the death of the music critic
christopher weingarten, rolling stone.com (and other pubs) critic talks about how music blogs are killing traditional rock criticism. this was at a twitter conference in new york yesterday.
46
MOG it up!
MOG
WHERE MUSIC LISTENS TO YOU
- MOG
- > Blog Posts
- >
the death of the music critic
- Music
- News & Reviews
- Playlists
-
Sign in
Don't have an account?
Join MOG. It's Free!
Comments (35)
Very true. I got out of the writing/editing game in the late 90s (not a moment too soon), about when this guy was getting in. It's been my experience that most lower level critics were corrupt, anyway. I got into it in '79 for the free records. That's why most got involved. But music critics, by and large, are no more informed than your average music fanatic which, the internet has shown, there are millions of. And... I don't mean those pinheads writing on Amazon.com. Everything's changing. Probably for the better. This guys got a realistic attitude about it all... and a good sense of humor about his own bleak future.
there's a reason why i chose to invite MOG bloggers to review my music, and didn't bother sending it to any of the traditional review channels. the entire industry, from shops to rags, is so darn corrupt. it makes you want to stop releasing music and just stay in your basement.
bloggers are the reason many bands and artists are getting heard by the public. bless 'em.
Willard sez:It's been my experience that most lower level critics were corrupt, anyway.
I think the high level folks, in many cases, are "corrupt" too.
I mean how many times can U2 or the Rolling Stones release their "best album."
I like his points on taste..
Great listen there's so much information out there and so little opinion. There so much "Check this out" and so little "Check this out because..."
for the most part, i'm with him. although i'm still a buyer of rolling stone, mojo, uncut and always go straight to the reviews. as i'm the worst allmusic guide addict. i can't go to amoeba records without accessing allmusic off of mog via my iphone when i'm there now. i need third party verification. yesterday, i bought 4 tom waits albums on vinyl. was very happy to use AMG as a guide. and i picked up his collaboration with crystal gale for the soundtrack to one from the heart, which is STELLAR. thanks AMG!
I have opined often in this forum that I trust my trusteds' opinions far more than the "reviewers" in most major publications.
Cody, I think it's not about taste. It's about discernment, and, unfortunately, not a lot of people have it. That's why music as a product sells so well while music as art languishes in remote corners of the internet.
It takes a lot to be a good music critic. Go to allmusic.com and read some of Thom Jurek's or Scott Yanow's reviews. Not only are these people good writers (I love Jurek's turn of phrase about "aimless guitar wankery"), they're very well informed about music in general. Getting there takes a lot of hard work, and I'd hate to think that kind of criticism is dead.
When I put up posts here, I try my best to emulate what they do, though I don't have nearly the same level of knowledge they do. At the very least, I think it's important to say something more than simply, "I think you should listen to this, because I like it."
I don't know. Am I being too cerebral about this? Perhaps, but I love reading things like the back story behind Springsteen's Hammersmith-Odeon concert, or the story about Coleman Hawking's recording of Body and Soul and why that was such an important record in the history of jazz. I think we need more of this kind of thing, not less.
I think the concept of what critism is has been lost. If you were to take an art world perspective of critism, it's not about snark, it's about interpretation. People like Bangs could be considered a pioneer in this. I've always tried to employ this in the few reviews I've done here. For me music listening is as much about time and place as it is about the broad scope of music.
I would agree with a lot of what Weingarten says about the proletariat, middle of the road music, and "the crowds" tastes, trending topics, and posting while listening to a show (which drives me fucking crazy if I'm at a show and I watch someone texting "best show ever" 3 minutes into a concert)
But there is a fine line between artful criticism and jaded opinion (which probably 90% of the new school critics possess). Proably because what C.W. talks about there being no money in it. I like Mog's community of music lover's opionion far more than print at the moment, because it involves little of the soap box position that many critics take. Moggers seem to have more transparency in what moves them about the music, and that I love.
I don't think we are that far apart, R. It ain't easy to write about music objectively. There will always be folks writing about music in thoughtful ways though..bunches of 'em right here. I agree with the vid guy, because music criticism, as a (paying)gig is on the way out. It needs a business to support it.
I guess now, you have to search around for good writing about music, because you no longer have to search hard for music.
I loved the last rant about the big middle..
You notice how he didn't say paid music criticism is going away because it is (or is it was already) a terrible corporate suckup, or that it is inherently bad.
Random musings: One advantage over print music critics that radio music reviewers or Mog posts have is that the reader can hear the music while reading about it and decide whether the writer is accurate. Weingarten was wonderful here; he's talking about fast-changing phenomena that I'm not up on. He's really right about the value of why, how and being poetic. Let's hope that at some point journalism's money issue will become problematic enough that the public will agree to pay for internet access to good reporting and criticism.
