yes, but there's the clear suggestion, via theatrical incredulity, that anyone who doesn't have the same reaction isn't just odd, but quite probably stupid. Anyway, I'm with Pete above--the "you" construction is just a stylistic construction that doesn't bother me a bit. (Unlike, say, what Chuck Eddy calls the "royal we" construction--that does bother me.)

great film criticism, rather xpost

Warning: overuse of the word "construction" ahead.

YOU presupposes some idealized community of ideal listeners of which YOU can become a member. But then you grow up and realize it didn't quite materialize as promised, so you have less time for YOU.

lol funny rickover quote in this piece on royal we - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/magazine/03FOB-onlanguage-t.html?_r=0

pluralis maiestatis is pretty different in tone, intent, and effect than pluralis modestiae though. latter is common usage in scientific and (apparently) mathematic lit, i would guess that it's usage in humanities crit, etc is aiming for similar effect but ending up this muddled mix of the two. w/ science and math though demonstration and replication are possible and u + k. w/ humanities not nearly as much the case. it's almost like a cargo cult effect, that if they cop the style tic of 'we' they're going to get the demonstrative rigor that accompanies it. lazy.

Tbh, as time marches on, youone some of us get less interested in motivation material relating rock to discomysticpizza medieval monks and just want to hear behind the scenes stuff like how napping-on-a-sofa Wayne Jackson overhead Jim Stewart and Chips Moman fighting over Stax or which stories about James Jamerson were true and which made up by Jack Ashford.

lol at that article and quote

Oh wait wasn't a quote. Lol anyway. Or otm

That paragraph in the middle of the Beatles piece where he talks about how they were their influences and how the shock of the Beatles was not just the shock of novelty but the shock of recognition - he nails it there.
― timellison, Friday, July 11, 2014 8:53 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah, that's one of his best essays and I remember that point very well too, despite not having read it since whenever. i think he did a good job dismantling some critical canards in that one, just as he did in his reevaluation of elvis's post-sun records in "mystery train." there are some really lucid and insightful sections of that book, which i figure must be his best (I haven't written anything he's published since about 2003). i didn't mean to imply that his writing was worthless, just that i can scarcely imagine anyone wanting to read him now. which i can't! (fwiw i'm even more mystified by anyone reading and enjoying john simon, which i'll have to chalk up to masochism unless someone can point me to a really interesting simon article.)

i made the point on another thread that i think his writing got a lot less interesting once he encountered punk and post-punk. that music seems to satisfy some important need he had, and after that his writing seemed to indicate less of a struggle after ideas and more of a smug slotting everything into preexisting categories or heuristics.

also i think we all have a right to be utterly dismissive of something we don't like! as long as we respect the right of other folks to think we're a blowhard for being that way. :)

and i do really think the whole "you feel like this, you feel like that" is a big reason i find his writing a turn-off, but it's hardly the only reason. (it's something i can sometimes abide in other authors if i think they have something useful to say.)

i think this use of the 2nd person might have some influence from the cult-studies stuff marcus started reading and allying himself to in the 1990s(?). there's tons of use of that in that context. i'd say the same of marcus's increasing use of seemingly infinite subordinate clauses.

Excellent late-'70s photo of Marcus here, in advance of the original New West "Real Life" columns. I thought it was John Denver at first glance.

http://greilmarcus.net/2014/07/21/now-weve-got-greil-marcus-too-073178/

"Take me home, fascist bathrooms..."

that may be the only photo of GM i've ever seen where he's smiling!

It was 1978. "You're the Want That I Want" was on the radio, and magic was in the air.

Found this review of Robert Coover's A Public Burning fascinating:

http://greilmarcus.net/2014/08/22/undercover-an-absurdably-likable-nixon-100677/

It's like Marcus's "Campaigner": the only time I've ever seen him allow for the possibility that there was another Nixon there, more complicated than the Nixon he hated. (He goes even farther than that.) A friend sent me the Coover book a couple of years ago--it'll require some effort (I just don't read fiction anymore), but I should give it a go.

Slight error on the title there--The Public Burning.

new one! will probably read at some point: http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-ca-jc-greil-marcus-20140824-story.html

well, what do you know, greil is a carl barks/scrooge mcduck fan!

http://greilmarcus.net/2014/08/19/natural-acts-book-reviews-0482/

my all-time favorite book foreword!

http://greilmarcus.net/2014/08/08/foreword-to-marooned-2007/

As I read Seward, he is saying that the challenge is to hear lines from an English-language pop composition as if they are not in English—to hear them as the desperate attempt to communicate, to hear the desperate attempt to connect (“I wanted to know everything that Rakim knew,” he says), and, in that abstraction, to begin again, from the beginning.

