Robert Christgau?

Robert wrote for Creem Magazine. I bought my first issue when I was 15 years old, it shaped my taste in music profoundly. I've loved Creem ever since. So, while I don't always agree with Christgau, I respect him.

Robert's had his misses, sure. But, for example, who else nailed such a ground-breaking and experimental album such 'Another Green World' back in '76?

Brian Eno: Another Green World [Island, 1976]
Although I resisted at first, I've grown to love every minute of this arty little collection of static (i.e., non-swinging) synthesizer pieces (with vocals, percussion, and guitar). Think of it as the aural equivalent of a park on the moon--oneness with nature under conditions of artificial gravity. Played in the background, all thirteen pieces merge into a pattern that tends to calm any lurking Luddite impulses; perceived individually, each takes on an organic shape of its own. Industrialism yes. A+

 

Here is his explanation of the rating system he used in the 90's, although I also find his writing from that time harder to understand or enjoy than his earlier reviews.

http://robertchristgau.com/xg/bk-cg90/grades-90s.php

 

'Hate' may be a bit strong, but I don't like him at all: one of those 'critics' who give criticism a bad name.

His blind dislike of specific genres and inability to distinguish between what's good, bad, or indifferent in those genres mark him out as a warped and stunted critical homunculus.

His hyping of non-white music genres mark him out as an inverted snob and freeloading cultural tourist.

The disgraceful comments he made (or, rather, reported) in the wake of Lennon's assassination should have got him a lifetime ban from journalism.

Maybe I do hate him, after all.

 

BY the '90s, I really wish he had relented on the cover-everything goal and only written up and assigned grades to those albums and artists he felt like saying something about. I wouldn't have minded a more thorough analysis of things he loved or hated, without the need to note everything he listened to.

 

That is basically what he did, but I guess he (or the Voice) thought it was necessary to print something about the Rage Against The Machine debut or Achtung Baby even if he wasn't enthusiastic about them.

 

Thanks. For some reason I thought there were more grades between A- and ***.

I went to that page before posting here but there was nothing there. Should have tried it with Firefox. In Safari all I can see is an empty turquoise page, but it works normally in Firefox. Very strange.

 

But basically you're grading him (or any critic) based on how well his or her tastes match up with your own. If you already know what's good in your preferred genres, what's the point of reading anybody else on the subject?

 

I have to say it would be strange to see this review:

Rage Against the Machine [Epic, 1992]
metal for rap-lovers--and opera-haters ("Wake Up," "Know Your Enemy") *

printed in a newspaper.

 

or this
Achtung Baby [Island, 1991]

 

No, not at all.

Christgau is dismissive of entire genres - progressive rock, metal - yet he continues to review releases in those genres, even though his basic antipathy prevents him from giving them an objective hearing.

If someone asked me to review a rap album, I'd pass on it - because I dislike the genre, so couldn't give a reasoned evaluation of what I was hearing. This doesn't stop Christgau, though.

Also - this 'grading' system he seems to have pioneered: I think it's insulting, for exactly the reasons Lou Reed gave on Take No Prisoners.

 

Even if, or especially when, an album is in his view a "dud" I think he should give his reasons.

If you don't bother to give any explanation your "review" is basically worthless. And possibly insulting. It would be much better not to give any grade at all if you don't want to write anything.

 

In my (much) younger days I read his stuff all the time and often thought to myself "damn. I guess I was really wrong liking this record". Eventually it dawned on me I probably knew more about music than him and I should trust my own feelings about a particular piece of music. It was enlightening. I haven't read any of his crap since then.

Bobby Sutliff

 

Sorry to criticise a thread this new, but you are asking this site about how Xgau compares albums? Hmm.


The info that explains his grades is here: http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/web/cgusers.php adn http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/bk-cg90/grades-90s.php here.

Christgau changed his grading system around 1990 due to the sheer amount of music around. He brought in his own star system and a bomb grade etc. I've never been 100% happy about with the new grades, but they're not mine they're his. It seems to me that *, **, *** are all forms of B – which he says became reality plentiful. He still gives out the odd B plus I notice – though *** is probably roughly about the same. He’s stretched out the middle ground basically, and stopped worrying over C grades or lower so much.

In the early 90’s he actually did give out a lot of 'duds' and bombs. Some of them are better than others he says, but all are major disappointments for him. The stats table is here ( http://www.robertchristgau.com/cg_stats.php) . I think he then went on to simply not reviewing certain albums more - so we start to see more holes in even some popular artist’s catalogues. A lot no-doubt depended on the various 'gigs' he had as a reviewer. Apart from on very rare exceptions Xgau only reviews for money. It's his living.

But the main problem for him has always the amount of music out there - which is he says is getting better in terms of the amount of quality albums around. That quantity of quality doesn't equate to success though - it's harder to make it these days.

His grading has never been 'random' I assure you. People just seem to expect him to both review and really like every album that they hold dear. It's about opinion - it doesn't work like that.

He also is has a personal prejudice towards lyrics and themes – a lot of people just listen to the music of course. He listens to the lyrics too. If the lyrics are silly and dumb the grades will go right down with Xgau I’m afraid. He did call himself ‘the Dean’ after all.