"People have terrible taste." WHAT?! This is exactly the thinking process that has kept the RnR Hall of Fame a collection of meaningless crap that ONLY reviewers care about. Bands like ELO, the Moody Blues, Alan Parsons, etc. that made music that people LIKED can't get a parking spot at the RnR HoF, much less nominated.
His rant shows that he's afraid for his source of income. He's forgetting that we still have radio and TV as sources of new music. I found Green Day because they were on SNL and I liked what I heard. Coldplay gave away a free single on the 'net. NIN gave away both Ghosts I and the Slip, which caught my attention.
Critics remind me of something that John Milton wrote about poets, "One poet reads what another poet writ/Like one pig eats another pig's shit."
I didn't know twitter had all these other features other than CNN. I get a lot of music reviews between here & facebook. Mainly here. Times are changing,or have. Still mags make great bathroom reading. I like to read the Metal Sucks post on here. The dude is in your face, & thinks like a metal head.
konk...: I'll have to agree with you there, music is subjective. I dig ELO, & Moody Blues.
Konkrypton, you think the R and R Hall Of Fame is critic driven?
I would say they are missing quite a few critical faves..Big Star being number 1, but there's no Kraftwerk or Tom Waits either, so they can't be going on critical acclaim alone. It's funny last time the RRHOF came up somebody was saying it was all based on record sales..Those folks can't win over there, but that's what they get for opening a RRHOF. Here's my who's out-who's in list..with elo and mb's added
So much cred is given to the early folks that just didn't do all that much..but were very popular.
bring back lester bangs from the dead
Beginning of a looooooong post here:
I agree on a few bits, I disagree on a few others.
First, I think magazines, trying to sell as many copies as possible, tried to force fed those “most-listenable” bands on the crowds. That is what caused the movement in the first place. Internet makes it possible for everyone to look outside the canon of what the magazines provide, and the people are liking it. If Fleet Foxes suck, why are they in every freaking magazine?
Secondly, I think it is quality enhancing, not the other way around. We used to rely on those critics for what we bought, now we listen before we buy/go to their gigs. So if you make a bad album, we will know before the artist hits our town, and we won’t go. The problem with this was that corrupt stuff he was talking about, which btw is still going on with high profile sites/magazines. I know that on some sites you are not allowed to say bad things about this venue or this or that artist/label. That’s the beauty of independent blogs.
And I have been saying for a while now that the role of the critic is changing, but it has since post-modernism really. We used to rely on the verdict of a critic, now we don’t as we already listened to the album before the review. Now it is important to give arguments (we are in agreement on that) and hand the reader different perspectives. A producer or a DJ will notice different things than someone with a literary background, and thus individual critics are able to provide new perspectives from their own expertise, and thus provide the reader with new elements he/she didn’t pick up on, much in the vein of the literary analyst. This will add to the longevity of music, as you are always re-evaluating the music and your opinion will always be in flux.
Lastly, this is not a new phenomenon. For my Dutch blog (ikrszine.blogspot.com) I for some time now have brought the news and reviews and all the writing in an absurdist way. I will post an example one day on my Mog page, but in essence, the news itself is not newsworthy anymore, as it is on every news site. The same thing for magazines trying to provide news items. So the writing has to evaluate into something more than an objective bringing of the news, which will eventually lead to a new wave of modernist writing within both news blogs and criticism. In other words, if this development continues, I think we will read the critic not because of his verdict and impeccable taste (which was wrong from the start) but for his adding of new perspectives on an album to complement our own view (which can never be all compassing), and for the individual writing style of the critic, which has become, in itself, a form of art and creativity rather than a mere judgement.
Gosh, sorry about that, just have been thinking about this for a long time eh.
Gosh, evaluate = evolve obviosly. I'm missing the edit option. XD
Oh for fucks sake! Obviously!
Whether through magazines or through the net there will always be buzz bands..most of the buzz is being fed by publicists and some blogs lap it up in the same way critics used to. I think it just happens faster now. Listen to a lot and trust your ears.
Wow...look at all the interest in this post! This is one of the best overall posts/comments I've seen in a long time...great job everyone! I myself have no real opinion on this, mostly because I pretty much loath critics reviews and have always discovered new music on my own. The internet just makes it a hell of a lot easier now :-) (And Fleet Foxes DO suck lol!)
I tend to take a much simpler approach to my music reviews. I tend to suggest what I heard and what initially drew me to the music, or track, and then make correlations to similar artists.
People know what artists they already like, so they don't need a lot of flowery hype to decide if they want to pursue the artist's work any further. They just need a bit of guidance to take their interest to the next level.
