From: Christopher L. Filkins, design@chronotope.com Subject: RE: Critics Date: 2/21/2002 2:20:19 PM To: jlmicek@mindspring.com seance@lists.no-fi.com By masturbation I refer to the endless turf wars that go on when a discipline has become "deep" enough to cover all of the bases, as it were, like literary criticism. Music criticism of pop music has only been around for a while and hastened had time to "deepen". That being said Greil Marcus, et al certainly have something valuable to say on occasion. What I mean by lifestyle is the constant sneering that comes out critics who slam a band because they or their fans live differently than the critic. And by joy I mean far too many critics seem to find music exhausting and unappealing. Sure they sometimes sparkle when discussing their favorite bands but all too often their prose shows they really don't care. Hence many of the reviews which have recently been posted or linked to on the list. You know the old saw about staying away from your love when it comes to a career so you don't burn out on what makes you happy. This seems to be the case far too often IMHO. As far as high and low goes I have heard Britney Spears slammed far too often for my taste around these parts. It is far toooooo easier to slam pop music to no great benefit except to pump up the meager ego of those involved. All too often my comments, in terms of critics, might more properly be applied to editorial stances of publications which give the writer 100 words. But then again I'm an arrogant piss and would think it would be soul stealing to try and compose a mere 100 words about something an artist has spent blood sweat and tears over for months or years. So anyone who would do so fits nicely into my criticism, whether the piece comes from an editorial stance or simply the misshapen soul of a critic. As you can probably tell my opinion is not defensible and should most likely be ignored. Christopher@loving.jimmy.eat.world -----Original Message----- From: John L. Micek [mailto:jlmicek@mindspring.com] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 2:00 PM To: seance@lists.no-fi.com; Christopher L. Filkins Subject: RE: Critics 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.