The Rolling Stones.
This piece on the sorry state of modern rock criticism is flying around social media.
Imagine, for a moment, football commentators who refuse to explain formations and plays. Or a TV cooking show that never mentions the ingredients. Or an expert on cars who refuses to look under the hood of an automobile.
These examples may sound implausible, perhaps ridiculous. But something comparable is happening in the field of music journalism. One can read through a stack of music magazines and never find any in-depth discussion of music. Technical knowledge of the art form has disappeared from its discourse. In short, music criticism has turned into lifestyle reporting.
As one prone to geezerism, there are some things I agree with here – and I definitely feel this trend has gotten worse over the last 10 years – but how much better was it ever? In the heyday of Rolling Stone magazine, weren’t reviews centered around the revolutionary, youth-culture appeal of artists? Did anyone really take time to break down the harmonic structure of Jefferson Airplane, or were they described in terms of how “radical” and “groovy,” or whatever, their latest record was?
What was Janis Joplin without photos of her stoned silly and wrapped in a feather boa? What were the ’70s Rolling Stones without them slumped around at odd angles, with a visible bottle of Jack Daniels and reports of Mick dashing off with Margaret Trudeau? The critics the writer of this piece cites from his glorious, high-brow youth were primarily jazz and classical critics. I don’t think criticism in those genres is at issue. What’s really going on here?
This is wrong. They gave up because it isn’t as easy as it used to be to find out about new music. You can’t just turn on your radio and say, “Wow, I like this Tom Petty guy!” Rock radio is all oldies, and they aren’t interested in doing anything than flogging their corporate owners’ catalog product.
I think I’ve bought less than 10% of my music because of a critic’s recommendation.
God knows in many areas I too will plead guilty to geezerism but come on, this notion of a golden age of rock criticism, hinted at by the image of Philip Hoffmann as Lester Bangs, is just a lot of b.s. If someone wants to make the point that rock criticism has become even more lame, then I am prepared to listen. And even at its most insightful (and don’t press me to cite too many examples) even so-called “golden age” criticism was, I think, very very rarely technical in the way this writer seems to find desirable. Maybe that’s good, maybe that’s bad, but at least let’s be realistic.
I think there are more places to find new music than ever — and lots of reviews too. Even the Wall Street Journal has a rock music critic now.
What’s missing is the shared experience of rock radio, and time to hang out friends and crank the new stuff.
With a lot of new rock, I am geezer who can’t get out my own head. Take Pitchfork’s hero of the week, The War On Drugs. I hear The Waterboys, Tom Petty, Dylan phrasing and Rod Stewart’s “Young Turks.”
http://youtu.be/sihQwwmeUkE
Thanks to the internet, I think it’s easier to find new music now than ever before (blogs, tumblr, etc.). It used to require college radio stations, going to record stores, word of mouth, and-maybe-reading reviews in magazines.
Also, because I do have good ears and the internet lets me actually hear the music (rather than rely on some “reliable” critic’s description) the critic is not necessary for finding new music.
I agree. I’ve done some ‘rock criticism,’ and I always try to talk about how the music sounds. It drives me crazy when I read a review that focuses solely on the lyrics. This is a result of the fact that people who know how to write coherently tend to have been English majors, and analyzing poetry is what they know how to do. On the other hand I’ve always been aware that I can talk about instrumentation or recording/production techniques, but if I get into chords or harmonic structure or whatever I’ll lose people who have never played a guitar. Come to think of it a lot of people in bands who do play guitar don’t know anything about chords or harmonic structure, so what’s the point?
Yeah, I understand what you mean, but most people like the “good” new stuff just introduced easily to them. I can use the internet or whatever else, but I have a lot of friends that are never going to work that hard just to find out they have a new favorite band. I hve a lot more friends that think there isn’t any new rock music and that country radio is the only place to hear new music. That’s as much as they’re gonna work at finding something new, but they talk about these new acts when they talk to me.
I don’t know that either of these groups ever used critics anyway, but there’s no way they’ll sit and search the internet for new (or even old) music. They’re way more passive than that.
BigSteve, I would still read a review that gets technical. I don’t understand half of it, but I’d like to understand more. But it’s a fine line for a critic to teach me something new, and holding arcane knowledge over my head and making me feel stupid.