Xgau SezThese are questions submitted by readers, and answered by Robert Christgau. New ones will appear in batches every third Tuesday. To ask your own question, please use this form. November 17, 2021[Q] The late literary critic Harold Bloom seemed to believe that it was better not to read at all if you were not willing to challenge yourself with books that were intellectually and artistically valuable. He often stated that the promotion of certain popular but less-than-profound books by the cultural critics actually led to the dumbing-down of society. (Specifically, Harry Potter, among others.) The only time it was acceptable to read a populist (i.e. aimed at ordinary people) novel was if it led to reading books of greater merit. Would you apply the same philosophy to music? Do you believe that listening to say, Journey, can actually erode the mind and spirit? Make a person less intelligent? Certainly, some albums, as with some books, are more important and valuable than others. However, is there anything wrong with listening to Oasis even if it does not lead you to the Beatles? Can the existence of Phil Collins music actually be making us worse off? Or is there no comparison at all? -- Barry Lane, Mexico, New York [A]
I wouldn't apply the same philosophy to music because I think it's
utter horseshit applied to books. I've never read Harry Potter and
probably never will, but only because it's long and I'd rather
read/reread Dickens and not because anything I know about it indicates
that it dumbed society down whatever her deplorable prejudices against
transgender people. I wouldn't think of describing the many smart
people I know who have read it, some intellectuals but others not, as
"dumbed down" or whatever fancier way Bloom would have put it. On the
contrary, my guess would be that it made people smarter whether or not
they went on to Flaubert or Yeats or some postmodernist I can't even
name--did so just by persuading them to live vicariously in a world
they couldn't see, smell, or touch. One way I explain the breakdown of
American democracy is that my opposite numbers on the right are
resistant to abstraction. But I regard that as at least as much a
spiritual as an intellectual dilemma. Evangelical Christianity, the
intellectual locus of many of today's fascists-in-training (with a big
fat boost from protofascist social media, of course) teaches or tries
to teach its adherents to extend their charity--by which I mean
feelings of love and compassion rather than the donations that may
ensue as well--not just to human beings within their literal physical
ambit but human beings they're aware of at an insuperable physical
distance. When I read about gays bashed or women forced to bear
children they're not ready to raise or people of color subject to all
manner of concrete physical, social, and economic abuse, I feel for
them as imagined individuals, and one institution that taught me to do
that was the born-again church I attended with ever-increasing
skepticism into my teens. Over the years I've heard many stories of
individual Christian conservatives helping alien others and as an
impecunious young man hitchhiking America in the early '60s
experienced such acts myself. The disappearance or cooptation of that
impulse on a societal level dismays and frightens me.
[Q] The recent "Let's Go Brandon" soundbite that's become a pathetic dogwhistle just reaffirms what I hope we all already knew: that Trump supporters and the alt-right are by-and-large not only incredibly stupid, but also astoundingly delusional. However, do you ever struggle with not wanting to generalize a massive category of people, even when you're given nothing but proof-positive of such generalizations? -- Nick Jayne, Gray, Maine [A]
I think you're wrong in several respects. First, I don't think the
"Let's go Brandon" thing--which I should make clear to those who don't
know, as I'm sure some readers don't and why should they, has become
alt-right code for "Fuck Joe Biden"--is pathetic. It's a
self-evidently effective ploy, one among many, to cheapen political
discourse, a fundamental alt-right ploy from Steve Bannon down to
Trumpers as stupid as you believe all of them to be, which I do
not. Mean, cruel, sometimes purely evil--I'll take those pejoratives,
but only if it's understood that not all apply in many and maybe even
most instances. Some are stupid for sure--there's stupidity
everywhere. But don't kid yourself, because many are far from it. They
mean to subvert electoral democracy, sometimes out of ignorant
resentment of often better-educated people like you and me for whom
tolerance and compassion are bedrock values, but at least as often out
of a well-calculated self-interest that too often includes white
supremacist hegemony--which, and this is crucial, does not mean they
themselves are devoid of tolerance and compassion in their own
day-to-day behavior, as is clear to any honest person who, as I just
noted I did, grew up among the born-again Christians who make up a
major component of this demographic. They have an all too real chance
of getting what they want. Dismissing them as stupid is
counter-productive.
