Robert Christgau's Review of Kansas' Leftoverture

[moecurlythanu]

I'm actually not stoned and have no flippin' idea what you two nutjobs are chattin' about?

My money's on Google Translate.

[JKL2000]

Where did you say the fish was caught?

[moecurlythanu]

I always looked at The Village Voice as a New Yorker's idea of what is hip, edgy, progressive and ultimately, elite. Y'know, the whole Greenwich Village, Washington Square, Villege On The Green kind of shit that most of us in Flyover Country couldn't give an armpit fart about. Sort of like the CBGB and Max's Kansas City social and music scene in the 1970s. The bands may not appeal to a largerer audience or sell albums outside their circle of friends, but that only added to the appeal for those who "got it," as opposed to those ignorant untermenschen masses who didn't "get it.".

I never read The Village Voice, but I recall the parochial New York critics' obsession with their local scene, despite most of it failing to resonate with the country at large.

I especially recall the fawning reviews and major push on behalf of Television's 'Marquee Moon' album. You would have thought it was the best album ever, and I'm not exaggerating that. That album failed to make a commercial impact, and it was just further evidence that these guys were more about themselves than anything else. Eventually, I came to view their writings as self parody.

[jkelman]

Not sure if you're misunderstanding me or what but I have no problem with people getting paid to write reviews and I have no problem with the people who write reviews. I'm merely saying that I never make decisions on what to buy from a review. You can get one reviewer who says an album is the best from that artist and another one who says it's the worst. It can get confusing to someone like me. I most likely would have passed on a lot of music that I've grown to love if I read reviews. The reason I said I'm not criticizing those that do is because they probably get the information that they need to purchase the music they want. Is that clear?

You betcha. Sorry, I clearly misunderstood you, so thanks for clarifying. Personally, I've never thought whether or not I like a record to be that important; a review, imo, shoukd provide context for the album and enough information so that, when the reader has finished, he/she can decide whether or not it's an album that will interest him/her.

That said, if you already know whether or not a album is of interest, then you don't really need a review to tell you that..or even provide the info. But even so - and again, not saying I've a problem with your not wanting to read reviews - it's possible that a good review might tell, you something you didn't know, or provide a different perspective, that might make the album more enjoyable or Make you think about it in a different light. Before I was writing, that's what my favourite writers did, so that was the model on which I based how I approached things when I decided to start doing so myself..

In any case, thanks for clarifying. Gotcha, loud and clear!

Cheers!
John

[JKL2000]

I Robot [Arista, 1977]
I might agree that the way this record approximates what it (supposedly) criticizes is a species of profundity if what it (supposedly) criticized was schlock. As it is, the pseudo-disco makes Giorgio Moroder sound like Eno and the pseudo-sci-fi makes Isaac Asimov seem like a deep thinker. Back to the control board. C

Asswipe

[JKL2000]

Frontiers [Columbia, 1983]
Just a reminder, for all who believe the jig is really up this time, of how much worse things might be: this top ten album could be outselling Pyromania, or Flashdance, or even Thriller. Worse still, Steve Perry could run for the Senate as a moderate Republican from, say, Nebraska, where his oratory would garner excellent press--and then, having shed his video-game interests, ram the tape tax through. D+

Nut sack

Ok, just kidding - I don't like Journey,

[bob_32_116]

Re one-liners: I hope the remuneration for the review was proportional to the number of lines, but I suspect not.

Don't get me wrong - I am not a fan of verbosity for the sake of it either, but it should be possible to find a middle ground.

[Facelift]

I never read The Village Voice, but I recall the parochial New York critics' obsession with their local scene, despite most of it failing to resonate with the country at large.

I especially recall the fawning reviews and major push on behalf of Television's 'Marquee Moon' album. You would have thought it was the best album ever, and I'm not exaggerating that. That album failed to make a commercial impact, and it was just further evidence that these guys were more about themselves than anything else. Eventually, I came to view their writings as self parody.

Though it's not an opinion shared by me (I like the album but only really love the title track) Marquee Moon is generally regarded as one of the greatest albums of all time. In addition to the many publications that continue to think highly of it, it was #3 on Pitchfork's best of the '70s list, #4 on NME's all-time greatest list (to name 2 very non-NYC publications) and currently is the 26th highest rated rock album rated by the fans on Rateyourmusic.com. Looks like maybe those NYC-area critics of the '70s who loved it were ahead of the curve, not behind it.

