Immerse Your Soul In Love - The Radiohead Thread

[Ericj32]

Oh no doubt but unfortunately not many IDM records were hitting the Billboard Top 200 at the time. The resulting popularity then drove people like me and my friends to check out artists like Aphex Twin, Boards Of Canada, Autechre, The Black Dog, LFO, etc.

Everyone heard that LFO song about girls who wear Abercrombie and Fitch though.






haha jk I know they're not the same LFO

 

[bettim84]

Honest answer: I'd read some of his articles on Grantland years ago that kind of vaguely rubbed me the wrong way, so I just didn't really go seeking out his other articles after a while - the only things I really remember are that: (1) he seemed pretty giddy about the Ryan Adams cover album of Taylor Swift's "1989"; (2) he also wrote about how he was just such a big Oasis fan that he decided to harbor his own weird grudge against everything Damon Albarn did (Blur, Gorillaz, solo stuff, etc) - he seemed to admit that it was silly, but the length of the article seemed to indicate that he was like...proud of himself for it; (3) He kind of trashed Katy Perry's super bowl performance as being like too safe (even though it was actually one of the better and more memorable super bowl halftime shows ever [left shark, that walking on stilts thing she did for "Roar," Missy Elliott, etc.] and said that taking risks was what made them good and that's why the Justin Timberlake - Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction super bowl halftime show was the greatest ever, in his opinion. I used to read Grantland's Hollywood Prospectus pretty consistently and remember loving nearly everything Andy Greenwald, Rembert Browne, and Alex Pappademas wrote and I'd at least skim most of the articles by Amos Barshad, Molly Lambert, and Mark Lisanti, but for other writers like Hyden and Jay Caspian Kang, I'd only really read their stuff if the title/topic of the article was intriguing.

My impression of Hyden was this weird mix of, on the one hand, seeming fairly pretentious about his own authority as a music critic while, at the same time, never really giving readers anything substantive or insightful to justify his strongly-worded opinions (I remember looking for those breadcrumbs haha), and also fanboying out about stuff that he seemed to know wasn't really that important, but he just didn't really care to spare readers by editing himself at all. He also seemed condescending towards certain artists in a way that wasn't based on their technical ability, creative decisions, or ability to perform live for a crowd, but rather based on whether they seemed "cool" or not in a cultural sense. He doesn't seem to have any actual musical knowledge or experience other than as a listener. I hate to draw this comparison, but it's kind of been staring me in the face - I think the first time I interacted with Storf on the forums and read some of his stuff, I googled "Grantland contributors" to see if it was the same guy. Same obtuse energy under a chatty veneer of click-bait-y pop culture soundbytes.

But, I have a lot of friends (including people on here) who, in recent years, have enjoyed and recommended Hyden's books, and since I love Kid A, and it seems like he does, too, I figured that this book would be a good entry point, and that I wouldn't really have to love his style to still enjoy the book. I was also open to the possibility that maybe he'd changed his style over the years or wrote his published books with a different, more careful, less casual tone than he used in blog articles. Or maybe I'd pick up on something in his writing that I'd missed before that would make it click for me. Or maybe, he'd just stick to talking about Kid A and Radiohead and not go on about his opinions on everything else. But yeah, none of that seems to have happened.

Last but not least, to answer your question: I wasn't born and raised in the Midwest but my parents were and I've spent some time out there with family every year of my life (that's where literally all of my aunts/uncles/cousins live). I also did 4 years of college in Minnesota - so, even though I don't consider myself to be Midwestern, I have a lot of Midwestern friends and family - I'm not like bigoted against Midwestern people. And none of the Midwestern people I know would presume to tell me what to think about music without actually knowing something about it themselves haha.

I appreciate your thorough reply!

I was not suggesting that you had anything against Midwesterners. I was only suspecting that you did not share stereotypical Midwestern sensibilities, and wondering whether that was an aspect of Hyden’s writing/personality that rubbed you the wrong way.

Now I’m suspecting that the reason I enjoy his columns is precisely because I’m not a musician myself. Sure, I’ve dabbled in bass and played in Legion Halls when I was younger (one of my shitty bands opened for Russian Circles, in what must have been the biggest discrepancy in musicianship in a single bill in the history of concerts), but I had an unproductive punk mentality that “anyone can play”… which actually got in the way of my learning anything about how to play or compose music. So whenever I talk about music, it’s really all about how it makes me feel, not about what the musicians are technically doing. Perhaps the reason I like Hyden’s writing is because we relate to music in a similar way (big fans with no technical expertise).

And yet! I generally feel comfortable “telling people what to think about music without actually knowing something about it” (though I’ll usually do it in the similarly self-aware manner that Hyden employs in his work). I also never use the word “condescending” to describe anyone, which is probably a sign that I am the most likely person in any given group to be called that. I guess I don’t see it as a negative trait particularly in the realm of music criticism: the job is literally to tell people, “this music here is good, this other music is not so good, so I recommend spending more time with the former.” Whatever reasons the critic has to support their conclusions are likely to come off as condescending/arrogant if you don’t agree with them.

Incidentally, I don’t agree with Hyden’s music opinions all that often. His favorite artists are Dylan (who I’m neutral on), the Stones (who I like, but not nearly as much as the Beatles), and Springsteen (whose music I generally dislike). He seems to enjoy making fun of Grimes (one of my favorite artists of the last 10 years), but that’s ok because disagreeing about music is fun.

And he’s written extensively about Oasis/Blur thing; he was an Oasis fanboy in his youth, which meant he had to hate Blur. Eventually he grew out of it and started enjoying Damon Albarn’s stuff, but has come to terms with the fact that he prefers Oasis. As someone who was a metalhead as a teen, I can 100% relate to the social obligation of hating certain music/artists, and also to be both embarrassed and proud of my dubious-taste history. It was dumb, but not something I need to apologize for in retrospect.