[Q] Donald Trump? "Evil?" Don't be silly! He's just another pushy loudmouth New Yorker. A burg that's produced thousands of 'em stretching from Peter Stuyvesant (1592-1672) on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on to yesterday's New York Post. Trust me. -- Cedric Hugo Endter, Lake Bluff, Illinois [A]
Why should I trust you? On the evidence you're a jerkola with
attitude. True, appearances can be deceiving--maybe moving to New York
would tone up your brain a little. Having argued that not all Trumpers
are therefore evil I will now assert without the slightest hesitation
that Donald Trump is. I hope I live to see him die, the sooner the
better, and on that day I'll go out on the streets and whoop and
holler. But for the record I don't like Peter Stuyvesant either. He
was worse than many although by no means all of the so-called founding
fathers. But at least his heirs planted some gorgeous
pre-revolutionary trees my wife and I live close enough to his old
homestead to enjoy on a regular basis. Stuyvesant Park surrounds
Second Avenue twixt 15th and 17th Streets. Check them out if you're in
the nabe. Our fave is the big elm-I-think in the southwest corner of
the eastern park.
October 20, 2021Once more unto the mongering, the Stones sans Charlie, baseball avec sabermetrics, grading the second Velvets albums, appropriation vs. appreciation, Billie Eilish vs. Al Green [Q] Not to be too much of a stickler, but there was a pretty big error in last month's Xgau Sez. One reader asked you about your use of the term "meaning monger," to which you responded that you could only find one use of the term on your website. I'm assuming the error came from differing punctuation of the term, because when I just Googled the word "monger" on your website, with minimal scrolling I found several other uses of the term. It showed up in a review of the Romeo Must Die compilation, in two different pieces about Randy Newman, and in your 1984 Jazz and Pop essay. I stopped scrolling before I found the Tool review, so it's very possible you've used the term elsewhere. So I would say that Austin's "from time to time" seems to characterize your use of the term pretty well. -- Ronan, Salt Lake City [A]
Oxford's "If you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad" is one
of my favorite stylistic and grammatical maxims, although I've always
thought "take the hyphen" would be a sharper way to put it. Anyway,
that's what happened here--I obviously should have searched my site
without the hyphen, although "monger" comes up without "meaning" much
more often than with it--those two "ng"s are infelicitous and the main
reason I declared "meaning-monger" "not exactly a witty term." For the
record, "monger" itself is thrown around very loosely in English. The
three most common usages are "fishmonger," where it means "seller,"
"warmonger," where it means "advocator" or really "stirrer-upper," and
"whoremonger," where it means "user" or perhaps even "exploiter." In
"meaning-monger," it means some cross of either the first two or all
three.
As regards Tool, the explanatory
and somewhat condescending "for the fantasy-fiction set" narrows it
down to what I'm really getting at: a posited crossover between
fantasy fiction and the more pretentious strains of metal, neither of
which I have much use for.
In the early Randy Newman review
where it comes up, the "straightforward" meaning-mongers I compare
unfavorably to him are probably--though that review was probably
written way back in 1980 when I wrote a good chunk of the first
Consumer Guide book and so I have to guess a little--the strophic
folkies who were still kings of the literaryish-songwriter hill back
then, when they were still far from my favorite musical breed though
I'd grown to admire and even love a good many of them: the not all
that strophic Joni Mitchell and the we-now-know amazingly durable John
Prine, for instance.
[Q] Curious to know when you last saw the Stones in person and found yourself impressed by their live show, and if you think they'd be worth seeing again sans Charlie. -- Joe Silva, Athens, Georgia [A]
My last Stones concert was 2005 in Hartford--with my daughter Nina,
who's very glad she got to see them that night and at all, as was I,
though by then I'd caught them well over half a dozen times, in DC and
Toronto as well as NYC/NJ. Mick concluded the show by sprinting back
and forth across a huge stage for some 65 yards. But that was
enough--I intend to sit out this tour with no regrets. Note however
that a younger friend,
American Epic auteur
Bernard MacMahon, told me recently that he was chuffed to have tickets
for their L.A. show and I told him not to miss it--of course you want
to see them at least once. So if you have the money I say the same to
you if it's a first and maybe not if you've been there done that. I
loved and love Charlie, easily my favorite Stone, but he was already
off this tour when he died, and Steve Jordan is an accomplished
drummer who knows whose shoes it's his j-o-b to fill.
