Robert Christgau?

I suspect he wished he had more power as a critic, imagining himself as Paul Revere shouting good music to the rooftops in every home in the land. I've met the guy casually a number of times; he's a brainy music nerd and a family man, there's no hipper-than-thou in his aura. He wrote about things that pressed his buttons; you don't review African music for 15-years in an effort to appear hip... he was trying to open ears and expand minds in a time of diminishing rock 'n pop returns.

And yeah, he doesn't like Yes or Cat Stevens or Jethro Tull... god bless him!

 

Just re-read the offending article again and it's not (quite) as bad as I remembered it. Here's the relevant portion: \

''As I began writing it bothered me that I wouldn't know much about the alleged killer, Mark David Chapman, until after deadline. Then I decided that whether the putative motive was ambulatory anomie or personal ressentiment or even twisted politics, the underlying pathology would be the same--the anonymous eating the famous like a cannibal feasting on testicles. But that's too simple. As my wife said despondently an hour after the event: "Why is it always Bobby Kennedy or John Lennon" Why isn't it Richard Nixon or Paul McCartney?" The fact is obvious enough. Dylan, of course. Jim Morrison, possibly. Neil Young, conceivably. But Paul McCartney? Neil Diamond? Graham Nash? George Harrison? Ringo Starr? Never--because they don't hold out hope, even if they'd sort of like to be able to. Joh Lennon held out hope. He imagined, and however quietistic he became he never lost that utopian identification. But when you hold out hope, people get real disappointed if you can't deliver. You're famous and they're not--that's the crux of your relationship. You command the power they crave--the power to make one's identity felt in the world, to be known. No matter that the only thing you're sure it's good for is room service. No matter that you're even further from resolving anyone's perplexities than the next bohemian, artist, or intellectual. You're denying your most desperate admirers the release they need, and a certain percentage of them will resent or hate you for it. From there, it only takes one to kill.''

 

Yeah right - you didn't know who wrote it.

Given everything else you've said here I find that pretty hard to accept you haven't thought of Christgau's Lennon peice since you read it 35 years ago.

You appear to be an expert on the man.

BTW, you say "And he did try to appear hipper-than-thou, especially when it came to rap or world music." From what perspective? Music belongs to everyone.

 

I think you need to understand the context of his Village Voice Consumer Guide.

It was a one-page feature that appeared once a month. He kept every review to a single short paragraph with a letter-grade. His writing style was condensed and yes, he could sometimes come-off as obtuse or inscrutable as a result. But he crammed a lot of ideas, insight and humor into those capsule reviews; you had to give his dense prose due focus to appreciate his perspective.

His enthusiasm for albums he thought were great came through loud and clear. When it came to albums he didn't like he simply declared them "duds" or listed a couple of worthy tracks in the rear-end wrap-up. He didn't want to waste precious column inches on bad reviews of tedious albums... he wanted to spread the word about the good 'uns.

He would typically review well over a dozen albums in a Consumer Guide and give short shrift to another 8 or 10 in the rear-end summary. And it was clear that he really listened to them all. By comparison, a reviewer in Rolling Stone would be responsible for a single review, or possibly two if they were reviewing non-feature albums.

That's not to say that the man couldn't write a long-winded treatise when he wanted to (feature articles, year-end Pazz & Jop analysis, etc.).

 

I said I never forgot that quote, but I wasn't sure if it was Christgau or not--he wasn't usually given the front page. I used to read The Village Voice regularly in the early '80's and even after I stopped reading it, I would always check out his Pazz and Jop poll for years afterward. But I never claimed to be an expert on Christgau. I merely offered my opinion of his work based on a basic familiarity with it--albeit from years ago.

 

Thanks. That explains a lot.

 

It is more nuanced than I remember, and he comes pretty close to nailing part of Chapman's twisted motives toward the end of the quote.
" You command the power they crave...."

 

The great thing for me is that through Christgau's 'tepid' approach to all of these artists I've still found out which album to buy from each of them via his books and website. He can still inform and direct people who trust him (which is a consumer choice in itself), while he is essentially slagging some acts off. I've never been hugely attracted to any of these acts (they're all a bit too fiddly for me), but being a British music collector in particular I've bought Fragile, Stand Up and Tea for the Tillerman ultimately, in the end, on his albeit-reserved recommendation (though I've probably seen all of those albums mentioned here too). Basically he's written enough about these acts in general to give me an informed opinion.

 

I read his autobiography earlier this year, even in that he came across as somewhat arrogant, but I have mixed views about him. Sometimes I like him and sometimes I can't stand him...it's funny seeing him still trying to wiggle out of his 1967 Hendrix comments!

 

Good.

I'm sure it is weird to see a "dud" or "***" on his website decades after the review first appeared, but it's simply a gathering of everything he published back in the day. I don't know if he carries-over that verbatim approach when he publishes a Consumer Guide Book... maybe he does.

But for me, his critical voice was very much in the moment, mainly reviewing albums that were still on display in the New Releases racks of my favorite shops. Sure, he might say the new (oh, I dunno...) Marshall Crenshaw album only had a few "Choice Cuts" while I thought it was pretty solid. But of course he was right in pointing out that it wasn't as good as Crenshaw's first couple of albums and didn't break any new ground, so it was hard to feel any animosity towards his hard line.