IMHO, simple suggestions of similar artists and what got your attention, can help them easier and faster than long narratives and lots of "Sell". I haven't looked to see what this guy is saying in his allowed 140 characters, but it's probably not much more than that.
Weingarten's basic point is that technology has changed so much in the last 10 years that, as of today, there is little need for the print critics he's talking about. "Need" being the operative word. There will always be places (and a use) for insightful commentary about music. That won't go away. But print critics are now just one avenue of information among many. They've been replaced by... everybody. Of course, the quality suffers when rules (and editors) are bypassed, but you take the good with the bad and evolve. Unfortunately, this isn't just about music reviewers. The entire newspaper/magazine industry is about to tank and there won't be many survivors left in 10 years time. With music, it's no big deal, with news... it could be catastrophic.
One personal note about Lester Bangs, though, since he's been mentioned a few times. Back in the day, there were two types of music reviewers. Informative and Passionate. One told you what to expect and gave perspective to the artist's work or the work of others. "Balanced" reviewing, for lack of a better term. Bangs was a Passionate reviewer. It wasn't about balance for guys like him, it was about what pushed his buttons. In turn, his goal was to push your buttons.
But, I grew up reading Bangs and he was often as full of shit and utterly self-absorbed as the next writer (usually more so). He wrote to convince you, not to inform you. It seemed he was always right and everybody else was always wrong. Way too often Bangs had trouble simply accurately communicating information. Example:
Rolling Stone said of Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music that it sounded like "the tubular groaning of a galactic refrigerator." Descriptive and accurate. Yes? Lester Bang's, at one point, called the same album as "interesting garage electronic rock 'n' roll" and later referred to it as the "greatest album ever made." Now... which review is more worthwhile? Stone's info or Bangs' passion. Personally, If I had bought MMM based on Bangs' review I would have went looking for him to insert it rectally. His review was a vehicle to express HIS displeasure with Top 40 and bland white rock n roll. So it was more a review about him and his tastes, not the album. This is kind of what I mean by corrupt. A corrupt writer services himself, not the reader. Bangs too often liked to just take a position or make a stand... which is why I thought he sucked. But, that's me. Some, were entertained by his ramblings. If you read him regularly, however, it was easy to grow weary of his over the top and none too serious pronouncements and shenanigans.
I guess I like a little info and a little shenanigans..after all its only rock n'roll.
I think we're all agreed: no aimless review wankery.
I second that emotion.
I think Williard summarized (in a long post) my thinking exactly. I like reviewers who a) are familiar with an artist's body of work, b) have a working knowledge of music of all types, so he can communicate what works/doesn't work with the piece he's reviewing and c) if he can relate the music to things in the outside world (politics, trends in music, etc) then he's a great critic.
My idea of critics (music or otherwise) is that they should be able to "do the homework" that the average person can't. They should be able to give the reader an idea of what the thing they're reviewing is like and whether the reader might like it or not. I'm not interested in whether the reviewer likes it or not.
That being said, I look for different info with a friend's (or fellow mogger's) review. There I look for how they feel about the music and what it evokes.
I see the print media also dying within a few years. But we will still have TV/Radio, I think. And the role of the journalist (on TV or on the Net) may be to sort through user-contributed material and present it in a context so that he is stitching the users' material into a cohesive whole.
man. this crowd really likes a high brow post. i'll try to be more intellectual/philisophical going forward....
@David - Yes, we've all been meaning to talk to you about the quality of your posts.... ;)
ZZZZZINGGGG!
i don't undestand a goddamned thing that has be said here
I've been on vac for a week and miss this. Since I have been buying music from the 60's I have never read a review and bought the album. I find it funny as an artist (oil painter) for a critic to say that he can write poetic. I don't need someone to tell me I should listen to this CD. I listen to it and judge for my own which is why I love this site, so much to discover. I thought the day of the critic was over long ago.
hear hear!
i rarely hunt nor buy new stuff
it is all the good old stuff i missed :)
I've been saving this for the right moment and I haven't been disappointed. I'll certainly agree on one thing - crowds do have terrible taste for the most part. Not to say they don't pick up on good and great music, but the crowd doesn't know The Cliks, didn't know Talking Heads for about 8 years, would never have known Bob Marley without careful seeding with knowledgeable and loving critics, doesn't know Bat For Lashes outside of a couple of singles, bla bla bla. Meanwhile, the crowd bathes in The Saturdays, Katy Perry and whatever forgettable rock band is being force fed to them right now. [Who's this year's Maroon 5?] Give me an opinionated passionate fool any day.
I have never listened to a critic's opinions when buying any music. I've read a few critiques, but generally, I don't agree with any of them. Plus, I think that if you don't actually play an instrument, then you really only have an opinion of music, and thus can't truly appreciate it from a critic's perspective.