Robert Christgau?

Apparently people reading the Guide at the time may have known her so he thought it was worth including those comments. He wasn't trying to write for the All Music Guide.

 

This is something I'll bookmark, but Paul Weller's Wild Wood though?! (an highly-praising article currently on its music page). Apart from only being 'missed' in America (the website wants to avoid highly popular albums), it shows a worrying respect for British critics imo, which are really are not a patch on the best from America. I'm telling you that from the UK. That album (mod darling turns harmless glam foppish yuppie 'rocker') led to some terrible dreck in Britain, and was a real regressive step in music, outlook and - to at least some degree - quality too (it's just so mediocre isn't it?). It mattered because it was so over rated.

Calling Wild Wood "insanely good" isn't a great quality decision by Trunkworthy. When you rate things that highly, where do you go from there? It's hyperbole you see. Give me Christgau's tight attitude any day. You know when he means good he means good.

Trunkworthy could fall foul of having too many reviewers too. Christgau himself has just fallen by new business model of 'more people for less (or even nothing) is better than less people for more'. That is model where people may as well go to Amazon for advice.

 

I'd say Christgau's work has aged well - in an era when rock writers were trying to be gonzo or beat or rising to a literary standard they couldn't meet, his reviews are simple and sharp. They're like haikus almost. I agree with his opinions more as I get older, as I've drifted away from emotional attachments or definitions of 'cool' music. He loves Dirty Work and 80s Lou Reed but he can dig deeply into subtle flaws in Wu Tang albums.

I'm curious about any other thoughts on his book, I've been wavering on picking it up.

 

It's about him. Really, if you like him, then you'll like the book - that's more what I meant myself, than to compare it with his music etc reviews as such. It's a biog after all. I've not actually finished it yet to be honest (I'm a fairly slow reader who can't stop having numerous books on the go) If it's badly written though then Christgau is a bad writer. It's written in the way he writes.

 

I don't understand all the complaints about the highfalutin language he sometimes used. I'm no genius but I don't remember having to consult a dictionary while reading him.
Personally I think his short reviews make him the Ramones of rock writing. Just as snotty, just as funny, informative to boot.

 

I read a piece he wrote about Thelonious Monk. He knows his music and he knows how to write. Sure, he takes himself seriously, but he's far less posturing and far more at the service of the artist than the average Pitchfork jackass. Good writing about music is at a premium. Whether or not he raves about the artists I like is neither here nor there, if he can enlighten and at the same time entertain, then he's doing his job.

 

Possibly, but Maggie Estep is hardly a household name, and wasn't even when her albums were released; I had to consult Wikipedia to discover that she was a poet rather than a rock artist per se. But even if one knows who she is, what use is an emoticon without a review and a one-sentence review stating that she namechecks John S Hall and not Patti Smith?

 

Wonder why Christgau never reviewed Mike Love's 1981 solo album. I guess that there are limits to how high brow he really is.

 

Looking at his reviews for Tori Amos, an artist whose work I (and just about everybody) already know, the same problem persists. Little Earthquakes gets a C+, telling us it's professional but not very inspired, and a review telling us that she's a poor man's Kate Bush and that her best song is "Me And A Gun", both of which are spot on the money. Crucify, Boys For Pele and From The Choirgirl Hotel all get emoticons of a bomb (which means Christgau disliked them, without quantifying how much or why) and no review, whilst Strange Little Girls gets an emoticon of a pair of scissors, a song title and no review, informing us that Christgau liked "'97 Bonnie And Clyde" and not the rest (but not why); according to Christgau's own schematic, albums getting the scissor emoticon would usually get the bomb emoticon if they didn't contain the song(s) he likes, but would sometimes get the straight-faced emoticon.

Again, what is the point of this?

 

In cases like these it's really a matter of taking a leap of faith; i.e., if your tastes and opinions are usually in alignment with Christgau's, then these are very shorthand ways of telling you the work in question is not worth bothering with; or, that only really one or two cuts are worth your time.