[Q] Professional baseball is rapidly changing. Are you familiar with sabermetrics baseball and its implications? Or is this just too nerdy a thing to ask? -- KBW, South Korea [A]
I was reading sabermetrics pioneer Bill James as early as the '70s, I
think--long ago, anyway. Thought all of his analysis was fascinating
and a lot of it worth incorporating into the game. It really changed
pitching, although not as much as the revised strength training
stratagems that have generated so many near-100 fast balls. But if I
remember correctly, even then I didn't like how down he was on stolen
bases--they're too much fun (I loved how much the Yankees stole late
in the past season). And when I watch the game with its radical shifts
these days I sometimes get nostalgic for the old days, as well as
wishing more players would settle for singles by exploiting shifts. In
particular I still prefer human umpires calling balls and strikes even
though what was clearly a bad call on a held-up swing prematurely
ended the Dodgers-Giants championship game.
[Q] You've reviewed many Velvet Underground records, but a search reveals no writing or even mention of White Light/White Heat beyond saying you think "Sister Ray" is better white noise than Metal Machine Music. I know your favourite Velvets record is the self-titled album, but even so--White Light/White Heat, yay or nay? -- Oscar, Johannesburg, South Africa [A]
I don't know exactly what you mean by search, but Googling my site I
found the following sentence in the Lou Reed obit I crushed out for
Spin one bleak Sunday afternoon in 2013. "What's most remarkable about
the Velvet Underground & Nico to White Light/White
Heat to The Velvet Underground to Loaded sequence is
how drastically these unfashionable New York minimalists changed up
their arrantly simplistic sound, getting warmer all the way as they
shed Nico and then John Cale and then the pregnant Mo Tucker while
picking up the essential albeit much-mocked wimp Doug Yule." And in my
big 1978 Voice "Avant-Punk" manifesto there's this: "Detractors
labeled [the Velvets'] basic approach monotonous, but the distance
within what was a relatively unexplored musical territory proved vast;
Emmylou Harris will satisfy your yen for Linda Ronstadt a lot better
than--to choose the closest pair I can think of--the Velvets' 'White
Light/White Heat' will satisfy your need for the Modern Lovers'
'Roadrunner.'" Harder to find except for owners of my 1998 Harvard
collection Grown Up All Wrong is this sentence in "Lou Reed,
Average Guy": "We were sophisticated enough to forgive White
Light/White Heat the literally sophomoric survival 'The Gift' even
if we weren't astute enough to hear that 'Sister Ray' portended more
than the Stones' 'Goin' Home' as well as Iron Butterfly's
'In-a-Gadda-Da Vida.'" So as you might have figured anyway, probably
an A minus. And although I like the debut more, "Venus in Furs" has
aged poorly and was something we tried to rationalize away even at the
time.
[Q] Hello Bob! How would you define cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation? -- James Kean, Liverpool [A]
I wouldn't touch that one for anything less than big bucks--it's a
landmine requiring broad research, deep thought, many words, and loads
of time. But I appreciate your implicit point, which I take to be that
the two concepts, one pejorative and one not, are intimately
related. And I would go so far as to say that I've been a supporter of
hybridity in culture for as long as I've been a critic not to mention
alive and seriously doubt I could be talked out of it.
