Underground classics is what they used to say before. Now we break the surface quiet like an alligator nose. They hate it, cuz they know if they don't get it, then they may be slow. We still gonna blow like the horn played by Horatio Talib Kweli's "Soul Rebels"
What purpose does music criticism serve? At least book critics write. Music critics aren't always musicians. My friend Mike and I got on the topic yesterday.
Mike is a fantastic musician. We had a band together back in high school. He's going to be a lawyer when he grows up. Here's just the good stuff.
Me: I mostly hate GnR (and hair metal in general) because bastards like Chuck Klosterman revel in the nostalgia of it to the point where
he actually gave Chinese Democracy a A-. People will take that seriously
Mike: I don't read him; He's a joke.
Me: And then everyone in my journalism classes wants to write like him. I mean, I used to read him a lot but after reading some of it, you start to see right through him.
Mike: Extended pieces on music are pitiful. Keep it to 1,000 words or learn to play an instrument.
Me: His sports pieces are his best works, I think.
Mike: Never read 'em. But I don't know anything about sports.
Me: You have no idea how annoying it is for every asshole who wants to do entertainment journalism to say in class "Well I'm really inspired by Klosterman's style and blahblahblah." He's just a watered down Lester Bangs Severely watered down.
Of course this led to a couple of much bigger topics.
Mike: Idols in criticism are all a farce. Trying to live vicariously through people they wish they could be.
Me: Isn't that how so many things start though? Wanting to be your idols?
Mike: Absolutely, but it doesn't translate well into a different medium. In this case, anyway. Like Hunter S. Thompson. It's funny that people who consider themselves liberal freethinkers enjoy him because he is simply one big self-celebration.
Me: And a gun toting maniac.
Mike: That too.
Me: He is a helluva writer though.
Mike: He is an OK writer, but what he stands for needs to be forgotten.
Me: I don't think it needs to be forgotten entirely.
Mike: Remembered only for the sake of avoidance. See, emulation is good when it's Kevin Shields emulating the Jesus and Mary Chain. But only because Kevin Shields had talent and vision. However, while everyone has the ability to emulate, not everyone has talent and vision. So not only do you get Hunter S. Thompson, but you get the people in our generation who think he's cool, and who try to live that lifestyle, when they are really just selfish suburban idiots who will never accomplish anything. Emulation becomes infinitely reductive, you see, until the very last person has no ideas whatsoever and is as much a spoonfed drone as middle management at Citibank.
Me: I couldn't agree with you more. But I don't think that there is a better system in place for recognizing innovation. Every year albums are praised for bringing back old genres and lost influences. Movies win awards for being adaptations or biopics and true geniuses aren't recognized until after their time. What's the solution to that? How do we stop making copies of copies?
Mike: Human ingenuity. It's like evolution. There is a germ of something new in the midst of everything that is borrowed or stolen. Like the last Animal Collective record. I mean, you can throw "Beach Boys" at that but you'd be grasping for straws. There are no real reference points.
Me: I would only throw "Beach Boys" at a few vocal parts. Not much else.
Mike: The point is that the whole thing put together has no predecessor and that's where innovation comes in. And i wouldn't say geniuses are ALWAYS ignored in their time. The Arcade Fire's records get a lot of hype and i think that's justified.
Me: Yeah. They don't always get ignored but when they are realized they are marginalized by the hype machine.
Mike: Well that's a separate point altogether. I agree with that.
Me: How are you innovating? How is your art evolving then?
Mike: It changes as your life circumstances change. For a long time I didn't have time to listen to a lot of music and yet I still found myself heading in a million different directions. In every change in timbre, or arrangement, there is something new. I've been sampling a lot more lately--am i the first person to sample? No. But I can't name many other records that mix hip hop/soul samples with dreary shoegaze guitar. That doesn't even mean it's necessarily good--there are just so many variables in music that to attribute every potential outcome to a predecessor is impossible. I mean your point is well taken, and it's the basic postmodernist viewpoint that dominates a lot of music criticism (especially Chris Ott, et al) But that's why you have to think like a musician instaed of a critic.
Me: So you're saying the best music critics are musicians? I guess I can get behind that. Although, anytime I've ever been in a band, I tend to appreciate the bands I play with more openly than if I wasn't. But i suppose that's a good thing. Most bands have something good going on even if its not incredibly clear at first listen.
Mike: That's exactly what I'm saying, yes. I mean, to put it impolitely at least book critics are writers and a lot of them have indeed written books themselves. Bob Dylan made this same point when he put out his memoir.
Me: That's why I never review bands I don't like.
Mike: Haha, well i would never take it that far.
Me: I mean, I never review Coldplay because I don't like them. I know I'll write a negative review.
Mike: Yeah, I could get behind that. I think SOMEONE has to do it, because not everyone listens to music within the indie paradigm. But if you don't want to, as a critic, you shouldn't
Me: But i will review the new Deerhunter record because I like them and if they make a bad record I can honestly review it as something that disappointed me
Mike: Yeah, that's a fair distinction.
Me: There is no point in being negative for the sake of being negative.
Mike: It's not the stream of things you would consider transcendent.
Me: Right. That's a main problem I have with Pitchfork.
Mike: Well, I think there is definitely a time and a place for that. That's the function of criticism, lol. But yes, if you mean should Pitchfork be reviewing Coldplay and mainstream rap or whatever. I don't think they should either.
Me: Not only that. They assign more than one writer to review a band over time. The guy who reviews a band's first album doesn't always get to review their second album. I understand trying to get varied opinions but I think that first guy has a bit more clout.
