Or is it?

“I’m interested in how [music] makes me feel. If it was an early Who single, I’m interested in how that made me feel, and I a lot of other kids feel, or what about a Motown record made a lot of us dance at a particular time. But I’m more interested in how it does that musically, I think. That’s the underlying core at it. The way that the backbeat and bass line works, rather than something else. That’s how I listen to music. I listen to the notes.”
- Richard Williams, 2002

□ □ □ □ □ □

“Little rock criticism is concerned with music, because most rock critics are less concerned with sound than sociology. This can have depressing consequences. For instance, Springsteen’s success is defined in terms of his critical cult, ‘punk’ imagery, or his dramatic stage show. Hardly anyone has discussed his inventive use of song structure (multiple bridges, for example), his extraordinary guitar effects, or the simple power of his voice.”
- Dave Marsh, 1976 ( Rolling Stone, “The Critic’s Critic”)

□ □ □ □ □ □

“I think something else that I did which not many people, male or female, have the technical expertise as both musicians and writers to do was to really try to get inside and explain the process of making rock music and records — which is what I still call them even if now they’re really CDs or files or whatever. You know what I mean? Most rock writers are people with literary aspirations who appreciate music but really don’t understand how to do it — or else they probably would. There are people who write for guitar mags who may have some more knowledge about how to tap like Eddie Van Halen but they have even less elegance or imagination when it comes to the English language. Of course, there are just as many great rock musicians who can’t really articulate what it is that they do.”
- Deborah Frost, 2002

□ □ □ □ □ □

“It would be better if he or she knew enough about performance practices to be able to identify specific techniques, and better still if the reviewer could follow a theme and variations, recognize basic forms of counterpoint, and identify common harmonies. Not because that sort of information belongs in every review. Rather, if the reviewer understands on a structural level what’s going on in the music, it will be that much easier for him or her to explain his or her observations to the reader — provided, of course, that he or she writes well enough to make those ideas comprehensible.”
- J.D.  Considine, 2000 

 □ □ □ □ □ □

“Periodically, I get to feeling guilty because I am a music critic — I hate the term, but I suppose it applies — who knows nothing about music. I have listened to a lot of rock and jazz, of course, and I do know a good deal about the development of American music. But I can’t read music. After several patient lessons, I am hard-pressed to detect even the simplest chord changes. I never count time. And I don’t know the first thing about harmony. (Actually, I do know the first thing — it has to do with sound waves. I don’t know the second thing.) Furthermore, I know that stuff means something to musicians, even rock musicians. Worse still, some listeners care about it too.”
- Robert Christgau, 1969 

□ □ □ □ □ □

“For the record, I think an understanding of the basics of music theory and notation as well as an overview of Western classical history will help any pop writer. This information gives you another way to talk about tunes and performers — a significant way, but simply one among many.”
- Milo Miles, 2001

□ □ □ □ □ □

“Most people enjoy music and have opinions on what works and what doesn’t without having any music education (just as people can enjoy novels and poetry without having studied literature). It may be useful to have some understanding of how things work technically but so far there’s no evidence that music education makes for better rock criticism — the reverse, if anything.”
- Simon Frith, 2002

□ □ □ □ □ □

“I don’t think critics should stay away from anything. A critic should learn as much about music as possible, from any angle that seems interesting: music theory, history, psychology, literature, theater, acoustics, religion, dance, anthropology, film theory, pharmacology, economics, fashion, linguistics, electronics, sports, and all the other things that touch on music. Playing an instrument and being in a band help you appreciate what musicians have to learn, how groups make decisions and how songs feel from the inside. It’s one way, though not the only way, to understand how music works.”
- Jon Pareles, 2001

□ □ □ □ □ □

“To evaluate rock music as music the peripherals need to be set aside. The look of a band — where they’re coming from — is musically irrelevant. The difference between good heavy metal and bad heavy metal can only be determined just as you would determine the difference between good and bad funk or country — by focusing on the music played. Bad clothes or hair is irrelevant. Even bad lyrics and hackneyed melodies though worth discussing may not tell the listener anything about the band’s ability as rock musicians.”
- Joe Carducci, 1990 (Rock and the Pop Narcotic)