[Q] Billie Eilish is becoming the greatest interpretive pop singer since Al Green. Agree or Disagree? -- Nicholas Auclair, Montreal September 22, 2021The rock-critic economy, rumba reading, not sucking in your 70s, Van the Prick, and the meaning of meaning-mongering. [Q] You've often talked about how the digital age has destroyed musicians' ability to make money off their music alone without touring. Your Substack now has well over 1000 subscribers sending in $5 USD per month so I assume you're making much more than you would as an employee for a professional music publication, and with far less stress and more freedom. Would you say that experiencing this new model has changed your views at all? That if musicians bypass the middleman then they actually stand to make more money than before, say through a subscription model? Or would that still only apply to very well established individuals like yourself who can leverage one of the largest user bases in your field, furthering the inequality in the profession as the 99 music journalists underneath you get nothing at all? -- Alan, Canada [A]
This is flabby reasoning at best. Just as record royalties have shrunk
to near-naught because recording artists sign label contracts without
which they cannot capitalize their recordings and the labels then
license those recordings to streaming platforms and pass but a
pittance to the artists, journalists' word rates have shrunk to nearly
nothing because the advertising dollars that used to prop up print
media are now scooped up by Google etc. This is a relatively recent
development. When I got fired by the Voice in 2006, Microsoft,
which still imagined there was money plus prestige to be gained in the
verbal content business, offered me a generous word rate that in 2010,
after corporate concluded that verbal content was actually a loser,
cut by 80 percent and four years later offed me altogether. Then the
fledgling Medium picked up the prestigious Consumer Guide for an
excellent rate only to look at its balance sheets a year later and let
me go. A few months later I was hired by Vice's Noisey music
"vertical" at a measly word rate informed advisors thought I'd never
get though in retrospect I could probably have upped it a bit--and in
June 2019, increasingly strapped, decided to expend its pittance
elsewhere. Whereupon up popped Substack, about which I was exceedingly
skeptical. But Joe Levy convinced me to give it a shot, and
subscribers chipped in at a much greater rate than I thought
possible. As I've said many times, I'm flattered and gratified by
this. But I'm also inspired to put in something approaching full-time
hours--I am not a fast writer--so as to give paying fans I didn't know
were there content I believe is something like what they want. I see
no reason to believe any other writer could provide that particular
content. Nor is there any economic model I can conceive that might
transfer any meaningful proportion of my take to the shared
journalistic weal. And of course, it is inventing new and different
economic models, something I have no gift for at all, that might
somehow change this inequity if that's what it is--which I'm far too
proud of how good a critic I am to believe.
[Q] Hi Bob, I wanna thank you for putting me onto so much great African (Victor Uwaifo, Thomas Mapfumo, Orchestra Baobab, E.T. Mensah, King Sunny Ade, and many others) and World musicians (notably Tom Zé & Coupé Cloué). Being especially fond of the great Congolese rumba and soukous music (Le Grand Kallé, Franco, Docteur Nico, Tabu Ley, Papa Wemba, Koffi Olomide), I wondered if you could recommend me any good books about Congolese music in general or the major artists in particular. -- Paulino Kubala, Brussels [A]
Graeme Ewens's Franco biography Congo Colossus is an excellent
start. And in Is It Still Good to Ya? there's a piece called
"Forty Years of History, Thirty Seconds
of Joy" based partly on Bob W. White's more academic Rumba
Rules, which is quite terrific even though it was researched in
the '90s, after soukous's various golden ages. That piece also
recommends several other books about Zaire worth checking out. Most
useful is Adam Hochschild's King Leopold's Ghost, which has no
music in it and should but is damn good anyway--better, I should add,
than documentary of the same title, which is nonetheless a properly
grueling experience any soukous fan owes the music and was available
on Amazon Prime when we watched it a few months ago.
[Q] You called Billie Eilish's When We All Fall Asleep "the most impressive debut album by a teenager" since Elvis's Sun Sessions. That got me thinking--what are your favorite releases by older musicians? People in their 70s, 80s, even 90s? -- Nick, California [A]
As it happens, I not long ago
published here an old PopCon
lecture that addressed this very question with special emphasis on
Peter Stampfel and Willie Nelson. Right behind Stampfel and Nelson,
I'd single out
the 2018 Blue Lu Barker tribute
Maria Muldaur did at 75--and except for the less remarkable Tuba
Skinny collab that came out in 2021 also the only album she's released
in her seventies.