 

God, he didn't like it. You have to realise that we live in a world of opinions. He's not paid to think what you want him to.

He actually came back to that particular album in another review, as he sometimes does...

U2: Zooropa [Island, 1993]
I've never seen the point of hating U2. Their sound was their own from the git, and for a very famous person, Bono has always seemed thoughtful and good-hearted. I liked what I read about their pop irony, too. Problem was, I couldn't hear it--after many, many tries, Achtung Baby still sounded like a damnably diffuse U2 album to me, and I put it in the hall unable to describe a single song. But having processed this blatant cool move, I'm ready to wax theoretical. Achtung Baby was produced by Daniel Lanois, and Daniel Lanois isn't Brian Eno--he's Eno's pet romantic, too soft to undercut U2's grandiosity, although I admittedly enjoy a few of its anthems-in-disguise now. Zooropa, on the other hand, is half an Eno album the way Low and "Heroes" were. The difference is that Bowie and Eno were fresher in 1977 than Bono and Eno are today. Each must have hoped that the other's strength would patch over his own weakness--that Eno's oft-wearisome affectlessness would be mitigated by Bono's oft-wearisome expressionism and vice versa. But tics ain't strengths, and although these pomo paradoxes have their moments, when I'm feeling snippy the whole project seems a disastrously affected pastiche of relinquished principle. B-

The bomb is not the "lowest grade" (as you've said somewhere) by the way - it's just a statement. He doesn't do really low grades anymore (ie E- as it used to be). I've bought albums Christgau has called bombs and I love the guy. Don't be so sensitive.

 

Yes, because those grades made no sense to me. Of course I wouldn't have started a new thread for this, but I knew there are people here who have followed him much longer than I have so they could have a better idea why he might have given those grades. And I was right. For example, your reply was very helpful.

As I wrote before, because of some technical glitch in Safari I couldn't see the second page you linked (still can't with Safari). That certainly cleared some things (like what those grades actually mean ).

Thanks. I was wondering about those gaps.

I don't expect him to review or like the albums I like. I guess I was just surprised to see so big differences between album grades without any explanation. I mean if you really liked some band's last album, but you find their new one disappointing, you might want give your readers some reasons why you think that. But I don't know maybe that's just me. His site is free so I'm in no position to complain. I was just wondering.

I didn't mean that the grade was "wrong". I just meant what I said: it would be strange to see that printed in a newspaper. I mean it's the title of the record and a picture of a bomb. I assume the explanations for the symbols were printed in the paper also: "A Dud () is a bad record whose details rarely merit further thought. At the upper level it may merely be overrated, disappointing, or dull. Down below it may be contemptible." But his reasons for giving that grade were printed in another review two years later.

I still think it would look strange in a newspaper. Maybe his regular readers were better at getting some info out of those symbols.

 

Ok I missed your point there. But he wouldn't do that in a newspaper. He actually reviews according to the deal he strikes with the publication. Sometimes you have very standard star (ie 4 star) reviews in places like Blender and a couple of other places. Those reviews seem to be translated for the purpose of his giant online archive - ie his website. They usually give the link to the magazine review at the bottom of the other reviews. They tend to be almost identical - sometimes a bit more encapsulated in the online version. He did a big Hendrix piece once where he translated the albums the other way - from grades to stars. (I think he used half stars there too).

Sorry if I came on a bit strong, but a sometimes posts in certain areas on this forum do get made to encourage a particular reaction, and Christgau I suppose is one of those areas.

 

OK. That makes sense.

I was replying to this earlier post:

We're cool.

 

What were the comments he reported after Lennon's assassination? I remember reading something in the Village Voice at the time that made a very nasty comparison between RFK/Lennon and Nixon/Paul McCartney to the effect that "why is it the good ones get killed?" but I don't remember if it was Christgau or not. Was that it?

I always found his writing style tortured and deliberately obtuse.

 

Robert Christgau is a great music critic with insatiable and expansive tastes.

Achtung Baby was a drag, and he heard it for what it is. Making a movie about the making of the album on it's 20th or 25th anniversary doesn't change the fact that U2 was a band who'd lost their direction and basically, never found it again.

 

Yes. The quote was allegedly his wife's and the rest of the column was him in effect saying it's too bad they didn't shoot Paul instead.

 

It never bothered me if Christgau gave a bad review to an album I liked just as I wouldn't feel my tastes were validated if Christgau gave a positive review to my favorite album, but as a poster above pointed out, he was dismissive of entire genres and careers. And he did try to appear hipper-than-thou, especially when it came to rap or world music. I think he also showed throughout his writings that he had a general disdain for what he thought the "bourgeoisie" liked.

 

Yes. It was from a front cover story of that rag, and I never forgot it. But I couldn't remember who wrote it.

 

...which, in itself, is incredibly bourgeois.

 

That may be so, but don't you think he still should've presented his readers some arguments why it was a "dud"?

He gives his reasons in the "Zooropa" review, but for most of the "duds" there are no reviews or any explanations.