I think so, as I recall on an EMP Pop Conference thread I think, ILX's S saying Greil heard his presentation one year

he sat right in front of me at the last one i did. tried to stare me down. he's a good dude. he was the moderator at the emp i did in california. that was so much fun. i got to thank him for the marooned thing. you can still listen to it online. my ebay thing.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/2011-emp-pop-conference-at/id431416241?mt=10

i sound like a giddy schoolgirl.

every time i've seen him speak it has been memorable. i'm really no expert on his work or books. i've read him here and there over the decades obviously. i said it on here somewhere, but the dylan thing i saw him do at harvard was amazing. on "The Ballad of Hollis Brown". the dude can bring it.

we got wasted that night.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/3801_10152588755537137_256138507_n.jpg?oh=8b60005af542a63c1fa9017888f2ed4b&oe=547D6E66&__gda__=1416029144_121dc3f5afa2f71b9e0c3d71e0b2579e

I've never seen Greil drink at these things. I imagine him as a sip-a-single-malt guy.

Not sure how many people remember this, but it was such a big deal at the time:

http://greilmarcus.net/2014/09/09/pazz-jop-89-ive-decided-not-to-participate/

Had mixed feelings then, still do. I don't want to really get into how accurate Marcus's interpretation of Public Enemy was. He felt like he did, and he acted upon it, and that's fine. I wasn't sure then, and I'm still not sure now, if boycotting accomplishes anything. It's a poll; it's kind of meaningless (even though Pazz & Jop "meant" more then than now, simply by virtue that more people paid attention to it and more people talked about it). I used to joke that he boycotted mostly because he knew Don Henley wasn't going to win albums that year. Which, I realize, trivializes something he felt strongly about.

He boycotted Pazz and Jop because of Professor Griff? That's stupid. What does one have to do with the other?

Supporting Henley is trivial enough.

Well, yeah.

did Don 'n' Glenn appreciate the gesture?

I do like that it was a time where a year-end music poll was considered by someone (a prominent critic, no less) to be worth boycotting.

DON: We rarely saw eye to eye on host of issues over the years, I must admit I was impressed by Marcus' protest ballot in the '89 Pazz & Jop poll. To find a so-called rock critic willing to stick to his metaphorical moral guns was an act deserving of applause, even at the cost of a vote for The End of The Innocence, my new album at the time.

GLENN: Sometimes answers weren't so clear cut. I'm still waiting for his explanation for overlooking "Sexy Girl" on his singles ballot a couple years prior!

DON: Well, yeah.

Dave Marsh stopped voting in P&J because he thought Christgau's essays were getting crazy obfuscatory.

I think I like Marsh's reason better than Marcus'.

Marsh never came back; Marcus was back the next year, I believe (by '91 for sure), and continued to vote for a few years after that.

I think there's a Christgau interview somewhere where he says that he and Marcus didn't talk for a year after the '89 poll.

I think there's a Christgau interview somewhere where he says that he and Marcus didn't talk for a year after the '89 poll.

christgau and marsh, on the other hand, continued talking, but marsh didn't understand a single thing christgau said.

haha. Actually, Marsh did an interview in 2001 praising Christgau's skills as an editor to the skies.

Dave Marsh stopped voting in P&J because he thought Christgau's essays were getting crazy obfuscatory.

i always figured that those essays were weird and unreadable because ultimately the assignment is stupid: summing up "a year in music," as if that means anything at all.

Christgau's essays are far more intelligible than his blurbs!

yeah, i guess they're not so much unintelligible as just kind of ridiculous in trying to draw all these thematic parallels and rhymes out of a mass of stuff that really is only lumped together by historical accident

i find that i can usually unpack his blurbs, and maybe 50% of the time they are worth unpacking. the rest of the time i think he's (unconsciously?) trying to disguise having nothing to say by saying it in a knotty way.

hey man -- distinguishing between toasters is rough

The Oxford American's 86th issue features 112 pages of art and writing, including a reported essay by Patsy Sims on Edgar Ray Killen and the Klan-sponsored murders of Mississippi civil rights workers in 1964, and a new essay by the legendary rock critic Greil Marcus.

The site links to a long interview with Charles Taylor:

http://www.sheilaomalley.com/?p=89990

ah, god, the oxford american. i bought a subscription to that a year ago and really regret it. there are some good pieces but overall it just feels like a faintly intellectualized tourist brochure for northern liberals who want to travel and see "the real south." such bullshit.

i always wondered what happened to charles taylor, he sort of fell off the face of the earth after leaving salon. his un-google-able name doesn't help, of course.

Charles Taylor has a great article about the band Wussy in the LA Review of Books.

http://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/support-local-wussy