I’m with you on one thing: I don’t like to read Hyden’s writing on other pop culture (TV, movies, etc.), though that may be largely because I don’t enjoy TV, movies, etc.

 

[TenderLovingKiller®]

I appreciate your thorough reply!

I was not suggesting that you had anything against Midwesterners. I was only suspecting that you did not share stereotypical Midwestern sensibilities, and wondering whether that was an aspect of Hyden’s writing/personality that rubbed you the wrong way.

Now I’m suspecting that the reason I enjoy his columns is precisely because I’m not a musician myself. Sure, I’ve dabbled in bass and played in Legion Halls when I was younger (one of my shitty bands opened for Russian Circles, in what must have been the biggest discrepancy in musicianship in a single bill in the history of concerts), but I had an unproductive punk mentality that “anyone can play”… which actually got in the way of my learning anything about how to play or compose music. So whenever I talk about music, it’s really all about how it makes me feel, not about what the musicians are technically doing. Perhaps the reason I like Hyden’s writing is because we relate to music in a similar way (big fans with no technical expertise).

And yet! I generally feel comfortable “telling people what to think about music without actually knowing something about it” (though I’ll usually do it in the similarly self-aware manner that Hyden employs in his work). I also never use the word “condescending” to describe anyone, which is probably a sign that I am the most likely person in any given group to be called that. I guess I don’t see it as a negative trait particularly in the realm of music criticism: the job is literally to tell people, “this music here is good, this other music is not so good, so I recommend spending more time with the former.” Whatever reasons the critic has to support their conclusions are likely to come off as condescending/arrogant if you don’t agree with them.

Incidentally, I don’t agree with Hyden’s music opinions all that often. His favorite artists are Dylan (who I’m neutral on), the Stones (who I like, but not nearly as much as the Beatles), and Springsteen (whose music I generally dislike). He seems to enjoy making fun of Grimes (one of my favorite artists of the last 10 years), but that’s ok because disagreeing about music is fun.

And he’s written extensively about Oasis/Blur thing; he was an Oasis fanboy in his youth, which meant he had to hate Blur. Eventually he grew out of it and started enjoying Damon Albarn’s stuff, but has come to terms with the fact that he prefers Oasis. As someone who was a metalhead as a teen, I can 100% relate to the social obligation of hating certain music/artists, and also to be both embarrassed and proud of my dubious-taste history. It was dumb, but not something I need to apologize for in retrospect.

I’m with you on one thing: I don’t like to read Hyden’s writing on other pop culture (TV, movies, etc.), though that may be largely because I don’t enjoy TV, movies, etc.

I can relate with this most of this. As someone who grew up with zero music ability yet I was also the guy who would bring burned CDs mixes to other peoples parties and appoint myself the de facto DJ though usually it would cause the hosts to roll their eyes hard and tell anyone who would listen about the obscure song that I pulled off of some MP3 music blog the night before and why they should like it. I have (thankfully) grown out of that for the most part.

 

[Ericj32]

And yet! I generally feel comfortable “telling people what to think about music without actually knowing something about it” (though I’ll usually do it in the similarly self-aware manner that Hyden employs in his work). I also never use the word “condescending” to describe anyone, which is probably a sign that I am the most likely person in any given group to be called that. I guess I don’t see it as a negative trait particularly in the realm of music criticism: the job is literally to tell people, “this music here is good, this other music is not so good, so I recommend spending more time with the former.” Whatever reasons the critic has to support their conclusions are likely to come off as condescending/arrogant if you don’t agree with them.

Yeah that all makes sense. It’s fine for everyone to have their own opinions about music regardless of whether they themselves are musicians. Music is universal and intimate and makes people feel meaningful things - it’s the most primal and enduring art form that we have. We’re all going to have strong feelings about it, for good reason. And we can also have fun throwing around opinions and pretending to be experts and arguing about our preferences as if they really matter (as long as we agree that, in the end, they don’t).

But the idea of someone making money off of pretending to have any objectivity or authority justifying their own opinions about music when they are focusing purely on their own subjective experience of it and not even really trying to analyze or evaluate a song or album based on any of its more objective musical qualities just seems really counterproductive and dumb. Like it might work on an ironic level if you admit there’s no objective value to what you’re saying, and everyone knows that you’re just being facetious. And maybe a lot of his audience knows to take what he says with that grain of salt.

But if not, it’s like the very fact that he’s doing what he’s doing contributes to this toxic presumption that a song or album is primarily a processed commodity with a particular place in a somewhat narrowly defined American cultural context and he’s proclaimed himself to be an indispensable expert on telling you where each band or album fits into that framework. I would love to hear his thoughts on artists that are creating music that doesn’t squarely center him as their target audience - does he have the capacity to acknowledge and respect music that’s not for him? He seems to put his own subjective experience of music as a spectator up on a pedestal, towering over the subjective experiences of actual musicians and artist who, in addition to being able to sit back and listen to music just as well as he can, actually have concrete and objective knowledge of how music works and what it takes to write the albums and perform the songs. I don’t think that his perspective and the opinions that flow from it are healthy or constructive in the sense of promoting musical creativity or innovation in any culture - and shouldn’t that be the goal? Don’t we all want that? It seems pretty dehumanizing to bands and artists to promote this idea that their role is to pander to his or anyone’s subjective preferences or to try to position themselves culturally in a way that he will appreciate and respect. That doesn’t lead to good music that takes risks and moves the art form forward and blows our minds. That doesn’t give us Pet Sounds or Kid A. He seems to believe that his authority to tell others what to think and feel about music stems from his extensive familiarity with American popular culture, as if there is anything concrete or objective at all there that really requires thoughtful examination and rigorous study in order to form a valid opinion. The only thing he seems to actually be an expert on is his own constructed view of what the cultural landscape is. He bases his opinions on trivial cultural factoids rather than anything actually related to music itself and that naturally leads him to form really disgusting opinions about genuinely talented, hard-working musicians that objectively deserve much more of his respect than he realizes, because what they’re doing has real value, even if he’s unable to appreciate it. There are writers that are conscious of their own subjectivity and the limits that their own inescapable perspective imposes on their ability to appreciate everything that merits appreciation, but he doesn’t seem to have developed that same kind of awareness.

