Anti-Anti Christgau
There’s a lot about this man Robert Christgau online. Some of it is unfriendly. Have a look at this,
If you look over Christgau’s reviews during the forty‐plus years he’s been a critic, you’ll find that his critical radar has simply been wrong so many times that you have to question his credibility.
Our Grade for Overrated Music Critic Robert Christgau: a D‐Minus, Marc McDonald
Or this blog, which rambled on for three years starting in 2008. Even positive comments can be hedged badly in micro‐essays,
His prose style is infuriatingly opaque and smug. He often comes off like an A.I. text generator got fed mid‐20th‐century cultural references, EE Cummings poems, and dialogue from abandoned Woody Allen screenplays. I usually disagree with his reviews and find his tone dismissive…
First thing to say is that, if you ratcheted the dates above, this has been going on for years. Which means I have a problem—at the time of writing, Robert Christgau is 80 years old. Isn’t it time to let this drop? Yet soon as I get into the company of people who have an interest in music, especially those with a web connection and who listen to older music, up comes the Christgau website. Yes, the work of Robert Christgau is largely posted online, in the open. Moreover, when the site is discussed, it is always personified. If you’ve ever visited the site, you’ll know why. So yes, the site, it’s contents, and Mr. Christagu’s approach to music criticism are relevant.
I have also my own reasons for tackling this. First, my experience is that the work of Robert Christgau is still disliked, and the dislike is far wider than I think is reflected online. Not everyone has online access, not everyone has time or energy to rant. And next, I find many of the unfriendly comments about Robert Christgau’s reviews to be… they don’t work for me. There’s more to it. A lot if what I’m going to say us unsupported, and there’s good reason for that—there’s too much of it. But if there’s one thing I’d like to try, it is that Robert Christgau’s work raises issues that anti‐Christgau contenders have not been near. Perhaps the fact I’m going to put this down, so late, is proof of Christgau’s work? Proof it’s worth tackling, that much.
You’re either with me or not. Let’s skip facts you can look up and are not relevant. Well, I say they are not relevant. What Robert Christgau did… he said… he was a Rock critic. Well, that’s a bad start for me. Because the way I think about this, yes, yes, it’s true—but I can’t get along with calling him a ‘Rock’ critic. He doesn’t know Rock music. He’s some sort of critic, though. And of music. I think he’d maybe accept Pop critic? But Insect Trust? And reviews of Ornette Coleman? This is not ‘popular’ music. Mr. Christgau was prepared to tackle more music than most, he has a track record for going where others would not—at rimes he verged on Western Art Music. So it’s not simple. Can I say he was a music critic of the un‐folk musics that became popular after the breakthroughs in recorded sound? That’s probably ok, and will do for me.
Right, next thing to say is that Mr. Christgau emerged a long time ago. He wasn’t the first wave of… let’s call it un‐folk… un‐folk critics. I’m thinking Charlie Gillet, Paul Williams… I don’t know enough about those times, but Mr. Christgau came later. But from where we are now, not that much later. Also, the guy started early in life. One thing I can tell you, nobody knew how to talk about un‐Folk back then. It seemed a curious business to criticise un‐folk music. Un‐Folk was something kids did. As for making an essay, a university exercise on un‐folk music, that was trashy. And there were those who, at the start of the Sixties, were getting hippy, and they for sure were not going to do nothing for a university. So the early approaches to un‐folk criticism were scattershot. Into this arrives Mr. Christgau. With his own notions.
And here we arrive at the Christgau concept. Mr. Christgau decided to say which music he liked and which he did not. He gave records a 1–5 rating. So he must have thought his opinion was worth something, or that his opinions were a subject worth working on. Or that he might pick up a following. Or pick a fight. Whatever, he was not working with the isolation of ‘subjectivism’. There;s more on that below, but now the other component—since he knows what he likes, Mr. Christgau thinks he can get what he needs to say down in a couple of lines. That’s it, that’s all he writes, like two–four lines about any album. He called the product Consumer Reviews. There it was, the few‐line review with rating—the Christgau concept.
Phew.