[Scrotum Scissor]

I'm actually not stoned and have no flippin' idea what you two nutjobs are chattin' about?

It concerns the accusation of Christgau's "trolling" likened to that of Mr. Grego appearing in a HC-thread to denounce the whole band (and i.e. all posters) on the basis of them being 'commies'.

[Jay.Dee]

I never read The Village Voice, but I recall the parochial New York critics' obsession with their local scene, despite most of it failing to resonate with the country at large.

I especially recall the fawning reviews and major push on behalf of Television's 'Marquee Moon' album. You would have thought it was the best album ever, and I'm not exaggerating that. That album failed to make a commercial impact, and it was just further evidence that these guys were more about themselves than anything else. Eventually, I came to view their writings as self parody.

The problem with the critics from the Village Voice or the Rolling Stone was not what they liked or whether it was popular or not, but the arrogant and ignorant way they approached every music subject. Whenever they praised or bashed any band or album they did it in such a misinformed and repugnant way (which I guess constituted the "schtick" their readers were so fond of) that it did a lot of harm to the bands with more sophisticated music, no matter what side of the "coolness" fence they happened to dwell.

Television were a great band which could have easily catered to classic rock audience. Their psychedelia-tinged twin guitar assault in a live setting reminded Quicksilver Messenger Service, Crazy Horse and, gravely overlooked, Hampton Grease Band. However, how could they find any substantial audience if their media mentors were so hostile towards hippie rock? Actually I doubt whether those allegedly insightful journalists were ever capable to connect any dots outside pop culture and create any valid context apart from their "back to simplicity&innocence" mantra, so cherished by their generous music biz patrons and disoriented teenagers.

In my opinion the abysmal work of music journos enormously helped alienate a substantial part of rock audience, pushing it into autarchic stylistic ghettos to the delight of the marketing teams of music labels. The atmosphere of hostility between the competing camps helped streamline products and messages, which favoured the artists like KISS, Sex Pistols, AC/DC, Styx or Foghat to the detriment of any more transgressive music, pushed back as not representative or without sufficient attitude or credentials.

In the dominating narratives new progressive/psychedelic bands like Pere Ubu, Minutemen, Cardiacs, Bauhaus, Wire, This Heat, Butthole Surfers or Television got detached from their actual roots and filed under misleading categories, while large part of their potential audience was fed with heavily marketed rehashes and reunions from the past, under the horrific threat of the victory of Sid Vicious and the Ramones. In the atmosphere of warring rock factions average generic instrumentalists were marketed as virtuosos of good ol' rock, while skilful imaginative players associated with übercool punk swore to the supportive media that they could not play one chord straight (as delightfully described in Simon Reynolds' "Rip It Up and Start Again" - that's the classy music critique!).

Thankfully with the decline of rock popularity modern journos of the old "schtick" moved to greener pastures and now provide their services to wealthy IT companies, organizing the customer bases according to the proven divide'n'rule formula. Good riddance, because instead one can read meaningful and informative music reviews on serious web sites and enjoy modern books that investigate music effortlessly trespassing the walls of old stylistic ghettos.

[Scrotum Scissor]

The problem with the critics from the Village Voice or the Rolling Stone was not what they liked or whether it was popular or not, but they arrogant and ignorant way they approached every music subject. Whenever they praised or bashed any band or album they did it in such a misinformed and repugnant way (which I guess constituted the "schtick" their readers were so fond of) that it made a lot of harm to the bands with more sophisticated music, no matter what side of the "coolness" fence they happened to dwell.

Television were a great band which could have easily catered to classic rock audience. Their psychedelia-tinged twin guitar assault in a live setting reminded Quicksilver Messenger Service, Crazy Horse and, gravely overlooked, Hampton Grease Band. However, how could they find any substantial audience if their media mentors were so hostile towards hippie rock? [...] The atmosphere of hostility between the competing camps helped streamline products and messages, which favoured the artists like KISS, Sex Pistols, AC/DC, Styx or Foghat to the detriment of any more transgressive music, pushed back as not representative or without required attitude or credentials.

In the dominating narratives new progressive/psychedelic bands like Pere Ubu, Minutemen, Cardiacs, Bauhaus, Wire, This Heat, Butthole Surfers or Television were detached from their actual past and filed under misleading categories, while large part of their potential audience was fed with heavily marketed rehashes and reunions from the past, under the horrific threat of the victory of Sid Vicious and the Ramones. In the atmosphere of warring rock factions average generic instrumentalists were marketed as virtuosos of good ol' rock, while skilful imaginative players associated with cool punk swore to the supportive media that they could not play one chord straight (as delightfully accounted in Simon Reynolds' "Rip It Up and Start Again" - that's the classy music journalism!).

