Xgau takes music criticism to a new level

I think Xgau/Fantano/Scaruffi/RYM doing lots and lots and lots of things with a quantifiable ratings scale and data appeals to people in the same lite-autism-spectrum way that someone might be obsessed with train schedules or whatever

Like it's prolly no coincidence both Xgau and Scaruffi made and maintained SEARCHABLE DATABASES FOR THEIR LIFE'S OPINIONS in the early internet

Yeah seems p obvious he wants people to comb through them.

There's that Pauline Kael Geocities site, but I don't know if it's searchable, and half the time your virus protection will block it. But we argue about her anyway.

Most of 5001 Nights at the Movies is searchable on Google Books.

To be fair, I think Tom Hull was the one who approached Xgau with the idea and voluntarily did it for him. (Hull also has his own site too.)

I know what you mean though - he seems to get a lot of questions laser-focused on grades rather than the reviews themselves. Xgau has downplayed the value of grades - for examples, when asked for clarity on star ratings, he just said "they're all B+'s" and he's said if he had to, he'd regrade a lot of things over time but he doesn't think it's worth it. You can see why RS got rid of the star rating, it really does take up far too much attention than the actual content of the review.

*for example

It still ticks me off that one of CMJ's last few owners tanked the entire database of old reviews. I used to really enjoy looking those up (and not just, er, the few that I wrote).

I have a vague recollection of Q Magazine making all of their reviews available online and later Rolling Stone hosting a lot of entries from their album guide online (and updating them with every new release). In both cases, it felt like they did that for only a year or two then took it all down.

The Voice keeps a lot of stuff online, but it's not perfect: this Mötley Crüe live review (warning: opening line contains a slur that was A-OK in 2009) doesn't carry my byline, so I had to search for it by band name.

Their links change! So I made my own archive of my Voice stuff years ago (also ones for stuff from other publications, having learned the hard way that older things can get flushed). Last year, I think, couldn't find anything of mine on the Voice site, but yesterday I checked again, and it was all there: mixed feelings about that now, since I've tweaked and improved some of the olde pieces in my own archives---
xpost bird, Rolling Stone still has some ancient works in there, like Paul Nelson's celebration of the Ramones debut: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-album-reviews/ramones-206065/
in the three collections of Consumer Guide columns, xgau mentions re-listening, and sometimes he'll give the original grade and a new grade. Also, sometimes he indicates in a review of a later album that he's changed his mind about an earlier effort, that it sounds better or worse by comparison, or that he'd already gotten tired of it.

xpost

https://c.tenor.com/HBsu7mTmizgAAAAC/bill-hader-popcorn.gif

(warning: opening line contains a slur that was A-OK in 2009)

haha ok man

haha ok man

My editor — which was either Rob H. or Maura J. at the time — let it pass without blinking. We are none of us angels.

We R none of us angels

There's that Pauline Kael Geocities site, but I don't know if it's searchable, and half the time your virus protection will block it. But we argue about her anyway.

― clemenza, Tuesday, August 23, 2022 4:56 PM (three hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

"we" = 2.5 people

neverending discussion of this jerk off here (xgau not pauline kael) is such a blight

https://giphy.com/explore/who-gives-a-shit