And right here we have ricochets. The people who dislike Mr. Christgau’s writing repeatedly raise the form of his reviews as adverse criticism. I can’t be bothered to quote, if you want evidence, re‐check the references at at the start. On form, Mr. Christgau’s work has been defended, strongly, if usually semi‐academically,
It’s no mean feat to boil a nuanced argument down to a bagatelle of six sentences and 89 words, and to crack a good joke while you’re at it.
Ask me, I’d say there’s nothing special in the form—people who review washing‐machines do it for a living—I’d offer only that it’s a viable form. Few reviews are descriptive. Most reviews are going to end in an opinion. Why not say that? As for ratings, Mr. Christau’s system changed over the years from a school‐exam like A–D to a tick or a ‘bomb’, but most people are crazy for the ratings. Ratings are practical consumer help, for example, a filter of four‐star items. No surprise, the review/rating form is nowadays a staple of magazines and the web. So adverse criticism aimed at the Christgau review website is not explicable from the form. That can only be slapdash rationisation. Which leaves me knowing there is a fierce dislike of these reviews, but I won’t find out why from most of the writing.
Ok, what was it Christgau used to make the reviews? Look, Christgau does sometimes say what he thinks criticism should be,
…it was Lester as much as anybody who defined what rock criticism ought to be–because he was the great one. He wasn’t long on the values ordinarily sought in a critic–balance, consistency, analysis, judgment.
(‘balance’ and ‘consistency’ are Christgau go‐to words). I recall there is a lengthier description somewhere, but I can’t find it. Anyway, you can’t argue with Christgau on these grounds. I’m not sure what he meant by balance, but there are two possibilities. First, a review tries to find the good and bad, both. There seems to be some of that in the following review of a record by Abba—the review sticks the knife in, but is looking for why the music is popular,
…Abba’s Europop is the biggest thing since the Beazosmonds. Americans with an attraction to vacuums, late capitalism, and satellite TV adduce Phil Spector and the Brill Building Book of Hooks in Abba’s defense…
Another possibility for ‘balance’ is the obsessive coverage. Yeh, Christgau did follow his nose, or ear. For example, here and there he drifted into what is called ‘Jazz’, which is anything but popular music. And the coverage by Christgau is anything but broad. I’m not running statistics or anything, but far as my impressions lead me, the coverage of modern(ish) Jazz on the Christgau website is Theolonius Monk and Ornette Coleman. Mr. Monk at least qualifies as a unique composer, but Ornette Coleman, despite Coleman’s Prime Time move into popular form, must rate as personal interest. Surely concentrate on Gilberto Gil (‘The Girl From Ipanema’) or Dave Brubeck (‘Take 5’)? But Christgau is more explicit about what he is doing, and steelier in execution, than near‐any other un‐folk music journalists.
What else does Mr. Christgau value? Consistency. Fair—Christgau applies his criteria and method to everything. Without deviation. Not that he can not get lost, as his predicates/criteria are scattershot. Given what he has said about Abba, how can that be split from what he says about ELO?
…they’ve gone all the way and made a Moody Blues album with brains, hooks, and laffs galore.
Electric Light Orchestra, A New World Record, Robert Christgau
But, for me, this is a case of the exception proving the rule. For one thing, Christgau may somewhere tell you how he splits Abba from ELO—probably laffs. And second, it is only because Christgau is consistent that you can spot where he muddles.
As for ‘analysis’—always, though you may argue with the grounds. Here is the review again about Abba,
…their disinclination to sing like Negroes…
Are Abba disinclined to sing like Negroes, or is it Abba’s musical tradition, technique and creativity, even honesty and decency, that mean they do not? But this easily dismissable, nasty, opinion is based on good start‐point observation.
And Christgau ‘judges’—that’s one of the main contentions. Despite Simon Frith saying,
He called his record review column Christgau’s Consumer Guide in mockery of over‐earnest Marcusian lefties—in his words, “to annoy left‐wing cheese‐heads.”
Then again, much art criticism, on every level, judges. I guess only journalism could be written in this area and claim not to have judgement as primary drive. And good art journalism is rare. So, again, the work of Christgau has the advantage of clarity.