 

[TenderLovingKiller®]

Yeah that all makes sense. It’s fine for everyone to have their own opinions about music regardless of whether they themselves are musicians. Music is universal and intimate and makes people feel meaningful things - it’s the most primal and enduring art form that we have. We’re all going to have strong feelings about it, for good reason. And we can also have fun throwing around opinions and pretending to be experts and arguing about our preferences as if they really matter (as long as we agree that, in the end, they don’t).

But the idea of someone making money off of pretending to have any objectivity or authority justifying their own opinions about music when they are focusing purely on their own subjective experience of it and not even really trying to analyze or evaluate a song or album based on any of its more objective musical qualities just seems really counterproductive and dumb. Like it might work on an ironic level if you admit there’s no objective value to what you’re saying, and everyone knows that you’re just being facetious. And maybe a lot of his audience knows to take what he says with that grain of salt.

But if not, it’s like the very fact that he’s doing what he’s doing contributes to this toxic presumption that a song or album is primarily a processed commodity with a particular place in a somewhat narrowly defined American cultural context and he’s proclaimed himself to be an indispensable expert on telling you where each band or album fits into that framework. I would love to hear his thoughts on artists that are creating music that doesn’t squarely center him as their target audience - does he have the capacity to acknowledge and respect music that’s not for him? He seems to put his own subjective experience of music as a spectator up on a pedestal, towering over the subjective experiences of actual musicians and artist who, in addition to being able to sit back and listen to music just as well as he can, actually have concrete and objective knowledge of how music works and what it takes to write the albums and perform the songs. I don’t think that his perspective and the opinions that flow from it are healthy or constructive in the sense of promoting musical creativity or innovation in any culture - and shouldn’t that be the goal? Don’t we all want that? It seems pretty dehumanizing to bands and artists to promote this idea that their role is to pander to his or anyone’s subjective preferences or to try to position themselves culturally in a way that he will appreciate and respect. That doesn’t lead to good music that takes risks and moves the art form forward and blows our minds. That doesn’t give us Pet Sounds or Kid A. He seems to believe that his authority to tell others what to think and feel about music stems from his extensive familiarity with American popular culture, as if there is anything concrete or objective at all there that really requires thoughtful examination and rigorous study in order to form a valid opinion. The only thing he seems to actually be an expert on is his own constructed view of what the cultural landscape is. He bases his opinions on trivial cultural factoids rather than anything actually related to music itself and that naturally leads him to form really disgusting opinions about genuinely talented, hard-working musicians that objectively deserve much more of his respect than he realizes, because what they’re doing has real value, even if he’s unable to appreciate it. There are writers that are conscious of their own subjectivity and the limits that their own inescapable perspective imposes on their ability to appreciate everything that merits appreciation, but he doesn’t seem to have developed that same kind of awareness.

Regardless what Steve is writing topic wise or regardless of whether I agree with his opinion doesn’t effect the enjoyment I get from reading his prose. For me the important part is that I find his writing to be entertaining and to me he delivers that in very humerus and relatable ways.

I think it’s clear that for some reason I don’t fully comprehend you don’t care for his writing style…which is fine. Different strokes for different folks. Still I read your above description and it feels like you are describing a completely different guy. Steve is a bright affable guy. He’s active on Twitter and interacts with musicians, writers and followers regularly in a friendly and warm manner which I think is similar to his writing style.

It’s almost like you think he is an imposter or fraud and thusly where does he get off telling us how we should feel about music. Maybe that is where the disconnect lies; I think Steve is a wonderful music critic that loves music and writes well (the only two real requirements for the profession, really). Also, when I read his work, to me, Steve isn’t telling you how you should feel something but instead is describing his feelings and why he enjoys it or dislikes it. You can take it or leave it. He doesn’t come off as someone who would be offended if someone didn’t agree with him on something. I don’t think he has ever proclaimed himself to be an indispensable expert on anything.

 

[TenderLovingKiller®]

LOL! I was just perusing the liner note on the Jerry Garcia Band reissue I just picked up. Not sure if you enjoy Jerry Garcia @Ericj32 , but if you do. Ya might wanna ignore the write up…

 

[bettim84]

Still I read your above description and it feels like you are describing a completely different guy. Steve is a bright affable guy. He’s active on Twitter and interacts with musicians, writers and followers regularly in a friendly and warm manner which I think is similar to his writing style.

It’s almost like you think he is an imposter or fraud and thusly where does he get off telling us how we should feel about music and maybe that is where the disconnect lies; I think Steve is a wonderful music critic that loves music and writes well (the only two real requirements for the profession, really). Also, when I read his work, to me, Steve isn’t telling you how you should feel something but instead is describing his feelings and why he enjoys it or dislikes it. You can take it or leave it. He doesn’t come off as someone who would be offended if someone didn’t agree with him on something. I don’t think he has ever proclaimed himself to be an indispensable expert on anything.