As he's explained before, this approach came about relatively recently (90's or 00's I believe) due to the sheer volume of music that's out there now - there simply isn't time in the day to write about all of it. He still does write about the stuff he actually likes - his primary purpose being more steering you towards the good stuff rather than away from the bad.

 

fwiw, I don't know if it has been mentioned (I looked, but didn't see it), but Xgau just got laid off again. After the Voice let him go, he revived the Consumer Guide on MSN for a few years. Then that got axed, and he ended up at Cuepoint/Medium, which lowered the boom last week.

From his website:

http://www.robertchristgau.com/

I regret the passing of the MSN site; the comments section was great. He'd usually get 200 replies per column, with a lot of cross-dialogue between posters, and Christgau participated in the conversations. It was a little community that didn't always just talk about the month's records. Cuepoint/Medium didn't even have comments until, ironically, his last column, or very close to it.

I think it is likely this will be his last paying gig, which matters to a writer. I don't think there's much call for paying 73-year-old rock critics, even ones with a following. If it turns out to be the end, I hope he'll at least start up a personal blog and continue with Expert Witness or whatever he wants to call it. I don't always agree with him, but I have at important times, and he has certainly given me some good chuckles over the years. He obviously has a need to listen to music and write about it, as much for himself as an audience (he said as much when he started the Cuepoint/Medium column), and I hope he'll find a way to do so until he's lowered into his grave. I've always seen him as kind of the nerdy, well-meaning, droll uncle I never had and probably don't need in real life. I hate to see him go.

 

I've been waiting for someone to say I'm defending him too much, and I have been contributing a lot. But a problem with this place is that people can wade in for a good kicking sometimes - and that mean sometimes support needs to be sustained. When it starts to work it probably does start look a bit 'unfair' shall we say (are we winning?). But honestly, what would happen here if none of his admirers here kept on the ball with this? I mean this is Christgau after all! He'd come across as the worst critic in Christendom.

Basically I am a real fan obviously – and that does give me a natural lift over those who aren't. But I've noticed that many of his critics here do come straight back in reiterating their own positions - just as ironically you couldn't stop yourself from doing above, when criticising me for pretty-much the same thing.

We both want the last word that's the truth of it!

But why should it be a negative one? Nobody should suffer the sogginess of needless compromise either.

Christgau is what he is, and too many of the challenges against him contain all or some of; plain OTT attacks, entirely subjective opinion on what constitutes good writing or reviewing etiquette, or simply incorrect assumptions. If the conclusion then is: "Therefore Christgau is not a good critic." then I'm going to argue his case. Why would I suddenly stop? I have that vested interest of being a fan. The vested interest of at least a few people who pop in here, it seems to me, is to get some satisfaction (or revenge perhaps) from putting him down. Hopefully, with some decent support around, a few of them get to think twice.

 

hey, anyone who can find 50 to 80 new albums a year to love and write about since the dawn of rock deserves a ton of respect. Figure that he listens to probably three times that many albums to arrive at that A list. That is work folks. No rock critic has approached recorded work at that quantity and I, for one, appreciate it because Xgau has led me to so, very many artists that I would never have discovered on my own.
To gripe about his dissing an artist that you love misses the point. Criticism is an opinion. He doesn't dig prog or metal so if you do then probably you shouldn't read him but if you have a passing interest in, say, world music his website is a great place to start exploring. If you read something that seems to tickle your fancy and Xgau has given it an A level grade figure that he has done the work before awarding that accolade and take the plunge. What have you got to lose?

 

But there is nothing illogical about the examples you reported is there? They all seem to follow his 90's guidelines.

I went into reasons for his changes here. But it's all on his site. Ultimately you are talking about changes that were delivered gradually over time. Very occasionally he might drop the odd C+ today.