So at this point we don’t have much to justify what gets slung at Christgau record reviews. People rumble about the review/rating form, but it can’t be that. And the reviews match his—university‐based, but nothing wrong in that— criteria for proper criticism. To find why anyone is riled I think I need to dig into writing. Well, here’s one. A lot of the reviews are decided on what Mr. Christgau thinks from before writing. I don’t have the time or the inclination to go into this with analytical proof—word counts, structural analysis etc. I’m gonna stand you models. A typical Consumer Guide review might read like this,
Where the maker of this record comes from is someplace I think is dumb. Incidentally, he/she/it is unable to sing beyond a croak, and has no compositional skills. To amuse myself I’ve fabricated an elaborate and tangential comparison between records I think are good, and what is good about this record, which doesn’t amount to much. Then I’m going to list the things I hate about it with the most accurate and erudite words I can think of. Then say ‘Huh!’. D‐
And in admiration,
Three people I’m travelled enough to be able to name, even if you’re not, are guest performers in this music. Cross‐musical references are naturally funny, especially when played on reed organs and penny whistles. It’s glitzy, New‐Wave and Black. The intellect of the lead singer gets my pants stirring. Kudos for getting me there. A‐
With me? An upfront judgement reflected Mr. Christgau’s approach to the listening, which he described, and was extended,
My biggest gift is my appetite–I generally have a record on 12 to 18 hours a day. Rarely do I give anything an A without having passed it through my mind‐body continuum at least five times (usually more); even Honorable Mentions get three to five (often more)… I don’t write about something till I’m pretty sure how much I like it, and I’m skilled at recognizing when that is.
After all of that, you probably would lead with opinion. Now, there are gentler ways of approaching reviews—for example, building observations and facts before conclusions. Q‐Magazine generated a forest of un‐folk reviews but never lead with opinion. Off‐the‐cuff, I can’t think of anyone using this form who does. And, for sure, in Christgau site reviews, it’s hard to wade past the opinion to reach the description. By the time I reach description I’m distracted by any gap between my thoughts and what I’m reading. That could rile people. Yet I can’t see that as the problem with Robert Christgau, not enough to cause people to write anti‐Christgau articles.
Well, here’s something I know can rile people, and this is not only about Christgau. It’s a good start to recall that at base, Mr. Christgau was an academic. Np, more then that, he is rooted in what is usually clumped as ‘Cultural Studies’. Where I come from that’s alien. I think it’s probably fair to say a general English sentiment/sediment—if such a concept exists—is that Cultural Studies is University crap. This is not the place for that. But Christgau is fluent in the culture and language of Cultural Studies. His writing is Cultural Studies technique. He’s capable of something like this,
Berman makes a similar point about structuralism in his introduction, where he dispatches it as a kind of climax to his outline of the shortcomings of other modernist ideologies: futurism (callous), Bauhaus (”technocratic pastorale”), and McLuhan‐Fuller Inc. (”spaced‐out”); mass culture theory, hopelessly elitist from Spengler on the right through Weber in the center to Marcuse on the left; ivory‐tower aestheticism from Greenberg to Barthes; the counterculture’s doomed‐by‐definition project of escaping contemporaneity; the tradition of the new, which in its concentration on revolt ”leaves out the great romance of construction,” and the epidemic neoconservatism which holds that the modern edifice might actually stabilize if only modernism didn’t always mess it up; pop, which in its adoration of the baby gets stuck with the bathwater; and ”postmodernism,” which attempts to end the era by nomenclative fiat.
Twentieth Century Limited, (book review) All That Is Solid Melts Into Air, Robert Christgau
One sentence. I’d defend Christagu’s writing here and everywhere as concentrated and accessible—believe me or not—but it’s hard work and comes with presumptions laid in. And Christgau knew it, though he can’t resist a stab of the knife,
Ordinary readers willing to put aside their comfortable notions of what culture should be rarely have much patience with the carefully mapped, jargon‐laden position papers favored by cultural studies specialists.
So I suspect one reason for not liking Christgau reviews is where he comes from—(clear throat) his ‘milieu’. And there is evidence of that here and there.
Aside from this—Mr. Christgau is a book reviewer. Given that books on pop music tend to spread from fanzine to academic, Christgau’s determined effort to drag normality into the academic is a good place to handle all kinds of un‐folk books. Gives him a steady footing. And Mr. Christgau read more books on un‐folk music than I could possibly imagine existed. I’ve barely tried three of them (I find most books on un‐folk, whatever the source, not worth my time). But Christgau goes there, and I’d guess is reliable. He may even be, primarily, a reviewer not of un‐folk music, but books about un‐folk music. My guess is that that’s his calling. From the reviews alone, he’s class.