Agreed; the main reason this discussion has been entertaining is because I’m fascinated by how people’s opinions can differ, to the point that it feels like we’re experiencing different realities. Come to think of it, politics is kind of like that.

But the idea of someone making money off of pretending to have any objectivity or authority justifying their own opinions about music when they are focusing purely on their own subjective experience of it and not even really trying to analyze or evaluate a song or album based on any of its more objective musical qualities just seems really counterproductive and dumb.

This is the only part of what you wrote that rubbed me the wrong way. The author is trying to make a living as a music critic; I assume he’s not exactly rolling in dough. As someone who struggles to make a living in the Midwest, all I can think is kudos to him for being able to carve out a career doing something he (presumably) loves.

 

[Ericj32]

It’s almost like you think he is an imposter or fraud and thusly where does he get off telling us how we should feel about music and maybe that is where the disconnect lies; I think Steve is a wonderful music critic that loves music and writes well (the only two real requirements for the profession, really). Also, when I read his work, to me, Steve isn’t telling you how you should feel something but instead is describing his feelings and why he enjoys it or dislikes it. You can take it or leave it. He doesn’t come off as someone who would be offended if someone didn’t agree with him on something. I don’t think he has ever proclaimed himself to be an indispensable expert on anything.

Yeah that's fair - I don't think he's actively trying to con people into liking things for the wrong reasons, but I do think that he lacks the authority and qualifications to have the platform that he has to write about music and just probably doesn't realize it. His perspective on this kind of art just comes off as somewhat disingenuous and limiting because he lacks the vocabulary to talk about it and doesn't really know how to meaningfully engage with it. To your point about the only qualifications being loving music and writing well - I would say that I'm not sure that he really does either very well. I've already pointed out some of my issues with his writing style, and the evidence he offers to support his opinions generally has less to do with his own honest experience of the music itself and more to do with irrelevant tangentially related facts about how other (usually American white male) cultural figures have referenced it (i.e. Pretty Lights mash-ups and Ben Affleck movie trailers). His writing just feels kind of hollow and soulless to me because it's just an endless string of cultural references that he stitches together to assign value. He doesn't seem to want or have the ability to engage with the music directly in a meaningful way so he settles for just documenting what other people have said about it or done with it and mashes all of that together to form his own take and then doubles down on making grandiose claims. It just feels more like BuzzFeed clickbait than thoughtful criticism. I don't think he's interested in exploring the value that the music has for it's own sake, because he's more preoccupied with his chosen role as a cultural gatekeeper for the rest of us. He just seems to have a really narrow and shallow view of what culture amounts to.

Agreed; the main reason this discussion has been entertaining is because I’m fascinated by how people’s opinions can differ, to the point that it feels like we’re experiencing different realities. Come to think of it, politics is kind of like that.


This is the only part of what you wrote that rubbed me the wrong way. The author is trying to make a living as a music critic; I assume he’s not exactly rolling in dough. As someone who struggles to make a living in the Midwest, all I can think is kudos to him for being able to carve out a career doing something he (presumably) loves.

Totally agree. I find it really fascinating how differently we react to Hyden's writing on Radiohead and Kid A, even though we all love the band and love the album. There are so many different things to like about Radiohead and to appreciate about Kid A and we're all going to have different entry points as to why we love it. I'm much more interested in that kind of discussion with you all than if someone came in here and just posted a bunch of tweets or articles from other people and shoved it in our face to make declarative statements about "why Radiohead really matters" rather than saying what they actually think based on their own subjective experience. I just think his writing takes the discussion about the meaning of Radiohead in a direction that isn't constructive or worthwhile.

And I know that we all have to make a living. But if you're going to make a living as a music critic who charges people money to read your thoughts, people are going to have a reasonable expectation that you have some kind of expertise in the area that you choose to write about and your written critiques offer both your subjects and your readers something of value. I haven't come across much in his writing that in any way enhances my appreciation of the music itself because he's either not interested in that discussion or doesn't know how to dig into that (or maybe both). I can't give him kudos for making money doing something he loves because, he doesn't extend that same spirit of appreciation to musicians that he trashes who are also just trying to carve out careers for themselves. There are also plenty of other folks (social media influencers, reality tv personalities, etc.) who are now carving out careers and finding ways to get paid doing things that they love which don't always offer any real value to the rest of the world.

One weird thing that just popped into my head as an analogy just now was the whole Kony 2012 thing, if you remember the backlash that resulted from that. The people behind that campaign seemed to have innocent intentions but they lacked expertise for the thing they were claiming to do and clearly hadn't thought through what the impact of their work would be on other organizations who were actually on the ground, had experience and knowledge and had been working for years to cultivate real change. The campaign gave people a shortcut to feel like they were making a difference saving lives in Africa just by sharing a video online and changed the conversation about what activism should look like in a way that most people accept now seemed to do more harm than good.

 

[TenderLovingKiller®]

Yeah that's fair - I don't think he's actively trying to con people into liking things for the wrong reasons, but I do think that he lacks the authority and qualifications to have the platform that he has to write about music and just probably doesn't realize it. His perspective on this kind of art just comes off as somewhat disingenuous and limiting because he lacks the vocabulary to talk about it and doesn't really know how to meaningfully engage with it. To your point about the only qualifications being loving music and writing well - I would say that I'm not sure that he really does either very well. I've already pointed out some of my issues with his writing style, and the evidence he offers to support his opinions generally has less to do with his own honest experience of the music itself and more to do with irrelevant tangentially related facts about how other (usually American white male) cultural figures have referenced it (i.e. Pretty Lights mash-ups and Ben Affleck movie trailers). His writing just feels kind of hollow and soulless to me because it's just an endless string of cultural references that he stitches together to assign value. He doesn't seem to want or have the ability to engage with the music directly in a meaningful way so he settles for just documenting what other people have said about it or done with it and mashes all of that together to form his own take and then doubles down on making grandiose claims. It just feels more like BuzzFeed clickbait than thoughtful criticism. I don't think he's interested in exploring the value that the music has for it's own sake, because he's more preoccupied with his chosen role as a cultural gatekeeper for the rest of us. He just seems to have a really narrow and shallow view of what culture amounts to.