[Q] A little while back in the introduction to your resurfacing of an old piece about Biz Markie, you wrote that you were boycotting Van Morrison. I've felt similarly disappointed and disgusted by him of late. (Same goes for Eric Clapton.) Short of him renouncing things he's said--which seems unlikely--is there anything that would bring you back to his music? I have so much love for so much of his work, and I'm tempted to justify continuing to listen with the belief that the man singing "Into the Mystic" or "Everyone" is not the old crank talking harmful nonsense today. But that leap can feel awfully forced on some days. Should I be making it at all? Does it make an ethical difference if I'm listening to CDs and albums I've already bought and not listening to streams? I.E., not putting more money in his pocket. I guess I'm just curious to know more about how you draw--and might redraw--your lines in a case like Van's. -- David Marchese, Brooklyn [A]
Ever read Barney Hoskyns's excellent Small Town Talk, about the
Woodstock "scene"? Van's not a major player there, but he gets what I
presume is his due, which left me with no doubt that he's long if not
always been a major prick. When I read it back in 2018 this did not
stop me from listening to Moondance or Into the Music or
"Jackie Wilson Said." Nor has the ignorant, reactionary,
racist-to-anti-Semitic blather he and his homeboy Clapton have been
spewing during the pandemic turned me off their music (though the only
Clapton I actively like is half a century old) because, yes, the music
has its own reality. You could even say that the guy who's making the
music is not the prick--that he inhabits or creates some other reality
when he sings and plays. So my boycott is about Morrison's current
Latest Record Project, which
Greil Marcus did review and thought sounded pretty good until it
approached the Protocols of the Elders of Zion part. But
Greil's a big big Van fan, where I've merely found some value in his
ceaseless recent output. So it's easy enough for me to say fuck that
shit.
[Q] The phrase "meaning-mongering" shows up in your reviews from time to time. How exactly do you define this term? Is it always a bad thing? If not, how does one successfully pull it off? -- Austin, Missouri [A] "From time to time," I read. Gee, I thought, not exactly a witty term, why would I do that? So I Googled my site and got precisely one hit: a 2001 Turkey Shoot pan that read:
All of which I take to indicate that, for reasons I no longer
remember, Tool was my post-9/11 choice to symbolize the
ever-burgeoning pretensions of metal, which by then my readers
presumably knew I didn't have much use for unless Led Zeppelin or
Motorhead counted. What I'm really insulting in this very terse review
is fantasy as opposed to science fiction, the overstatements of jazz
fusion, and rock's eternal "progressive" tic. The virgin crack, I
should add, I don't get. Were Tool deep into phallic sexism? Can't
recall, don't much care. Hate that shit in hip-hop too.
[Q] Have you ever written a hit record, or any record for that matter? -- Brad Ballantyne, Richmondshire, England August 18, 2021Pleasure without guilt, inspirational verses, the generosity of Sonny Rollins and David Bowie (et. al.), bridging the language gap (or not), and the selling of bridges and other products of capitalism [Q] Hi Bob, I was wondering if there is any music/album/artist that you thoroughly enjoy personally but as a critic wouldn't feel comfortable defending or recommending to anyone. I suppose the common term for it is "guilty pleasure," although I would want to object to the insinuation that it has to be associated with the idea of guilt (or even shame). Another way to ask this question would be: Is there a difference between you as a human being who enjoys music and you in your role as a critic, and if the answer is yes, what does it look like? -- LD Schulz, Hamburg, Germany [A]
I don't believe in guilty pleasures, as I explain in the prologue to
my Is It Still Good to Ya? collection, which began its life as
a lecture at a PopCon devoted for better or worse to the guilty
pleasure idea. And as far as I'm concerned, any critic who doesn't
write as a human being who enjoys the art form at hand--although
"cares about," "is interested in," and other less hedonistic verbs
could be subbed in there--is doing a disservice to criticism and
indeed humanity.
[Q] Anyone addicted to your website has undoubtedly come across the "Inspirational Verse." Sometimes it's clear you deem the IV the crown jewel of a record, and other times, like in your slightly harsh review of the Prince side project The Family, it is hilariously sarcastic. How did the IV come about and when do you choose to deploy it? -- Joe, U.K. [A]
I don't have the fortitude to come up with an exact date, but it seems
to me I've been using the Inspirational Verse device since very early
in the Consumer Guide's history even though I don't find it in any of
the scant CG material I included in my 1973 collection Any Old Way You
Choose It. It serves two functions: a) a readymade way to single out
lyrics worthy of note for better or worse that can also be b) a quick
way to end a review I don't have a capper for. A Google search of my
site suggests that I've put it in play something over 200 times. Glad
you enjoy it--that's the idea.