Anyway, onwards with the look at writing. I’m already made a gesture towards this—Christgau review predicates are scattershot. There’s a few commentators thrown in their comments on the predicates, but I want to get more serious than that. For example, Simon Frith points his finger at one tool,
Christgau most values artists for their intelligence, most despises them for stupidity.
Mr. Frith is here evoking Mr. Chrristgau—from what I read, Frith wasn’t this sort himself. But if we take this as fair play on Christgau, then it’s gonna raise hackles. Christgau is an academic—that means, in the American way of handling this, he’s living out a lifestyle. As it goes, academics are not well paid in America or the UK, but they are professionals. Like all professionals, they get policy decision and self‐management within their workplace. And this can lead to their having opinions about how things should be done, and how worlds should be managed. If their lifestyle is politics, or economics, fair play, that’s engaged argument. But when they are not, professional opinion is no more then a loose expression of concern, no better than a newspaper headline made to shock. Except the academic uses fancy language. And the professional‐academic stance—especially the left‐wing stance—is a lecture—‘Stupidity’ etc. It’s the walk/Trotsky without any of Leon Trotsky’s history, culture, circumstance or dramatic immersion. From a completely different area, here is the novelist John le Carré talking about ‘the integration of private schools’ (moving schools to a comprehensive system),
If you do it from the left you will seem to be acting out of resentment; do it from the right and it looks like good social organisation.
Which is where Joe Carducci grumbled about the ‘unearned’ politics of many reviewers—including Robert Christgau. A friend of mine explained why he didn’t read the Christgau site much for opinion, found him depressing,
He wants every record to be It Takes A Nation Of Millions To Hold Us Back.
The only good side to Christgau here is that he is ‘committed’ (his word), he stands up to say these things and is clear about it. But his assumption that you must agree with his politics, or you are ‘stupid’, that’s gonna rile.
This conceptual approach can get personal—not only is that possible, but Christgau revels in it. Yup, this is another Christgau predicate, and prevalent. Christgau is smug and preachy in his opinions about personal relationships. He manages to work this into at least one in five reviews. I’ll throw out a few samples, sure you can find your own, maybe better. Here’s his review of The Vaselines,
Toon topics include… coitus, which undergoes an array of ironically far‐out genderfuck jokes that bespeak detailed experience of actual fucking. Kelly says the group broke up over ”sexual differences.” I’m sure he deserved no better.
The Vaselines, The Way of the Vaselines: A Complete History, Robert Christgau
Which might be you, Bob? Here’s the McGarrigil sisters,
…indulge their fatalism about serial monogamy and the poor getting poorer… And now, if you’d care to come upstairs, they’d just as soon make love.
Bjork,
I liked this a lot better once I heard how it was entirely about sex… Sex, not fucking. I’m nervous so you’d better pet me awhile sex [and on and on, at length R.C.].
Jethro Tull,
Anderson can’t or won’t create the impression that he really cares about love/friendship/privacy.
Black Flag,
”Slip It In” is by somebody who learned about sex from movies.
and every solo John Lennon review.
I’m not interested in Christgau’s opinions on relationships and sex—or how they relate to the music he listens to. Not that that is not a viable and interesting approach to reviewing—I’m not interested in his take on it. Also, I’m not interested that he seems to be selling sex for his intellectual audience (maybe a little curious). But I know that here and there he denies he is one of, but is smarter than, Boomers and the Sixties—yet whenever he hits this subject he comes on like a privileged hippie—the Sex Advice and Mystic Meg of record reviewing. Bob says he got plenty, and it’s your fault if you didn’t see how his correct politics bought him that. Here and there the reviews talk about what Christgau calls ‘real’ relationships. Bad word, ‘real’—why are the constructs of those who are denied or screwed‐up less ‘real’? Not that I’m making any call on the idea, but Christgau works, which is a surprise, without the Euro‐Marxist concept that sex is payoff for supporting class structure. Plastic Ono Band,
Keep you doped with religion, and sex, and TV…
Plastic Ono Band, Working Class Hero, John Lennon
Maybe Christgau would claim he’s American? Anyway, am I saying Christgau is wrong in this? No. It beats jambing Black politics into your reviews, which music writers are crazy for. But it’s also privileged, obnoxious and self‐deluding. What Christgau serves us with is; if you didn’t get some, that’s because you’re not worth Christgau’s time. Myself, I doubt womankind thought he was a gift.