Totally agree. I find it really fascinating how differently we react to Hyden's writing on Radiohead and Kid A, even though we all love the band and love the album. There are so many different things to like about Radiohead and to appreciate about Kid A and we're all going to have different entry points as to why we love it. I'm much more interested in that kind of discussion with you all than if someone came in here and just posted a bunch of tweets or articles from other people and shoved it in our face to make declarative statements about "why Radiohead really matters" rather than saying what they actually think based on their own subjective experience. I just think his writing takes the discussion about the meaning of Radiohead in a direction that isn't constructive or worthwhile.

And I know that we all have to make a living. But if you're going to make a living as a music critic who charges people money to read your thoughts, people are going to have a reasonable expectation that you have some kind of expertise in the area that you choose to write about and your written critiques offer both your subjects and your readers something of value. I haven't come across much in his writing that in any way enhances my appreciation of the music itself because he's either not interested in that discussion or doesn't know how to dig into that (or maybe both). I can't give him kudos for making money doing something he loves because, he doesn't extend that same spirit of appreciation to musicians that he trashes who are also just trying to carve out careers for themselves. There are also plenty of other folks (social media influencers, reality tv personalities, etc.) who are now carving out careers and finding ways to get paid doing things that they love which don't always offer any real value to the rest of the world.

One weird thing that just popped into my head as an analogy just now was the whole Kony 2012 thing, if you remember the backlash that resulted from that. The people behind that campaign seemed to have innocent intentions but they lacked expertise for the thing they were claiming to do and clearly hadn't thought through what the impact of their work would be on other organizations who were actually on the ground, had experience and knowledge and had been working for years to cultivate real change. The campaign gave people a shortcut to feel like they were making a difference saving lives in Africa just by sharing a video online and changed the conversation about what activism should look like in a way that most people accept now seemed to do more harm than good.

Yeah, What bona fidas do you require; in your opinion, to be a music critic (or any sort of critic for that matter)? Earlier you listed some critics that you do enjoy and Andy Greenwald I think was mentioned, he has been someone I also hold in high regard for his critical opinion. Another white middle-aged man (which I am also). As far as I know the only real difference in their background is Andy is originally from the suburbs of Philly as opposed to Appleton, Wisconsin. Both got their starts as pop culture writers; Andy with Spin and Steve with AV Club. Andy did go to Brown instead of University of Wisconsin I guess if being an Ivy Leaguer does anything for ya. I think both have a very Gen X White Male voice when they write and are both funny and relatable. In my eyes they are both quality critics and people I enjoy reading for entertainment and also because we have tastes that align nicely . Maybe I am a walking cliche I am a bearded middle aged white man, raised in a small town in the Midwest. I grew up loving Alternate/Indie guitar based rock and as I’ve gotten older my tastes have expanded from that base but ultimately that is where I am rooted. I love pop culture, music, film, books, TV, Comic books, etc… I feel like Steve (but also Andy) are able to provide critical analysis that speaks to me in a very relatable way and it’s hard for me personally to think of either as starkly different as you seem to.

 

[Ericj32]

Yeah, What bona fidas do you require; in your opinion, to be a music critic (or any sort of critic for that matter)? Earlier you listed some critics that you do enjoy and Andy Greenwald I think was mentioned, he has been someone I also hold in high regard for his critical opinion. Another white middle-aged man (which I am also). As far as I know the only real difference in their background is Andy is originally from the suburbs of Philly as opposed to Appleton, Wisconsin. Both got their starts as pop culture writers; Andy with Spin and Steve with AV Club. Andy did go to Brown instead of University of Wisconsin I guess if being an Ivy Leaguer does anything for ya. I think both have a very Gen X White Male voice when they write and are both funny and relatable. In my eyes they are both quality critics and people I enjoy reading for entertainment and also because we have tastes that align nicely . Maybe I am a walking cliche I am a bearded middle aged white man, raised in a small town in the Midwest. I grew up loving Alternate/Indie guitar based rock and as I’ve gotten older my tastes have expanded from that base but ultimately that is where I am rooted. I love pop culture, music, film, books, TV, Comic books, etc… I feel like Steve (but also Andy) are able to provide critical analysis that speaks to me in a very relatable way and it’s hard for me personally to think of either as starkly different as you seem to.

It’s pretty simple.

1) They have to actually be able to talk directly about the song or album that they’re critiquing, rather than just listing off a string of pop culture references that are barely related whichever song or album they’re talking about. They have to take an actual position on what the music means to them, rather than just quoting what others have said about it.

2) They have to acknowledge the limits of their own perspective.

3) They shouldn’t make outrageous proclamations that are obviously untrue without signaling that they’re joking or being facetious. They need to earn some kind of trust with their reader by thinking carefully about whether what they’re saying is true or constructive.

4) They should have more knowledge than the average person about music. Whether it’s knowledge of the songwriting process, musical production or mixing in the studio, live performance or the music business itself.

Andy Greenwald writes insightfully and intelligently about TV because he actually has work experience in television as a screenwriter and producer. That experience gives him more expertise than the average person who watches tv to offer a thoughtful and constructive critique of television shows.