A most accurate description and a great analysis overall.

Reynolds' book is a rewarding read indeed, as were many dissections from the "rock sociology"-school of Simon Frith a.o.

[mkeneally]

Even speaking as one who enjoys reading Christgau I must agree - superb post Jay.Dee.

[bRETT]

Television were a great band which could have easily catered to classic rock audience. Their psychedelia-tinged twin guitar assault in a live setting reminded Quicksilver Messenger Service, Crazy Horse and, gravely overlooked, Hampton Grease Band. However, how could they find any substantial audience if their media mentors were so hostile towards hippie rock? .

I don't agree that Television had much of anything in common with those bands, other than the surface similarity of twin guitars. Quicksilver and CH were sloppy and noisy by comparison (which isn't necessarily a knock); Television didn't "jam" in the sense that their two-guitar explorations were pretty carefully worked out, most live versions of "Marquee Moon" were similar. I think the closing-off of radio to interesting music had more to do with their commercial failure than anything.

Nor were 70s critics necessarily hostile to "hippie rock," but at the time there wasn't much of it around. "Rust Never Sleeps" was praised across the board. The Grateful Dead were perceived to be on a long decline after "Blues for Allah" (which is fair). But you read a lot about people like Captain Beefheart and Richard Thompson, who were in great creative from at at the time.

But again you're in slippery territory when you start to say what "the critics" though, as if everyone had the same opinion. The Village Voice ran the only rave review of Tull's "Under Wraps" that I ever read; the same review praised Rush in their early synth period.

Lots of interesting takes were being expressed, some well informed and some less so. Nowadays most major outlets just praise everything, and I don't think we're better off.

[JJ88]

Yes, quite. The binary 'either/or', journalistic split that came in during that punk-era period has not been at all good for music IMHO. It embarrasses me to see grown men with those posturing, playground attitudes.

This is not a defence of below-par later work by the 'old guard'. But the criticism was such that even the good work of the prog bands was cast aside.

[Steve F.]

As in "jumping into a [highly informative] thread about a widely acclaimed progressive band I myself don't know butts about and asking whether or not this band aren't 'commies anyway' and anyhow they aren't interesting 'including their music'?"

BLAM!

[Bbernardini]

Funny...just recently, I posted something on Facebook about Robert Christgau. After reading endless articles about albums on Wikipedia and seeing his name in the reviews, I came to the conclusion that he doesn't actually like music at all.

[Jay.Dee]

I don't agree that Television had much of anything in common with those bands, other than the surface similarity of twin guitars. Quicksilver and CH were sloppy and noisy by comparison (which isn't necessarily a knock); Television didn't "jam" in the sense that their two-guitar explorations were pretty carefully worked out, most live versions of "Marquee Moon" were similar.

QMS and Crazy Horse had their improvised parts (partially) worked out too - neither band was a free-improv ensemble. On the other hand, if you check various Television boots you can easily see a substantial variation in running times of their stretched out repertory: "Marquee Moon" - between 9 and 17 minutes, "Little Johnny Jewel" - 8 to 15, "Ain't That Nothin'" - 6 to 10 or "Kingdom Come" - 7 to 13. Hardly a sign of the adherence to strict arrangements. Like it or not, Television could and did jam a lot, even if it was a taboo word in their cultural zone.

As for the striking similarities in style and approach, I can hear them without any problem and I suspect I am not in the minority.

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread...l-dead.395355/

Nor were 70s critics necessarily hostile to "hippie rock,"

Oh no, the most influential ones were extremely hostile in the second half of the 70s and so were their sheep blindly following "never trust a hippie" paradigm.

The Grateful Dead were perceived to be on a long decline after "Blues for Allah" (which is fair).

I prefer their earlier period too, but I would not hurry up to declare their decline given that their most revered tour occurred in 1977. The last "Dave's Pick #12" from November '77 is really tasty.

But you read a lot about people like Captain Beefheart and Richard Thompson, who were in great creative from at at the time.

Indeed, we could even read in this very thread, what the most prominent rock critic from the Village Voice had to say about Captain Beefheart.

But again you're in slippery territory when you start to say what "the critics" though, as if everyone had the same opinion. [...] Lots of interesting takes were being expressed, some well informed and some less so.