Anyway, I seem to be getting someplace now—the lead‐with‐opinion is a hector. The reviews use a language riddled with fancy words and all that. At bottom, the reviews have no wilder predicates than most music reviews, but the predicates are distinctive and delivered in ways enough to get you riled. Fit to write the man down. Yet, in particular, nobody seems to set about Christgau on his predicates. Is it nobody can be bothered? Or is that looking at predicates is itself a Christgauian activity? Anyway, a mystery that now I’ve summoned, I’m not going to delve.
Speaking of people who don’t think too much of Christgau’s work… people with a personal stake have also attacked Mr. Christgau. Strangely, those who diss Christgau‐writing usually cite a couple of music heros, as if the appeal to authority will do. But what was the title of that Sonic Youth song/EP? ‘Kill yr Idols’. Go figure. Anyway, when Sonic Youth received a predictably negative Christgau reviews, they brushed it aside by writing him into the song ‘Kill yr Idols’. Here’s from the Christgau review,
So if it’s not too hypersensitive of me, I wasn’t flattered to hear my name pronounced right, not on this particular title track…
This drama didn’t stop there. There was a critic called Byron Coley who was connected to the band… if you read this far and you’re interested you will likely want to read this. It’s a whole different take on getting into, listening to, and working with music. Anyway, I’ll hoist a few relevant quotes,
PSF: How did your war with Robert Christgau start out?
Well… I think what must have really came first was that he would write really negative stuff about Sonic Youth in the Voice. In fact, it was just stupid. … I retitled the song: ”I Killed Christgau With My Big Fucking Dick.” And he was really not amused. And I guess I can understand why, although you know, why anybody would really care… It was just sort of funny, I thought. And it was a ”OK, you killed me, I’ll kill you” sort of thing. … The whole ’Dean’ thing rubbed me the wrong way. … I think it was really stupid of the Voice to get rid of him [Christgau was sacked from the magazine Village Voice R.C.]. I mean, why would they? I mean I felt bad about that, although I think his NPR gig as hideous as anybody’s.
Perfect Sound Forever, Jason Gross interview with Byron Coley
And Sonic Youth is not the only time anti‐Robert Christgau contention has made the Consumer Reviews,
Partly because your humble servant is attacked by name (along with John Rockwell) on what is essentially a comedy record, a few colleagues have rushed in with Don Rickles analogies… And I thank Lou for pronouncing my name right.
Lou Reed Live: Take No Prisoners, Lou Reed, Robert Christgau
John Rockwell: art music and arts critic. Don Rickles: comedian who traded in insults. There may be others who took their art to Christgau. Anyway, the deepest stab was Joe Carducci’s book, “Rock and the Pop Narcotic”. That title and stance alone was enough to rile Mr. Christgau—he replied with his own spikes,
If I could only give him one bit of editorial advice, though, it would be this: don’t hang a polemic off a definition.
Which, by his own academic stance, is nonsense. I mean, thank goodness that someone wrote music discussion from a coherent and clearly stated premise.
Not only Carducci’s base, and it’s implications, got to Robert Christgau—Cristgau took Mr. Carducci as an antagonist. This is despite Mr. Carducci leading with (as I recall),
I’ll take issue with Christgau’s comsympery later, but his method has got down more information about more bands than anyone else.
(as recalled from) Rock And The Pop Narcotic, Joe Carducci
An easy‐going version of Christgau’s own technique. It’s not the only spot in this review which veers—the attempt to rescue a string of what seems to be off‐the‐cuff enthusiasms from Joe Carducci’s precision reads like a deliberate attempt to blur. Y’know, Christgau would by legend have axed that from a submission by someone else. It’s possible that Mr. Christgau was having an off‐day? I don’t think so. Man, I conclude, but Mr. Christgau was sensitive to adverse criticism. The man is a psychotic hedgehog. Like the Richard Thompson song, transgendered,
He can give it out, he can’t take it, He smells something bad, he has to rake it…
In the middle of review [a kiss], he twists the knife again…
She Twists The Knife, Across A Crowded Room, Richard Thompson
If Mr. Christgau sees this work, he’ll probably be straight in, stabbing at literary technique, dissing my life, and rattling like I’m doing him an injustice or something.
