Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bikehorn

Is Robert Christgau the worst, most overblown popular music critic in existence?

Recommended Posts

thurston moore once introduced the song kill yr idols as "I Killed Robert Christgau with By Big Fucking Dick"

beat me to the post :eek::wave:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit of an overblown, egotistical twat. But he likes Pere Ubu, so I'll give him that.

 

At least he isn't one of the douchenozzles writing for Pitchfork....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never saw one that had a bit of sense, they tell the VU are better than the beatles because they sold fewer LP's. Next they will trash Zep and tell you how madona if a genius. Or to show how hip they are they say rocket 88 is the first rock tune , not rock around the clock. when in truth Louis Jordan was doing that stuff for 10 years. 20 years ago a back was crap in thier reviews now after they lasted 20 years the are visonaries. critic = asshole

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christgau is dreadful. Rolling Stone as a music magazine is dreadful. Reading Pitchfork is an exercise in pseudo-intellectualism. New Musical Express is printed by idiots for idiots to keep them idiots. Drowned in Sound is bullshit. There is precious little good music/left of centre music journalism out there.

 

The relaity is that music journalism has been rendered obsolete by advances in Internet technology. We don't need record reviews when we can have the album streamed to us. 95% of bands are dreadful to interview and have nothing to say anyway. All the best people to interview have been around for a fair while, people like Michael Stipe, Rufus Wainwright, the Flaming Lips.

 

We don't need music critics any longer. Even when we did, most of them were shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:thu:

Christgau is dreadful. Rolling Stone as a music magazine is dreadful. Reading Pitchfork is an exercise in pseudo-intellectualism. New Musical Express is printed by idiots for idiots to keep them idiots. Drowned in Sound is bullshit. There is precious little good music/left of centre music journalism out there.


The relaity is that music journalism has been rendered obsolete by advances in Internet technology. We don't need record reviews when we can have the album streamed to us. 95% of bands are dreadful to interview and have nothing to say anyway. All the best people to interview have been around for a fair while, people like Michael Stipe, Rufus Wainwright, the Flaming Lips.


We don't need music critics any longer. Even when we did, most of them were shit.

 

Lester Bangs's rotting, drug-ridden corpse agrees with you.

:thu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The relaity is that music journalism has been rendered obsolete by advances in Internet technology. We don't need record reviews when we can have the album streamed to us. 95% of bands are dreadful to interview and have nothing to say

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think i agree that music criticism is obsolete. True, you can listen to whatever you want and you don't need people you don't know making suggestions to you. However, huge record sales are no longer going to help great artists make their music last a long time (as i think huge record sales did for the Beatles, making their music last long enough that music critics and scholars could write enough about them that now they'll last for many generations). I suppose even at the time of release, Jimi Hendrix didn't have number 1 records all the time, but he was on TV and he did play Woodstock, but i digress...

 

Anyway, all art is, obviously, subjective, so people's opinions will vary widely. Unlike music, making a movie for a national audience takes tons of money, tons of production, and a hell of a lot of organization. I wish it also required tons of skill and intelligence on the part of the director, but that's not always the case. So, since there are so fewer films coming out, they're bound to be more, umm, centralized around a relatively defined criteria for good and bad qualities. So, even if people disagree with film critics, the film critics job seems to have a bit more objectivity to it.

 

With sooooo many musicians publishing music these days though, the criteria for good and bad are rapidly losing objectivity; HOWEVER, there has been, from my study of music history and theory, a driving force behind western music since the renaissance. I believe it would best be termed "controlled innovation." As Mozart expanded on Bach, and Beethoven expanded on Mozart, and Wagner expanded on Beethoven, and Mahler expanded on Wagner, and etc. etc., the canon of western music shows that innovation that was received well and liked by audiences continued to be a driving force even after the kings and queens stopped controlling music.

 

As popular music took over in the 20th century and the path of romantic music turned to art music which was relegated to intellectuals in universities, innovation still drove popular music. Many many people wanted a new sound; they wanted to be part of the new sound. From swing to motown to grunge, all of these movements represented something new that lasts for a few years before the next innovation comes along.

 

I think the folks at Pitchfork are working on determining who has the next sound, and which sound reflects a social commentary on our current time and place.

 

You don't have to listen to them or believe them; but why should anyone criticize music fans who like to judge music by innovation and poignancy? A bunch of people read Pitchfork, so why not let it be and just not read it yourself?

 

Anyway, many critics did make the right choice back in 2005 calling "Illinois" the best record of the year, so i'd say that any one of them is absolutely unquestionably objective (at least when it comes to Sufjan).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't need record reviews when we can have the album streamed to us. 95% of bands are dreadful to interview and have nothing to say anyway. .

 

 

Oh come on...you mean you don't LIKE it when bands say "Yeah it's hard to label our sound because we're influenced by a lot of different bands and styles of music"

 

Or even better, when you meet a girl at a bar and she says she's into "pretty much all kinds of music", and then when you ask for clarification you get "You know, anything from Dave Matthews to 50 Cent to Nickleback"

 

 

Wait a minute....that DOES cover it all, doesn't it? :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"


Or even better, when you meet a girl at a bar and she says she's into "pretty much all kinds of music", and then when you ask for clarification you get "You know, anything from Dave Matthews to 50 Cent to Nickleback"



Wait a minute....that DOES cover it all, doesn't it?
:eek:

 

 

You smile and know that she is a stupid and without a drop of taste, if your inclined to it won't take much effort to talk her out of her clothes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You smile and know that she is a stupid and without a drop of taste, if your inclined to it won't take much effort to talk her out of her clothes.

 

Those and the wannabe scenesters....A year ago I was at a party and talking to some 'scene' girl whose desire to appear knowledgeable about music was also accompanied by an astounding lack of knowledge about anything, let alone music. She blew my mind, among other things. :thu:

 

The exchange went like this:

 

Her: So like, what kind of, um, music do you like?

 

Me: Led Zeppelin, Stones, The Who, Parliament/Funkadelic, New Order, Dinosaur Jr, Boney M, Pink Floyd, Ravi Shankar...a bunch of crap I guess

 

Her: Oh right on. Yeah Pink Floyd is cool, I don't know any of his songs but cool name anyway!!

 

Me: Uh huh. How about you? What do you like?

 

Her: Oh I listen to a bunch of bands that like, nobody knows.

 

Me: Oh yeah? Such as?

 

Her: Motion City Soundtrack, Fall Out Boy, blah blah blah blah blah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hahahaha

 

I remember talking to a girl this summer. She said she liked 60's psychedelic music, and I said "oh like early Pink Floyd and ? Mark and the Mysterians and that sort of stuff?" and she said "more like the Mamas and the Papas."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those and the wannabe scenesters....A year ago I was at a party and talking to some 'scene' girl whose desire to appear knowledgeable about music was also accompanied by an astounding lack of knowledge about anything, let alone music. She blew my mind, among other things.
:thu:

 

Um...blew the Bikehorn, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hahahaha


I remember talking to a girl this summer. She said she liked 60's psychedelic music, and I said "oh like early Pink Floyd and ? Mark and the Mysterians and that sort of stuff?" and she said "more like the Mamas and the Papas."

 

Could be worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...