True, but I try to focus on the tendencies shaped by the most prominent ones like Christgau, Williams, Bangs, Landau or Marsh. If necessary I can provide lengthy quotations from their "literary" output to prove my points.

Nowadays most major outlets just praise everything, and I don't think we're better off.

It is still better than having the audience blindly believing in what deans (or rather merchants) of rock critique had to say (sell). Now you have and are able to listen to any music yourself and make your own judgement.

[bRETT]

Lots of good points there, hope to respond to 'em later on...

[Scrotum Scissor]

QMS and Crazy Horse had their improvised parts (partially) worked out too - neither band was a free-improv ensemble. On the other hand, if you check various Television boots you can easily see a substantial variation in running times of their stretched out repertory:

As for the striking similarities in style and approach, I can hear them without any problem and I suspect I am not in the minority. [...] the most influential ones were extremely hostile in the second half of the 70s and so were their sheep blindly following "never trust a hippie" paradigm.

I'd say QMS' "jams" were surprisingly coordinated, with various live renditions of tunes like "Gold & Silver", "Mona" and even the notorious "Who Do You Love" featuring clearly pre-arranged licks on return. Of course stuff like "The Fool" were completely out-arranged, while a piece like "Calvary" essentially was seamed together from both live and studio recordings of different origin, rendering the end result sounding somewhat "free" in overall form.

Television were shunned as "the Grateful Dread of our generation" by UK punk media, a message openly channelled when the band played there in '78 with ex-hippie Patti Smith. On breaking up, Verlaine told a mag that it was decided on a full-moon night, as a tribute to Moby Grape. They still jammed through tunes by Alex Spence, Standells and Chocolate Watch Band ("I Don't Need Your Lovin' Anymore") when I saw them on their reunion tour back in (IIRC) '92/'93.

[JKL2000]

It concerns the accusation of Christgau's "trolling" likened to that of Mr. Grego appearing in a HC-thread to denounce the whole band (and i.e. all posters) on the basis of them being 'commies'.

Yeah, I'm a commie because I bought that big, expensive HC boxed set.

[jkelman]

Yeah, I'm a commie because I bought that big, expensive HC boxed set.

Oh. Damn.

[Facelift]

I don't agree that Television had much of anything in common with those bands, other than the surface similarity of twin guitars. Quicksilver and CH were sloppy and noisy by comparison (which isn't necessarily a knock); Television didn't "jam" in the sense that their two-guitar explorations were pretty carefully worked out, most live versions of "Marquee Moon" were similar. I think the closing-off of radio to interesting music had more to do with their commercial failure than anything.

Nor were 70s critics necessarily hostile to "hippie rock," but at the time there wasn't much of it around. "Rust Never Sleeps" was praised across the board. The Grateful Dead were perceived to be on a long decline after "Blues for Allah" (which is fair). But you read a lot about people like Captain Beefheart and Richard Thompson, who were in great creative from at at the time.

But again you're in slippery territory when you start to say what "the critics" though, as if everyone had the same opinion. The Village Voice ran the only rave review of Tull's "Under Wraps" that I ever read; the same review praised Rush in their early synth period.

Lots of interesting takes were being expressed, some well informed and some less so. Nowadays most major outlets just praise everything, and I don't think we're better off.

Agreed. Lots of revisionist history and over-generalization going on in that other post.

[moecurlythanu]

Though it's not an opinion shared by me (I like the album but only really love the title track) Marquee Moon is generally regarded as one of the greatest albums of all time. In addition to the many publications that continue to think highly of it, it was #3 on Pitchfork's best of the '70s list, #4 on NME's all-time greatest list (to name 2 very non-NYC publications) and currently is the 26th highest rated rock album rated by the fans on Rateyourmusic.com. Looks like maybe those NYC-area critics of the '70s who loved it were ahead of the curve, not behind it.

Maybe. It's also possible that after they had flogged The New York Dolls, The Ramones, Blondie, Talking Heads, etc to the exclusion of damn near everything else, that their non-NYC readers just said "There they go again," and never gave Television a real chance at the time.

[Scrotum Scissor]

Yeah, I'm a commie because I bought that big, expensive HC boxed set.

Well, that depends; did you pay for it through a grand five-year plan? And do you assume private ownership to that box?

[JKL2000]

Oh. Damn.

YOU and I are definitely not commies with all our expensive Grateful Dead boxed sets. Especially you.