Against this is there any positive? This is the Anti‐Anti Christgau scene, right? Here’s what Simon Frith wrote in An Essay on Criticism,
Of the critics I read regularly he’s the one with whom I most disagree‐as a consumer guide. But he is also the one who makes me question most often what criticism is for.
Which is in a review of the Christgau book, Grown Up All Wrong. The review is buried on the Christgau site. And I figure most people would admit Frith nails it, that’s what they think. Yeh, you dislike what Christgau says, but he’s usable, and challenges you in this area and that. And Frith comes out with this, about the effect of Christgau’s writing,
It’s a way of listening which in it’s very articulation both invites disagreement and makes the reader follow through, in the music, why they disagree.
Or, arguing with Christgau makes you the listener think more deeply about why you like something. But I think often people don’t want to see the judgement. They’re not looking for meta‐argument. They’re skimming for detail and description. They want journalism. All the judgement they want is to know if the gig/record is any good. They can make their own mind off the back of the text they read and it’s position.
So what have we got here? A huge site of music reviews. Written by a guy who was an ‘academic’. Rather than sit in his house he got out there into the press. He took with him professorial attitudes about correct comma placement, supporting your argument, and all that. Then he comes up with this idea of the short review with grades, for popular artwork. So far, I’d say, interesting, not annoying. I could point to other examples where this is welcomed. But rather than rebuild his style, this guy sticks to his voice. He leads with judgement which, despite the format, makes his reviews hard to read. He hauls the academic language from the house. This is language that is underhand, says one thing then acts another, presumes privilege, and is not welcome anyplace I can think of. Nobody in the sewers, the street, or the towers wants to hear it. He hauls along also the base values of the house, values that benefit from education, but are an oddball set—if you’re going to be odd, at least make it good odd. These values are delivered in the language of the house, play high with anyone who doesn’t feel that way. Now, that is something to be riled at.
And then there’s stuff I cann’t be bothered to delve into here. There are remarks about Christgau walking round with earphones on his head, and jumping rapidly at his co‐workers. Sounds maniac to me. The offices of a high‐class New York magazine seem to me like close confines. A refined close‐confine, but close‐confine. Aside from gigs, did Mr. Christgau take his headphones off, get out, or was the environment self‐justifying? I read here and there about meetings, get‐togethers, lead by Christgau. Sounds productive and intense. Then again, has anyone said if they wanted to be there at all?
And now what we have is a bulk of material uploaded to the web. Right, do you know anybody who has uploaded the bulk of their work into the free air of the web? For whatever reason you want to construct—generosity, waste disposal, fame? I can only raise a handful of examples. So I make that a good thing.
So yes, I say thanks Robert Christgau. From the site I’ve heard, amongst other things, Insect Trust, James Carr. The site also provides coverage of fields where nobody much tries. Sure, it’s a long way from comprehensive, but it covers music from the South of America, which I delve good but as a Brit have little access to. And there’s some Ornette Coleman, who I have time for. And modern Country music. And the reviews found a way to like Motorhead. As for writing, Christgau always soared, but there was the time Joe Carducci’s book got to him, which made Christgau at last engage Rock Music Is Here to Stay, which review is a good thing forever. So I say what we have is not half so bad.
And now, at the end, I’ve got a personal note. Over the bulk of my life, I had no access to the like of Robert Christgau’s work. The Christgau site has only been on my radar for a couple of years. The music I listen to is not informed by the site, and I don’t think about music that way. Nowadays I use the site a little, usually to get a line on sources I’d have trouble with elsewhere. It has brought up a few good listens. That’s all. I suppose it shows how much music can mean to people, and how nasty Cultural Studies can get. But I do think that nobody has written enough about this, and that it’s worth my time to delve why anyone is bothered to be bothered.
A final note: If Mr. Christgau were reading this post as non‐referenced copy, by reputation he would likely challenge me about the title. “Is that a double intensifier, or negation?” It depends, it depends, but one reply, “Not your approach—perhaps something you have no respect for—but ambiguity, Mr. Christgau. Ambiguity.”