From: John L. Micek, jlmicek@mindspring.com Subject: RE: Critics Date: 2/21/2002 2:00:24 PM To: seance@lists.no-fi.com "Christopher L. Filkins", design@chronotope.com Actually I don't have any more respect for a critic who heaps praise than one who doesn't. I don't happen to agree with your examples of either Britney Spears or the Church. I strongly believe in my comments about episodic criticism. It is very rare to find a review or criticism which gives context, information, education, the joy of music, lifestyle, etc. as well as a fair guide to the music itself. IMHO if music criticism were taken as seriously as the criticism of literature we'd be a lot better off when it comes to reviews. Of course it would still be masturbation but that's another conversation. To be honest I find as much value in Britneys Spear's "stuff" as I do in the Church's "stuff". Christopher: I happen to agree with you on most counts. I picked Britney Spears as an example. It could just as easily been any other popular artist. As far as I'm concerned The Church and Ms. Spears occupy an equal and valid space in the cosmos for the people who enjoy them. I would agree that context and information about an artist belong in a review. I'm not sure what you mean by lifestyle or joy of music. And frankly, the depth you're looking for often cannot be achieved in a 100-word newspaper revew. I'd urge you to try a different source if you're looking for that kind of depth. The magazine I frequently write for, The Big Takeover, might be just what you're looking for. Nor would I differentiate between "high" or "low" culture. All art exists on the same spectrum. "High" and "low" art are terms invented by elitists who need to feel better about themselves. As far as comparing criticism to masturbation goes, I wonder if you'd apply the same standard to Malcolm Cowley or Edmund Wilson, or even Greil Marcus, Robert Christgau or Lester Bangs for that matter. Or is your definition strictly limited to those with whom you don't agree? John.