Tag Archives: Robert Christgau

A Premature Eulogy for Robert Christgau

Robert Christgau isn’t dead. He slips on his orthotics and goes to shows; he listens closely to many hundreds of new records a year and writes beautifully about dozens of them. I don’t want to wait until the 75-year-old rock critic kicks the bucket to consider his virtues and talk about how much I love him.

Christgau at home. Image lifted from Brooklyn Magazine profile "The Dean's List"

Christgau at home. Image lifted from Brooklyn Magazine profile “The Dean’s List”

Christgau’s lifelong affection for the rock and roll’s collective cultural appeal, physical pleasure, and black-led but deeply integrated racial history has made him prickly toward those who apply high-art ambitions to the genre. It’s also made him unusually sensitive, as white critics go, to the ways that race and racism play out in rock and roll.

As early as 1967, mainstream tastemakers began to embrace the more ambitious white West Coast and English rockers as “geniuses” making “art” in the mixed idiom of rock and roll, conferring a cultural legitimacy (and a European Modernist heritage) on their cryptic lyrics and heady, baroque arrangements. This legitimacy would long elude, say, black geniuses in the rock and roll tradition, from James Brown to Holland-Dozier-Holland. Surveying the white-dominated, “forward-thinking” scene at that year’s Monterey Pop Festival, Christgau noted that he didn’t see anyone there who felt their music had a kinship “with, say, Martha and the Vandellas.” As rock became “art,” with the racial baggage this implied, Christgau stuck with his own sense of pleasure as a critic, refusing to take surface opacity for depth.

And as recently as last year, he noted that the much-maligned hit-factory style currently dominating pop—where beatmakers shop their rhythms to producers who match those backing tracks to a series of hookwriters and then to a singer—had at last undone the Eurocentric tradition of songwriting credits (and royalties) being divided between the lyricist and melodist. For decades, the rhythmmakers—the crew that carries the song’s heartbeat, the people who make a good tune a hit—being consigned only to per-session payment, or at best a small slice of royalties. Now, thanks to the hit factory, they’re the first ones getting paid.

101382-full

1978. Lifted from Pacifica’s website: http://www.scpr.org/

He has the kind of beautifully subtle distinction in his listening that comes from paying close attention to his own sense of pleasure ahead of—and sometimes against—critical chatter. His acuteness means he can find things to admire and enjoy even in records that make him uneasy or that he’s inclined to strongly dislike. He’s not afraid to speak in moral terms about records he finds revolting. Plus, of course, his writing’s polish and concision means he can say/evoke/riff on/crack wise about a lot in very few words. It remains damn refreshing to read criticism that (to echo a formulation from writer Carl Wilson) works hard to locate for whom, to whom, and by what channels a work of art speaks: Christgau’s criticism is social, free of bohemian chauvinism. It’s also refreshing that, though Christgau has zero interest in making himself like something, he’s willing to ask himself what it’s like for him to like something, and share the fruits of this question with his readers.

(This is not to cover up some obnoxious moments in his writing—at one point referring to Hendrix, an artist he adored, as a “psychedelic Uncle Tom”; making a nasty sexist quip about the Donnas; chastising Nas and Damian Marley’s critical Afrocentrism by informing them that critical dissent is protected thanks only to the European Enlightenment. And, of course, sometimes I find his reviews reactionary or misguided or etc. He’s written a lot.)

And then, of course, there are the fruits of his work. Through his inimitable and seemingly inexhaustible Consumer Guide (14,000 reviews there to browse), I’ve discovered easily a hundred completely-new-to-me-at-the-time records I now adore. (Surely I’m not the only one to trawl Spotify with his A-pluses in a separate tab?) This spring alone I’m getting to know Wussy’s Funeral Songs, Kate & Anna McGarrigle’s Tell My Sister rarities collection, the Three Tenors of Soul’s All the Way from Philadelphia, Sly & Robbie Present Taxi, Sam Mangwana’s Maria Tebbo twofer, Amy LaVere’s Hallelujah I’m a Dreamer, and Ornette Coleman’s Of Human Feelings. He hates metal; he’s grossed out by most jazz fusion; he detests prog rock. But he’ll listen attentively to it three times before he tells you so.