 □ □ □ □ □ □

“So, contrary to the letter-writers who righteously and semi-regularly demand that Musician drop the biographical trivia and concentrate on the music, I say it cannot be done. You might as well demand that Sophocles cut the Oedipus anecdotes and concentrate on incest. Or that Shakespeare cut the Hamlet crap and get to the point about ruling class decadence. Or that Tolstoy deal with the issues of war and peace, not the personalities.”
- Charles M. Young, 1991 (Musician, “Why We Write About What We Write About” Aug. 1991)

□ □ □ □ □ □ 

In regards to critically divisive musicians, I noted in the comments box last week that the early Ramones were more or less as good a case study as any — as this great, great ad attests. It’s for the group’s second album, Leave Home, and it consists entirely of excerpts from reviews of their debut. (I had to blow up and splice the ad in half so as to render it legible online… The ad also contained pics of the first two albums and was headlined “Ramones Get Noticed.”) When I think of how difficult this must’ve been for someone to compile back in 1977… Clearly SIRE had a publicist on board more than earning their keep.  

Obviously, the reaction is far from split down the middle here — the majority of these are positive comments. Some of the negative ones are pretty harsh, though, and funny. And no one but no one can be said to sit on the fence.

I have to wonder, though, about this comment by Steve Morrissey: “Degenerate no-talents.” Is that THE Morrissey? If so, is he merely being cheeky? (Or perhaps the maker of the ad is being cheeky by pulling that particular line? Maybe he meant “degenerate no-talents” as a term of affection?) Didn’t Moz write a book about the New York Dolls?

Ned Raggett provides play by play coverage of weekend events in Seattle… Hope he keeps at this, I always find the post-mortems of this event a little cryptic, to say the least.

Ready to tackle some new depression with yet another article about the precarious state of the critic? Patrick Goldstein did just that yesterday in his Los Angeles Times column, The Big Picture: The End of the Critic. Culling sources ranging from his son to journalism students and other critics, he tackles multifaceted issues within the issue, namely the dearth of the print age, the rise of the blog and how crass commercialism can impact both.

Also discussed in the article is the role of the critic; elucidator versus arbiter of taste is a continuing theme, though it’s generally agreed upon that it’s the sharing of opinions that still matters. However the notion of critic’s ability to be honest while paying attention to their readers is still a confusing contradiction.

Surprisingly, an encouraging passage involved students who reveal themselves to be more discerning than one might think. Yet, reading through, one can find themself caught between concern about the state of writer’s opportunities and sheepish satisfaction at some of the more windbagier scribe’s decisions to opt out or move on.

I don’t mean to rudely cut into A.C.’s usual “Q of the Week” feature, and anyway, this is a somewhat different kind of question for anyone who cares to take a stab. I’m trying to compile a list of what I call “critically divisive musicians.” I’m not talking merely about “controversial” musicians (though in most cases, the critically divisive musician is in fact somewhat controversial), but rather, musicians who receive both a lot of praise from critics and a heaping of vitriol as well. It has to be both — that is the key — and the more equal those two streams are (i.e., equal ratio of good reviews to bad reviews), the better. Obviously, there isn’t a revered musician on the planet who hasn’t received their share of negative reviews, so I guess I’m formulating this question with a longer view in mind. Um, perhaps I should illustrate with a few examples.

Take the Beatles and Prince. Both have surely had a few brickbats tossed their way through the years (from the critics, I mean), but in the overall trajectory of their careers, I’d be hard pressed to call either of them “critically divisive” (though you could certainly make a stronger case for Prince, especially post-80s Prince). The critics, by and large, have been on their side (and in the case of Prince, I think in the ’90s a lot of critics simply lost interest or gave up on him rather than slammed him per se… he was nonetheless always highly revered — and his current sins duly forgiven — for the work he did in the decade prior).