When Steven Hyden weighs in on music, he has no comparable professional musical experience informing his critiques. There are actually quite a lot of people in the world who are musicians of some kind, who have played instruments or performed music for others. He doesn’t have that experience, so his opinions will not be informed by any insight into the songwriting process or the demands and constraints of working with record labels or the experience of performing for a live audience. His experience is strictly limited to listening to other people’s music, which anyone with a spotify account can do. He might have a writing style that people enjoy, but, in my opinion, his talents would be better applied in writing on a topic for which he has some kind of expertise or inside knowledge.

 

[LeSamourai]

So, uh, that Radiohead band is pretty good, right?

 

[TenderLovingKiller®]

Andy Greenwald writes insightfully and intelligently about TV because he actually has work experience in television as a screenwriter and producer. That experience gives him more expertise than the average person who watches tv to offer a thoughtful and constructive critique of television shows.

But Andy Greenwald was a critic before he wrote for TV though.

I agree with you about points 1 and 2 but I disagree that Steve Hyden does not possess those attributes. The third point is weird because hyperbolic exaggeration for effect or hyperbole is a fairly common literary device, one that I’ve never had an issue deciphering.

I completely disagree with your 4th point though. I do not feel that experience in the industry is needed to offer up insightful opinions on something. Lester Bangs wasn’t in a band. Roger Ebert worked on a single terrible movie after he had already establishing himself as movie critic for the Sun-Times (similar to Greenwald, he was a critic first) and this is just a few examples, I would be willing to bet that most critics weren’t involved in any meaningful way within the industry they critique. Do restaurant critics have to have worked at a restaurant to be able to write about food? Can women write opinion pieces about football? Of course they can. Experience is not a requisite to be a good critic.

 

[Joe Mac]

4) They should have more knowledge than the average person about music. Whether it’s knowledge of the songwriting process, musical production or mixing in the studio, live performance or the music business itself.

HARD DISAGREE!

You absolutely do not need that to be a critic. In fact I’d argue that having that can lead to dry and overly technical critiques that lose the average person.

There are three barriers to being a critic. Taste, passion and an ability to write in a way that conveys why you love it. I may not like Hyden but I’m not going after his style or his taste. Rather I found him to be a little boorish or distasteful in the passages I read and so his analogies lost me.

I actually think at this stage that your attacks on him are starting to come across, to me at least, as a tad elitist.

 

[whatwhatsaywhat]

loving the side discourse on music writers

do you remember brent dicrescenzo @Ericj32 ?

i really like hyden's writing - in his prose he has a wide-eyed enthusiasm when he loves something that appeals to me; he's enthusiastic and evangelising in his musical taste

but that was once more closely aligned with mine; he's definitely gone done the choogle route in the last few years - loves the dead more than dylan these days, i'd wager

and i do not get his enthusiasm for the war on drugs; no doubt he wouldn't understand mine for the national

similarly, i love alexis petridis' writing - his ghost write on the elton bio is absolutely hilarious - if not some of the stuff he gets enthused about

in terms of 'taste' i tend to agree with kitty empire

but reviews are just fun reads; you can either agree or disagree and it's not going to change yr opinion one way or the other

 

[Ericj32]

But Andy Greenwald was a critic before he wrote for TV though.

I agree with you about points 1 and 2 but I disagree that Steve Hyden does not possess those attributes. The third point is weird because hyperbolic exaggeration for effect or hyperbole is a fairly common literary device, one that I’ve never had an issue deciphering.

I completely disagree with your 4th point though. I do not feel that experience in the industry is needed to offer up insightful opinions on something. Lester Bangs wasn’t in a band. Roger Ebert worked on a single terrible movie after he had already establishing himself as movie critic for the Sun-Times (similar to Greenwald, he was a critic first) and this is just a few examples, I would be willing to bet that most critics weren’t involved in any meaningful way within the industry they critique. Do restaurant critics have to have worked at a restaurant to be able to write about food? Can women write opinion pieces about football? Of course they can. Experience is not a requisite to be a good critic.

Yeah 1 and 2 were meant to be more rigid requirements that's why I used "have to" in those sentences and used "should" in 3 and 4.

I feel like I'm just repeating myself over and over at this point, haha. My main issue with his writing is that he frequently seems be less interested in whatever he's supposedly writing about (song, band, album) and more interested in just using it as a jumping off point to show off his knowledge of tangentially related pop culture trivia. It feels almost like a bait and switch. I'm sure someone who isn't a serious musician COULD be a great music critic but they would have to take an active enough interest in exploring that world to research what they're talking about.

HARD DISAGREE!

You absolutely do not need that to be a critic. In fact I’d argue that having that can lead to dry and overly technical critiques that lose the average person.

There are three barriers to being a critic. Taste, passion and an ability to write in a way that conveys why you love it. I may not like Hyden but I’m not going after his style or his taste. Rather I found him to be a little boorish or distasteful in the passages I read and so his analogies lost me.

I actually think at this stage that your attacks on him are starting to come across, to me at least, as a tad elitist.

If someone is going to charge $27 for a book they wrote about Radiohead and Kid A, I don't think it's elitist to expect them to demonstrate that they’ve put more thought into it than the average music fan. The album has been out for 20 years, so we’ve all had plenty of time to listen to it and peel back the layers. Instead of that, I’m getting references to pretty lights mashups, dude bros at a big lebowksi convention, and a comparison to Smash Mouth. Maybe the other chapters of the book get better and more focused, but so far it feels like I’m just getting a lot of really odd and unnecessary, surface-level fluff. Just jumping from one thing to another and none of them seem interesting or relevant. He’s writing about Radiohead from a million miles away and seems more interested in talking about other things.