Christgau, I look forward to years of not-having-to-miss-you-yet.

Love

JAT

Comments Off on A Premature Eulogy for Robert Christgau

Filed under music

Canons as Such

As a big reader and a complete fanatic about music, I’ve wondered why I don’t really like Top Ten lists, or statements of “essential works.” Canons aren’t something I’ve given up: I spent college telling people how I’d read Ulysses (not a lie); at the end of every year, I work my way through year’s-best lists of indie rock, African pop reissues, and basement noise squalls; I read or at least tried every book on my professor Mary Jo Bang’s recommended-in-2009 poetry and avant-garde theatre list. But I don’t enjoy consuming canons, I don’t like the trying-to-get-it feeling I get in the presence of art I’m told is great or important, and I don’t like trading my appetites for tastes.

So—what does a canon suppose? What’s the difference between, say, a mixtape and Harold Bloom’s Western Canon?

Canons are a stance, an intellectual flex and assertion in a world just as status-conscious as, say, the halls of Congress or a boy’s locker room. A cultural institution names what’s important to make itself important; it creates a synthesis to imply extremes (“we consider art from here to here”) then establish itself as a mediating center. The larger part of canonizing consists of nods toward tokens or toward those-too-important-to-ignore; the rest consists of conveying impressiveness, seriousness, breadth.

It seems lists are more trustworthy when they’re for and from someone. If my student asks me what to read next, I tell her eight things and encourage her to eat them, spit them out, demand answers of them, and marry them. Instead of placing you at a center, a good list (anything—a mixtape, the top-rated things on your Goodreads, a photocopied course packet) can show how lost and enamored you feel. It also exposes your limits, putting less vertical distance between yourself and the folks you’re sharing with.

The thing is, even simple eclecticism (like: today at my desk I’ve played Mbilia Bel, Thank You, and Nicki Minaj, but I’m not telling anybody about it, except you!) isn’t a virtue on its own. Part of a “comprehensive” canon is to demonstrate the cultural capital you’ve accrued: look how cosmopolitan I am. It also fosters the polite liberal-politics notion that the “answer’s in the middle,” between two strong positions. If a later Bloom includes both Billy and Girl and Washington Square in his temple of texts, he’s charting your middle path, teaching moderation-by-example. Too, in local culture, list-making is political, a curated set of mutually beneficial relationships: I gain status by calling attention to you, you gain influence by my calling-attention. (And I’ll maybe curate a festival for you, and my forty other best friends, making you famous or dead-to-the-world in the guise of reviewing you.)

The question is, how can an outlet for opinion make itself part of a community rather than a gatekeeper for one?

…And, well, shit, at the end of all this high-toned talk of mine, I still do like a few lists. The website Tiny Mixtapes is musically narrow and can be prickly in their approach to more “pop”-leaning art, but they feel like lovers, gourmands at the table instead of gourmets. You can see the thread—emotion, sprawl, extremity—connecting their love of the Dardenne Brothers, Big Boi, Zs. (They’re on the edge of being crate-diggers, offerers rather than critics.)

Annnnnd Robert Christgau, the rock critic, is cheerful, prejudiced, and unserene (compare the difference in tone between his Consumer Guide reviews of Randy Newman and of, say, XTC). And eclectic: His favorite album of 2009 was Brad Paisley’s, of 2008 was Franco’s, his favorite album of the decade was M.I.A.’s, his favorite single of the decade was James McMurtry’s. “I’ve been resisting the hipper-than-thou for four decades. But still it beckons.”

How about for you? How do you share something like taste?

1 Comment

Filed under music, politics