The scissors or 'cuts' are actually really useful for hearing those recommended tracks online - normally someone like me would tend to skip the album if the review is poor (not always but typically). Sometimes he does the 'cut' with a lower grade too. As someone pointed out Chrisgau is himself a 'consumer guide' - people can only buy so much. That was the original point. If you want better you need to read his longer pieces.

 

Fair enough, although I think he's gotten plenty of support in this thread. Ralph likes him and I really respect his opinion. Me, I don't hate the guy by any means but I do think it's fair to critique his style. After all, that's what this thread was about, whether or not we like him. Obviously, there are going to be differing opinions.

 

I don't think it will be his last paid job, but the online world is changing for sure (with reader-contributed content being used more and more alas). He's not completely without options, and some magazines still exist too.

It was discussed a bit a few pages back now, from around here.

 

Despite a few profound disagreements (Ramones!) and a few instances where he never bothered to even listen or review to artists like Nick Drake, John Martyn or Gene Clark (perhaps he understood their talent wasn't the kind that would set his own critical apparatus aquiver, and wisely deferred), I think he was as astute as any critic in the game. I agreed with him more often than not, but he usually had a good point or rationale in his assessment. And as much as I thought and think he's still way too NYC-centric, that perspective afforded a helpful counterbalance to, say, the onslaught of 70's Malibu rock. Some of which he cautiously (and rightly) approved (J. Browne, Fleetwood Mac), others like THE eagles who deserved his distanced acknowledgment for their craft and scorn for their... well, flat out sexism.

 

He relegated Drake and Martyn to his 'Subjects for Further Research' and he never did review them. For Christgau, acts like that will live and die with their lyrics (or personal themes), and clearly he doesn't see them as his cup of tea. Looks like he's ignored Clark though for whatever reason (solo that is).

One thing about Christgau (and actually a credible criticism at least), is that he can come down really quite hard on what he sees as depressing or negative lyrical content. When he suddenly stops reviewing an act's albums (or maybe skips a few), I think it's often because of this - ie the act has turned that way for a couple of albums now and he turns he focus elsewhere. I think his fairly recent 'catch up' reviews of a couple of Paul Heaton's later solo work (Heaton is from The Housemartins and Beautiful South and Christgau normally loves him) may show him backtracking a bit there, as he gave them good grades. Heaton is a well known alcoholic and fights with cynicism and depressive content.

You can see a similar type of sentiment the his reviews of later The Band albums too: he found them a bit too backward looking. He's not fond of over-miserable goths etc - but give him interesting lyrics and he's respond well. He's always had his personal boundaries over lyrics and he clearly likes positivity (or at least balance with any negativity). He typically points out sexism when he sees it too. He's basically a critic who has his own personal standards and will look at the faults.

 

They're perfectly logical; they're not just remotely useful, unless you trust a stranger's opinion to tell you that "this album you've never heard of isn't worth hearing and it's not worth explaining why". The approach does make sense within the context of a monthly Consumer Guide: a list of stuff you should consider buying (reviewed and graded); a list of stuff you might consider buying if you have very different tastes (with one sentence reviews and some songs highlighted); and a list of stuff to avoid. However, when those Consumer Guides are recompiled into books or a website, you end up with entries like the Tori Amos one that are a literal waste of space, with nothing whatever to communicate. This was the downfall of his Albums Of The '90s book, which deservedly got some bad reviews on Amazon.

 

Tori Amos does look empty I agree. One fo the 'bombs' is actually an EP - he missed the album at that point completely, and another later on too. I can see how he got to it, but it doesn't look great. He's a completest in terms of compiling his own work, that the thing. Book wise, it probably was a shortcoming in this case (the 90's book would have ended on 3 bombs) - though it's not immediately clear what he'd should have done instead. Putting her in his 90's 'Subjects for further research' may have been the answer perhaps: the points he had could have been expressed in a paragraph that could have contained a little more too. His Further Research list always covered people he clearly felt it unlikely he'd get to look at any more (re the post Drake and Martyn above).