And now the ever-present grading discussion.
Mike: To tell you the truth, I don't respect music criticism in general. It can serve a utilitarian purpose, which listeners need. But as far as, should whatever point system rating some dickhead in chicago gave to an album matter to me? I don't think it should.
Me: I never give albums grades. I refuse.
Mike: Now granted, it's a great guide, and Pitchfork serves that purpose.
Me: True.
Mike: It can be your older friend who knows cool stuff.
Me: But what does 6.8 mean?
Mike: Right, that's my point. It means something different to everyone. Which is why I think the whole thing as an enterprise is flawed, but I know that's a minority opinion especially within my group of friends.
Me: Exactly. I think some music criticism is great. Trend pieces, profiles on scenes and bands even show reviews but album reviews give me a hard time.
Mike: Right, I would agree with that.
And now, the institution of music criticism/writing/journalism. Whatever you want to call it.
Mike: I'm also not a fan of the Lester Bangs experimental type pieces. It's like... write a novel, or join a band.
Me: Oh I love them and he had a band!
Mike: Yeah, and it sucked.
Me: At least he had the balls to do it. You think Chuck Klosterman is gonna go start a hair metal band?
Mike: The thing is, music criticism never ILLUMINATES anything for me. The one time that has ever happened for me, has been Bangs writing about Astral Weeks.
Me: Excellent album.
Mike But still, I would rather listen to Astral Weeks than read Lester Bangs writing about Astral Weeks. I don't know. It just strikes me as so peanut gallery. So little kids wanting to do what the big kids do.
Me: Yeah but some people wouldn't listen to Astral Weeks if Lester Bangs didn't write about it.
Mike: I don't think I'd give him or any critic that much credit. Good music finds its way back to the mainstream anyway.
Me: But that was the case for some people.
Mike: Hell, music itself serves that purpose and word of mouth.
Me: But some failed musicians wanted jobs close to something they like and some writers don't have the cajones to pick up a guitar.
Mike: Then that's their flaw, not their gift. It doesn't take much. Look at the Ramones. You dont even have to care. I don't see why it has to be canonized as a respectable "art form," "music criticism"
Me: I don't think it should be canonized.
Mike: But it is. It's an institution
Me: It's hobby writing.
Mike: Well, as long as you realize that, that's the point I'm trying to make. Pitchfork/sites like it/blogs try to put it into a whole new paradigm and get paid a lot of money/attention for doing it. But most importantly, writing about music will never get you laid as much as playing it.
Me: Most importantly.
Mike: Well you know, it would be pretentious to say that any musician is bereft of that motive somewhere inside him/herself
Me: That's the only reason I try singing.
Mike: Haha. That's the most honest thing you've said so far. And I mean, it doesn't even negate the product. Like i was saying before about what makes things innovative--it's all circumstance. If the Ramones made music today, no one would give a damn but they made music where and when they did, so they mattered.
Me: I would!
Mike: You'd be alone. I'm sorry.
Me: I love the Ramones
Mike: So do I. But I mean, to clarify my point on innovation, I'm saying that they would not matter nearly as much.
The usefulness of music criticism.
Mike: Circumstance. The extramusical stuff, historically. That matters too and that's another place where critics could potentially be useful
Me: Documenting history? Recognizing something new?
Mike: Yes, both of those things. In one sense, as i said, your point is right, everything has SOME precedent, but at the same time, it doesn't matter if anything *IS* new. It matters if it SOUNDS new to the people listening to it at the time, so that they get lost in the experience.
Me: Agreed.
Mike: But again it's very risky because everyone's got their own thing to say, their own backgrounds to take to writing. And as you said sometimes truly great things get ignored--now who would you blame that on? Obviously not the musician
Me: Not at all. Circumstance.
Mike: Right. Which encompasses people too. i.e., critics, fans
Me: Yeah I'm just trying to get out of this with my career intact. Haha.
Mike: I mean like I said, it definitely serves a purpose. I wouldn't know a lot of the music I do without it. But at the same time, a deconstructed community can serve that same purpose and also be more fluid and less institutional.
Me: But there comes a point where you have to question the vaildity of it all.
Mike: Now you're getting it, but I would take that much further. You ALWAYS question the validity of it. That is your STARTING point.
Me: I think the Internet is that deconstructed community.
Mike: To an extent, but even then you have to clarify. Message boards, yes. Blogs that post records, yes. Review sites, not necessarily.
Me: But with so many people telling you their opinions you can truly sort out what is what. You can decide for yourself whats valid and what isn't.
Mike: Precisely.
Me: Things without grading scales.
Mike: But that means you have to approach everything with skepticism, rather than awe/idolization
Me: By doing so you recognize others' awe/idolization and even hatred in an effort to make your own decision.
Mike: Indeed.
I realize I didn't do much talking there. But I agree with a lot of what he said. As I've continued on my path as a Journalism major I've been moving farther and farther from straight music criticism. In the form of album reviews anyway. I have a lot more fun writing literary journalism pieces about other things. I mean I still have some pretty intense feelings towards bands I like and bands I don't. But I mostly don't want to write about bands I don't like. Where's is the merit in ripping a band to shreds? I guess it depends. If Japanther put out a really terrible record, I would be pretty angry and probably write a pretty bad review. In that case I think it's okay. I'm allowed to be angry at my favorite band. But am I allowed to hate The Fray's album when I went into the record knowing I didn't like the band already? That's a gray area. They could pleasantly surprise me.
Posts