[Q] Listening to Saxophone Colossus this unseasonably rainy morning reminded me that you recently referred to Newk as an artist of a certain "generosity" (also Coltrane, Parton, Aretha, Lamar, among other inveterate favorites of mine) and you seemed to suggest that this quality of generosity (or "spirituality") exists distinctly from anger and wit. A Google Search led me to a few other instances where you've made reference to a musician's generosity--Young Americans was Bowie's "generosity of spirit" renewed, for instance. What a lovely turn of phrase--it almost sounds utopian--but I can't seem to grok what you mean. In what ways is Rollins's generosity like Bowie's? Is it qualifiable or hopelessly nebulous? Personal note: I've been reading your work since I was 17 (I'm now 30) and your anger, wit, and (dare I say?) generosity has shaped how I listen to and think about the world around me. Engaging with you in this forum is a tremendous privilege. Thank you and stay safe out there. -- Daniel Tovar, San Antonio [A]
"Generosity" can mean many different things, and while it's generally
distinguishable from both anger and wit, most of those things can
certainly coexist with anger and wit.
In Rollins's case, however, I'd
say generosity, along with facility and the more closely related ease,
is at the center of why we care so much about him. (Spirituality, I
should add, seems to me a rather different thing.) Love of music and
the sounds he can make with his horn is discernible or maybe just
imaginable in every phrase he plays. Bowie is far more a poser and
ironist plus someone whose rather European aesthetic sense stopped
hitting me anywhere near where I live in the mid '80s. But on
Young Americans in
particular, which was much earlier, it felt like he was reaching out
to his rapidly expanding fanbase and hence embracing his own stardom
head on rather than holding it at an ironic distance. This impulse
soon engendered
Station to Station, which
remains the only album of his I love wholeheartedly and play for sheer
pleasure. To which let me add that the idea that I can convey any of
this to listeners half a century my junior is an equally tremendous
privilege.
[Q] You once answered a question about which foreign language you'd like to master saying it'd be Portuguese. Given that you're a big enthusiast of Tom Zé's work and have also reviewed other Brazilian big names such as Gil, Veloso, and Elza Soares, I'd like to know why haven't you reviewed any other Jorge Ben album except his collaboration with Gil (which you liked)? Do you have any thoughts about his music? Thanks a lot! -- Mateus Paz, Rio de Janeiro [A]
No, but I admit I haven't tried that hard. A friend once gave me a
copy of Africa Brasil, which I played dutifully more than once at the
time and replayed again when I read your query only to find myself
once again unable to breach the language barrier--or maybe I just
don't get Ben, a rhythm artist for whom lyrics aren't necessarily
paramount, due to some glitch in my general response mechanism. There
are clearly great lyricists in African music--Franco and Youssou
N'Dour by all accounts and some translations come to mind. But the
musicality of those two artists and so many others subsumes the verbal
content. In contrast, Brazilian music tends more pop in the Tin Pan
Alley sense, which means among other things that it's designed to
accompany or even showcase lyrics and thus can't fully connect with
those who don't understand them. There might well be other negative
factors as well--there's a classiness about the Brazilian pop ideal
that's not my kind of thing. But the language differential makes it
harder for me to bridge that gap.
[Q] In your review of Wanna Buy a Bridge? [younguns: legendary 1980 Britpunk comp], you singled out Delta 5's "Mind Your Own Business" as one of the highlights, and I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on the song's recent appearance in an iPhone commercial. (Greil Marcus praised it in his June Real Life Rock column.) And/or any thoughts in general on the practice of using punk songs to shill for corporations? (The Buzzcocks, Iggy, Sonic Youth, Jesus & Mary Chain, and Gang of 4 have all authorized such spots.) -- Scott Woods, Toronto [A]
This goes back to the vexed circa-1969 question of whether Aretha
should do a Coke commercial, which neither I nor my more Marxian
then-partner Ellen Willis had any problem with. Let artists we loved
shovel up more money--this was capitalism, and rock and roll was a
product of capitalism. So I've seldom moralized about such
machinations, though these days I guess it would depend on the
corporation: no fossil fuels, no big banks, probably not much
international agribusiness either. But much as I distrust big tech,
that's a much closer call. I mean, I own an iPhone myself, albeit one
I inherited from Nina. And drink loads of Diet Coke too. There are so
many graver economic injustices and disconnects to address.
|
|