On the critically divisive side, two examples come to mind immediately: Madonna and M.I.A. Madonna’s an interesting case in that during the mid-’80s the scales were tipped way in the negatives (with just enough positives — Marsh comes to mind, also the folks at SPIN — to make her such a compelling critical figure), but the balance shifted hard in ‘89 with the fairly mass critical acceptance of Like a Prayer. Following which, I’d argue that she’s been riding a teeter-totter effect ever since (I’m reasonably certain, for instance, that the Sex book and the “Justify My Love” video drew sharply divided responses). M.I.A.: I admit I’m judging solely on the basis of all the web arguments that took place around the time of her first album — i.e., all the back and forths about her supposed terrorist ties, questions of her “authenticity,” etc. However, last years Kala received what caption writers like to refer to as unanimously glowing reviews; out of the many that I perused (including the 4.5-star one I wrote myself), I think I came across only a couple that weren’t entirely convinced. So maybe she’s not a great example any longer — perhaps her built-in awesomeness ensured that her role as the Great Divider would be short-lived?

Does this make any sense? Can you think of some examples of Critically Divisive Musicians? Any era or genre is fine, including people outside of rock/pop. Do any jazz artists fit this bill? Electric-era Miles Davis, perhaps? (Also, feel free to slice careers into sub-careers; is it fair to say that the Rolling Stones overall are not “criticially divisive” but that the Rolling Stones post-Exile are?) Don’t be shy about chiming in with hedged responses, as, quite truthfully I’m not even sure this idea is going anywhere or if it’s a total non-starter… it’s just something that’s been nagging at me a bit lately.

Related to the Q. of the Week… I heard old Neil put her down, at least fairly recently. At the Berlin Film Festival last week he said, “I think that the time when music could change the world is past. I think it would be very naive to think that in this day and age.”

And in a rather Devo moment he added, “I think the world today is a different place, and that it’s time for science and physics and spirituality to make a difference in this world and to try to save the planet.”

However, like any good revisionist he later amended that in the commentary found here.

But, of course, that wasn’t the end of it, and he had to throw this near-Belinda Carlisle curve. And continue along those lines with his former bandmates. Sheesh, make up what’s left of your mind, Percy.

Tom Ewing’s latest Pitchfork column, which employs an old Dave Marsh Smiths vs. Lionel Richie dichotomy as a launch pad, contains a lot to chew on, examining as it does the dubious critical fallback position of “20 years from now, people will still be listening to this [i.e., this record that I'm praising] whereas few or no one will still be listening to that [i.e., this record that someone else is praising but which you yourself don't care for].” I bet there’s not a rock critic on the planet who hasn’t written from this vantage point at some time or other, but even to call this position “dubious” is rather charitable. As Ewing points out, it’s a position that can’t really be argued with (unless, perhaps, your name is Mork).

Myself, I fear that I have too often relied on the opposite tack, which Ewing mentions only briefly:

“What strikes me is that the test of time card is played to win internal arguments as much as external ones. It’s often the justifier for something being top of a list, not fourth, or it turns up ruefully acknowledged when talking about a pleasure-perceived evanescent: I’m sure I won’t be listening to this next year but… Posterity here is a cop in the listener’s head.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Lately, it seems that many of the pieces that get linked to around here are about how dismal are the prospects of music criticism. The equation regarding criticism that is more than “consumer advocacy” seems to be: readers don’t want to read it, publishers don’t want to publish it, writers thus slouch in their duties to provide it. But are there counter-examples to this mentality and to this assumption? (And if so, where are they?) Anyone out there thinking otherwise?

Clouds and Clocks, the brainchild of Italian correspondent Beppe Colli (and a great site for interviews with well known experimental artists as well as with various music critics) , recently celebrated its fifth year of existence with some interesting thoughts on the health of music criticism, etc. The comment that most caught my eye, of course, was this one:

1) I’ve received two e-mails recently about the whereabouts of older rockcritics material. It probably doesn’t hurt to reiterate now and again that all the rockcritics material, pre-October 2007, is now archived, via the links on the right sidebar. (To save your mouse the extra centimeter of movement, you can access them right here: interviews, features, index.) I notice that a lot of people are ending up on the front page of the site via old links which are no longer active. Please update your links, where possible. And if you can’t find something that used to be here, let us know.

2) At our last board meeting, we discussed the need to recruit more contributors to this site. Interviewers would be great, of course, but so would people who just want to post links and stuff on this blog. If you’re interested, e-mail myself or A.C. Rhodes. We’d love to hear from you. Don’t be shy.