 

[TenderLovingKiller®]

Yeah 1 and 2 were meant to be more rigid requirements that's why I used "have to" in those sentences and used "should" in 3 and 4.

I feel like I'm just repeating myself over and over at this point, haha. My main issue with his writing is that he frequently seems be less interested in whatever he's supposedly writing about (song, band, album) and more interested in just using it as a jumping off point to show off his knowledge of tangentially related pop culture trivia. It feels almost like a bait and switch. I'm sure someone who isn't a serious musician COULD be a great music critic but they would have to take an active enough interest in exploring that world to research what they're talking about.


If someone is going to charge $27 for a book they wrote about Radiohead and Kid A, I don't think it's elitist to expect them to demonstrate that they’ve put more thought into it than the average music fan. The album has been out for 20 years, so we’ve all had plenty of time to listen to it and peel back the layers. Instead of that, I’m getting references to pretty lights mashups, dude bros at a big lebowksi convention, and a comparison to Smash Mouth. Maybe the other chapters of the book get better and more focused, but so far it feels like I’m just getting a lot of really odd and unnecessary, surface-level fluff. Just jumping from one thing to another and none of them seem interesting or relevant. He’s writing about Radiohead from a million miles away and seems more interested in talking about other things.

Okay, so I was looking up reviews for the book trying to figure out where you were coming from and I think I found a good resource…

This Isn't Happening: Radiohead's "Kid A" and the Begin…

A Rolling Stone-Kirkus Best Music Book of 2020"In this …

www.goodreads.com

Basically, anyone on Goodreads that gave the book a review of less than 3 stars and felt compelled to leave a comment seems to be echoing the same or similar sentiment (they are still in the minority overall as the book received and 3.74 rating overall), they believe themselves to be a better writer or a bigger expert on Radiohead than Steve (both points I am highly skeptical of but whatever). I think Steve’s relaxed unassuming writing style gives people a false sense that it’s something that any jamoke off the street could do. Regardless and while I don’t necessarily agree with theirs or your take on This Isn’t Happening: Radiohead’s “Kid A” And The Beginning Of The 21st Century I think I at least understand a bit better why they and you might feel that way.

I have really enjoyed this deeper discussion, though one that was slightly off topic; but I think at this point we have kind covered all the bases. If you decide to finish reading the book; which TBH, I would suggest you cut your losses and sell it off to Half Priced Books, because it’s gonna be a lot more of the same thing; I would be interested in hearing whether you soften you stance at all.

 

[ThePakoBuelna]

So, it seems to me that you'll enjoy his stuff if you already knew how he writes and are familiar with the author, but if you are expecting the book to tell some tidbits and special info about the album, better look somewhere else(?)

I'm not familiar with the author, but I think I would have the same type of reaction as @Ericj32 if I grabbed it off the shelf just because it says Radiohead and Kid A on it.

 

[TenderLovingKiller®]

So, it seems to me that you'll enjoy his stuff if you already knew how he writes and are familiar with the author, but if you are expecting the book to tell some tidbits and special info about the album, better look somewhere else(?)

I'm not familiar with the author, but I think I would have the same type of reaction as @Ericj32 if I grabbed it off the shelf just because it says Radiohead and Kid A on it.

This seems like a fair assessment.

 

[Ericj32]

loving the side discourse on music writers

Haha I'm glad that not everyone has been alienated by the back and forth we've had on this.

do you remember brent dicrescenzo @Ericj32 ?

I've never read any of Brent DiCrescenzo's stuff. I just now read his Kid A review, and I do like how he writes about the songs when he goes track by track, but the first few paragraphs of his review are a little over the top for my taste. He also includes a lot about his own personal experiences that, to me, just feels kind of annoying to make the reader get through in order to actually get to the discussion about Kid A. I get that some people enjoy those personal anecdotes, but to me it just feels kind of disrespectful to spill nearly as much ink sharing fun facts about yourself as you do actually analyzing the album itself. Sometimes it feels like music writers think that they themselves are the main attraction rather than the album that took months or years to create. I don't know why but I feel like I've had more bad experiences reading Pitchfork reviews than good ones, so I rarely read any of their reviews unless I'm looking for specific details about an album and can't find anything else on the internet written about that album haha. I've already thrown out enough opinions about why certain things aren't for me in this thread, though, so I'll just leave it at that haha. Based on his review of Kid A, I'd be willing to check out more of Brent's writing, but yeah I don't honestly read much writing about music anyway.

in terms of 'taste' i tend to agree with kitty empire

but reviews are just fun reads; you can either agree or disagree and it's not going to change yr opinion one way or the other

I did check out a review by Kitty Empire of James Blake's latest album just now based on you mentioning her and I really like:

(1) how short the review is because she doesn't talk at all about herself, her life experiences/hobbies/etc.

(2) she doesn't talk about other bands, or other people's takes on this album

(3) she's not trying to assign meaning, value, or importance to it one way or the other;

(4) the way she sinks her teeth into the music: "At first this elegant compendium of digital chamber music and subtle trap pop works like a breakup album. Many affecting tracks detail the sharknado of outrage and bewilderment in Blake’s trademark delicate soprano, offset occasionally by well-chosen collaborators (SZA, or rappers JID and SwaVay) or startlingly pitch-shifted vocals."