I think I agree with you on this one. A lot of people found the new grades a bit difficult in terms of the book, me included - especially as he was forced to downsize due to the sheer amount of albums around. It was a huge task for one reviewer - it's no wonder he said "never again". I think he found that one a struggle actually. The website soon superseded it too. The main thing for me is that I do trust his opinion (so he's not a 'stranger') - he did go back to the albums again, and the bombs will certainly mean bombs: we wasn't just dropping them willy nilly! Three in a row is a bit much though.

 

I watched Christgau give a book talk curated by Rob Sheffield a few months ago and was surprised to learn -- as is apparently mentioned in his memoir, which I've yet to read -- that he spent a fair bit of time with John Lennon and Yoko Ono socially, indeed singled them out as the one time he befriended anyone he wrote about. I always thought the infamous Voice piece about Lennon's murder was misunderstood, a product of grief, and that goes some way toward explaining why it was so intense.

 

He could have only printed the Little Earthquakes review but it is somewhat useful (although not very exciting, and typical of the 90's book which I also find a lesser work from him) to know that he tried listening to the later albums.

 

Yes. I got it out of the library and I often liked stuff he trashed so I guess my taste won't make it to the Village Voice. I will survive

 

Sorry if this has been posted already. It's from a 2014 interview I came across a couple of days ago. I completely agree with Christgau on the two most important musicians:

Who are your favorite artists?

RC: There are two different ways to answer it: what do you listen to, and what do you think is best? It’s not quite the same thing, because they’re different kinds of listening. Most of the listening I do is in a social context, especially with my wife, a good critic herself who is publishing her first novel in March. Her name is Carola Dibbell. One thing I do is I play music that she likes, and her tastes are like mine, but it does make a difference.

But artists: Chuck Berry, Thelonious Monk, James Brown, The Clash, the New York Dolls. My favorite album of the year is an obscene hip-hop bootleg called “Black Portland” by Young Thug and Bloody Jay. You might find it vile — it is a little vile, but it’s sonically amazing. My favorite alt band these days is a band called Wussy, who I’ve been trumpeting for nearly 10 years and are finally getting a little traction. I’m crazy about an artist you’ve never heard of called Withered Hand, from Edinburgh, Scotland. My favorite singers are Frank Sinatra, Louis Armstrong and Billie Holiday. My favorite rock singer is John Lennon. And Chuck Berry always is in there. I think Louis Armstrong and James Brown are the most important musicians of the 20th century. It took me a long time to come to them, though — I wouldn’t have said that in 1969; I wouldn’t have put Brown there until ’85 or ’90. Armstrong I got into in the late ’70s early ’80s. I liked him. In fact, I saw him at Dartmouth in January of ’59, and I thought he was great until all of my hip friends told me he was corny. I was still 16 — give me a break. He wasn’t corny, he was great.

http://thedartmouth.com/2014/09/14/robert-christgau-62-defines-role-of-rock-critic/

 

I bought the book, spent a couple hours with it one night and haven't picked it up again... I got about 70 pages in. He gets into more detail than I felt like absorbing, but it's his book, his family, his bio. I enjoy reading about childhood and liked a number of his observations and recollections... he loves children (as do I) and that's a refreshing personality trait that men rarely feel comfortable sharing. I liked his observations about being smart in grade school, doing the obsessive/active things smart boys do. I liked his comments about getting poorer grades than he deserved because boys never behave as well as girls in the matriarchal institutions of public education.

He did start talking about his burgeoning passion for music, listening to Alan Freed, knowing the difference between the originals and the cover versions, becoming aware of race. I'll get back to the book. But I have to say, the density of his writing is more enjoyable in an intense one-paragraph record review than in pages and pages of narrative. And the rhythm of his writing ebbs and flows in a manner I didn't comfortably settle into, I couldn't perceive a relationship between the rhythm and the subject at hand.