As a Consumer Guide it was useful to a music geek like myself, maybe getting me to avoid an album that I might buy out of artist loyalty (or wait until I found a $1.99 promo copy) while pointing me in the direction of something that was previously off my radar. The fact that he reviewed LOTS AND LOTS of albums made his opinions useful. As a record-buying music fan I could get a sense of when I'd agree with him and when I'd have a different ear.

 

I have copies of his record guides for the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s (each is a separate book).

They're useful in that he's a pretty hard grader, and if he gives something an "A," it probably is a really good or interesting album. That said, he's very academic/obtuse in a lot of his writing, to that point that it can be frustrating to read. On the plus side, his books cover a lot of ground.

I also read his autobiography that came out this year. I liked parts of it (on the early days of rock criticism), but much of it was boring or too much information (on his love life, for example).

 

Oh, I'm sure he comes off as arrogant to many people he meets too.

I don't think he's ever fraternized with musicians a whole lot... he was very cautious about being swayed by personal feelings. [Okay, he's probably met Michael Hurley more than a few times and couldn't separate the man's joyous love of life from his music, which Christgau supports generously. But we all have our weaknesses and Hurley is a true Prince of a man who deserves all the support he can get].

I happened to share a table with Christgau a couple of times at CBGB back in the day because he was by himself (as was I) and that's the way the club operated. We didn't really talk; he was focused on the music, he was working. He certainly wasn't shmoozing in the club and the artists knew to respect his objectivity even if he often displayed open enthusiasm for their performances. I've also chatted with him briefly at a couple of memorial gatherings celebrating the music of [Go-Between] Grant McLennan, and we talked at Maxwell's a couple of times years ago. I think Bob is a nice guy, but his mind is always switched ON, he's not a politician, he doesn't suffer fools, etc.

So, I think Pere Ubu's Pennsylvania is one of the group's better later albums and he thinks it's a dud. So what?

 

Letter grades assume some sort of numerical and quantitative ranking; like anyone getting 90% of the arithmetic problems right gets an A. I really dislike it for evaluating music etc and it creates the mess described in this thread.

There are two real functions of a critic beyond idle amusement: ability to differentiate classics (music that will be rated highly 10 years or more out) from the mundane and providing some non-obvious information or assessments of the music/lyrics. If someone is going to introduce an audience to a genre outside of their mainstream listening, as Christgau occasionally does, they have to be extremely selective and only recommend the very best. Critics almost never restrain themselves about some off the wall enthusiasm though and ruin their outreach attempts.

The current music scene is too fractured for any critic such as Christgau to be useful anymore IMO. You just have to seek out threads or sites with fans of a particular style/genre/artist etc and see what that specialist group says and see if you like their faves. They probably are far more informed than Christgau is about their niche. I find the various threads here far more useful than all purpose critics.

 

I guess I agree with you re: 2015... I don't read anything by him these days. At least not regularly.

But I think his letter grading system was fine. He was the Dean of Rock Critic's! His desk was at the head of the class and he graded the music that was submitted for his analysis and scrutiny. Stars, grades... it's a good enough system. It communicates the perceptions of the reviewer, puts everything in a pecking-order.

I just find it annoying in the likes of MOJO magazine where every album gets a generally positive review and then the editor or an editorial committee assigns the number of stars (often contradicting the review itself). That's just lazy and unhelpful.

 

I mostly like his reviews and have never felt that he expected me or anyone else agree with what he's saying. The guy's writing is so cryptic and convoluted at times, I often find myself trying to figure out what the heck he's trying to say--and I suspect that may be his intent! His best reviews can feel like a gift though, with his amazing insight.

 

I think this is a really apt description.

 

Anyone who appoints himself the "Dean of America's Rock Critics" is a self-involved jerk.

 

Even though he gets off some good one-liners every now and then, I still consider him stuffy as all hell. At least Lester Bangs appeared to enjoy music. Christgau is not one of my favorite music writers, but I'll admit to reading his older columns (archived on his website) for a kick.

 

http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/cg/index.php

 

As always, a thread on Christgau comes down to "That big meanie didn't validate my record collection, so he's obtuse/academic/stuffy/pretentious," etc.

 

His reviews are fun to read...although a bit "high brow" at times. I just wish he would cut prog rock artist some slack

 

Hey, everybody's an a$$hole to somebody, sometimes. If it were you, me, or the next person passing by that was doing the column, WE'D be considered obtuse/stuffy/etc.

 

CHRISTGAU is no different than any other music journalist, or music fan or lover for that matter.
He has his opinions. Some make sense to people, some don't.
He's a critic. Just like every other human being on Earth.
But because he actually gets PAID for his opinions, he is subject to criticism himself and somehow, his opinions are far more scrutinized than everybody else's? Doesn't make sense to me.
CHRISTGAU is no different than anybody on this forum.
He just has a bigger bank account than most of us.
My two cents, anyway.

 

He gave Yes's Fragile, King Crimson's Red and several Henry Cow albums positive reviews.

 

It feels like he's always been there from the beginning of my musical awakening; I guess if he started at The Voice in 1969, he has been! Hardly ever agreed with him, but always read him anyway. Is there a poll button for that?