School of Rock

"When you put your arms around me, I get a fever that's so hard to bear" - Sarah Vaughan, Fever (Adam Freeland Remix)

I liked my response to Michelle's comment so much, I thought I'd post it proper for prosperity:

I think my biggest concern with music writing/criticism in today's musical landscape is that it no longer reflects back to the listening public what they think is good. It's like the lofty land of literary criticism that wants to poo-poo
popular novels.

The rise of pop music criticism in the 50s and on through the 80s (even into the early 90s) generally sounded like what people were listening to at the time. Elvis, The Beatles, Johnny Cash, Bob Dylan on through the Michael Jackson, Prince, Madonna days of the 80s and then the Nirvana of the 90s were all acts that probably got included on most critical "best of" lists at the same time that they were also the biggest music stars in the world.

That seems to be no longer the case. We've moved into a critical world where everyone writing about music sounds like pitchfork media or your cool old uncle who loves music "but back when music was good".

If Mariah Carey and 50 Cent are the biggest artists in the world this year, music criticism needs to acknowledge that and try to explain why in a context that both "serious" listeners and "average" listeners can get with.

I'm not saying that every time a Spice Girls group comes along that they need to be #1 with a bullet for pop critics that know better but acknowledgment would be nice.

While everyone is busy talking about the new pornographers album and Sufjan and other albums that nobody owns or is likely to own 10 years from now, more people should be considering why Kelly Clarkson may be the rock goddess of the next decade, how soul divas like MC and MJB have survived the "death of r&b", and why a band that everyone seemingly hates - the black eyed peas - has become America's party band.

 

Comments

[Carrie]

This is an excellent observation. I feel like a few things are causing the rift between the two worlds of critical success and commercial success. One is the proliferation of the music blogs and/or online music community. I find that most of the more popular sites I go to focus strongly on "indie rock" and ignore anything else, and I feel like most critics are (knowingly or not) bending to the persuasiveness of these outlets and acting like only indie artists can be quality artists. There is an immediacy to these sites that has caused a "what's hot, what's now" attitude like we've never seen in music before, and it makes people feel like if they don't have the scoop on the newest (and most obscure) thing, they are idiots. And that bugs me.

Another thing I think is a problem is the perception in the music world that pop music is all manufactured and artificial. Successful artists like Hillary Duff and Ashlee Simpson (and I actually have one of her songs, so I don't think she's all bad) have watered down people's opinions of the pop genre, which leaves artists like Kelly Clarkson hanging out to dry a bit.

As for the omission of rap (save Kanye West, Eminem and a few others), I have no idea. The fact that music critics can ignore this genre baffles me.

The one thing I will say is that there will always be wildly popular artists that the critics can't stand -- that's a given. But you are right in asking the question why are there SO MANY right here and right now?

[Unsomnambulist]

Good critique, although I think that music critics pander to their readership, not the music listening crowd as a whole. Does your average Ashlee Simpson listener or American Idol watcher actually read music reviews, Spin, or Rolling Stone nowadays?

That said, I've equally dismissed a lot of music as pop or rap, but later finding myself pleasantly surprised by the likes of Kanye West and Kelly Clarkson (to a degree) that don't tend to hit the 103.1 dial.

Finally, in a world where music consumers can easily stream clips or download entire albums on a whim, reviews have little purpose in helping people decide what to listen to. In this case, maybe its good that reviewers stick with less popular and advertised forms of music for the more random, less exposed bands and artists.

[aldahlia]

Honestly, I'd love to know what petri dish they make Pitchfork's reviewers in, so that I can send the lab tech some wood-grain moonshine.

[M Matos]

I think you're overstating things some. All the things you suggest more writing do (analyze trends, focus on stuff that's pretty common knowledge) IS being done by lots of writers. And lots of others feel free to ignore those things and focus on niches. Pitchfork is obviously an indie-rockcentric site; I don't agree with it often and am not always a fan of the writing on it, but it is what it is in terms of who writes for it and who reads it. It's just too easy to say "music crit is this and should be that," just as it's too easy to say that about music itself, because chances are both are doing both things at once, plus 80 others.

As far as Da Capo . . . this year's book is a travesty, easily the worst one they've done. I have no idea whether the fact that they've changed series editors (it was Paul Bresnick and is now Daphne Carr) will make a difference in terms of what kinds of stuff it will include, but I'm guessing there will be some sort of shift. It's also funny because the book came out right at the time the whole JT Leroy thing was breaking in New York mag and now that it's pretty much official it's doubly depressing. Wow--a literary construct put together an anthology. I can't wait to read the first poetry collection edited by a robot.