When I read this, it seems clear that she spent some time thinking carefully about how to describe what the album sounds like. As the kids say, she understood the assignment. "Sharknado of outrage and bewilderment" is both hilariously bizarre and, the more I think about it, surprisingly apt as a description of the emotion in James Blake's music on this record because it grabs your attention and captures, in just one word, the idea that those feelings of outrage and bewilderment are: overwhelmingly powerful, suddenly appearing out of nowhere and blindsiding you like a force of nature [I don't know much about sharknados but I'm assuming that that's how they work], and also ridiculous and not really...real. This description of the tone of the album, combined with descriptors like "digital chamber music", "subtle trap pop", "delicate soprano", "startlingly pitch-shifted vocals" adds up like an equation to give you the sum that kind of pretty closely approximates what James Blake's music sounds like. If I hadn't heard the album or any of James Blake's music before reading this review, I'd have a pretty good idea of what to expect based on these two sentences alone. As someone who has heard the album, I still get the value of reading it and thinking to myself "wow, yes, I never thought about it in those terms, but that is exactly what his music is like." On the other hand, if I was trying to describe James Blake to someone, I'd have to think about it for a while and probably would just end up saying something like "he sounds kind of sad and soulful and sings in a high falsetto that is beautiful but kind of tortured sounding, but the songs themselves are electronic and kind of experimental sounding". I think that's an ok description of it, but it's not as surgically specific or nearly as fun to read as her review. I'd probably have to spend like 20-30 minutes thinking about it to come up with anything quite as descriptive as those two sentences of hers, and I'd probably never think to use the word "sharknado" haha.

So, yeah, if you have any other reviews of hers that you'd recommend, I'd be interested in checking those out. I just found a recent review she did of a Nick Cave live show and that is hitting the spot for me, too. She describes Nick Cave as looking "suave and insectoid" and yeah, that checks out. She talks about the "maelstrom of grief and existential questioning" that inspired the album Ghosteen, and mentions his "swaggering, blood-spattered back catalogue". I just love how descriptive and economical her writing is, and it feels like she's giving me information that is more factual than opinion-based, if that makes sense, because she's just trying to describe it on its own terms. I don't have to wade through any fluff about her personal life or what she thinks about other unrelated topics or whatever. She gets to the point and she doesn't get sidetracked. How do we get her to write a book about Kid A?

I'm not familiar with Alexis Petridis either, but I'll try to check out some of his stuff. Thanks for sharing these names!

 

[Ericj32]

Okay, so I was looking up reviews for the book trying to figure out where you were coming from and I think I found a good resource…

This Isn't Happening: Radiohead's "Kid A" and the Begin…

A Rolling Stone-Kirkus Best Music Book of 2020"In this …

www.goodreads.com

Basically, anyone on Goodreads that gave the book a review of less than 3 stars and felt compelled to leave a comment seems to be echoing the same or similar sentiment (they are still in the minority overall as the book received and 3.74 rating overall), they believe themselves to be a better writer or a bigger expert on Radiohead than Steve (both points I am highly skeptical of but whatever). I think Steve’s relaxed unassuming writing style gives people a false sense that it’s something that any jamoke off the street could do. Regardless and while I don’t necessarily agree with theirs or your take on This Isn’t Happening: Radiohead’s “Kid A” And The Beginning Of The 21st Century I think I at least understand a bit better why they and you might feel that way.

I have really enjoyed this deeper discussion, though one that was slightly off topic; but I think at this point we have kind covered all the bases. If you decide to finish reading the book; which TBH, I would suggest you cut your losses and sell it off to Half Priced Books, because it’s gonna be a lot more of the same thing; I would be interested in hearing whether you soften you stance at all.

I appreciate that you've tried to understand where I'm coming from even though I've been pretty stubborn and inflexible on this, haha.

Some of those Goodreads reviews are interesting and I agree that there are people on there who are writing things that seem like they're coming from a similar point of view. It looks like the review with the most likes has 2 stars and just says: "If any publishers are reading this, I too have writing skills and a favorite band. Call me." Which made me laugh, because it sounds pretty dick-ish to say that, but I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment there, either. I feel like I wasn't quite so impolite and sarcastic in my dislike and tried to explain in more detail and participate in more of a conversation here, but yeah, there's a part of me that feels kind of bad for getting bent out of shape about all of this (and not shutting up about it, dear lord, why am I still going on about this, haha).

But yeah, Goodreads reviews in general are also kind of hard to sift through. I don't know that I've really figured out a way of looking at their review stats that helps me figure out whether I'm likely to enjoy any given book based on the average rating or what the most popular reviews say. It's interesting though that, of the more popular reviews listed there that have a greater than 3 star rating, many of them write about Hyden's book as if it's a memoir, and many of them include extensive descriptions of the reviewers' own backstories and experiences with the album. So, I think having a different set of expectations might be what's making the difference here and maybe I misunderstood what the book was supposed to be about. I think you're onto something when you talk about relating to him in certain ways, and I think that would help with enjoying his writing because he puts a lot of himself in what he writes. To me that feels kind of inappropriate, like he's inserting himself where he doesn't belong, but if you approach the book more like a memoir of his experience as a Radiohead fan and, perhaps, your own, then wouldn't necessarily be a problem - I still don't know that I would be interested in reading that kind of book unless I already had some level of investment in the author, though. To me it kind of feels similar to those reaction videos on youtube - it feels icky to me that people are profiting off of someone else's hard work by just packaging their own reaction to it for consumption. Sometimes they're fun to watch if you feel like you identify with what they're experiencing, but most of the time, I'd rather just focus my attention on the thing itself. I don't think anyone finds those videos especially thrilling or anything, and I feel like whatever enjoyment you get out of watching them has more to do with how you feel about the person reacting to it and less to do with what they're reacting to.

I agree, though, that we've covered all the bases and I doubt my opinion will drastically change, but I'll probably try to finish reading it because it will just nag at me if I don't, haha. Some of the Goodreads reviews highlight aspects of the book (that I haven't gotten to yet) that do sound interesting, so I'm happy to report back on anything I come across that surprises me in a good way.