Um, you could certainly make an argument for that. But wait. Many critics don't look to influence taste. They see their role to inform, to provide a form of consumer guide: or to discuss and inspect without necessarily prejudicing the reader (this form of approach particularly favoured at more 'respectable' newspapers); or (lower down the food chain) to do whatever it takes to blag that free CD or pair of concert tickets. There are whole sections of the critical community that view 'personality' in a writer with distrust - "immature" is a word I've seen used several times in conjunction with the recent death of one of the NME's foremost taste-maker critics of the 80s and 90s, Steven Wells (and not particularly as a prejorative). Many (perhaps most) critics view their duty as to 'tell the story', describe the music - nothing more, nothing less.
I'm not saying that the latter can't be taste-makers. Of course, they can: especially when they have a certain consistency in their views which their audience learns to interact with. For example, David Fricke of Rolling Stone is a man who's never bothered pushing the 'personality' side of his writing, but clearly he's a taste-maker critic - many people, both within the industry and without, set great store by his recommendations.
Then again, there are many critics who would define themselves as taste-makers without any clear reason why. I'm particularly thinking of the sorry breed of writers that showed up at the UK music press mid-90s, having read nothing and experienced nothing except the UK music press itself (and perhaps a few years at university, which frankly amounts to bugger all). Were they taste-makers, simply because the intent was there? Or were they lacking the personality - so crucial to a persona like Steven Wells, or Nick Kent, or Everett True - without which, unless you're as trusty and consistent a source as Fricke, or Simon Reynolds (to give an even better example), you cannot fill that role?
(I'm not meaning to imply Reynolds' or Fricke's writing has no personality - clearly it does - just that that personality isn't central to their whole approach.)
Is it possible to be a taste-maker critic if no one is paying attention to your views? Now, that's another question entirely. To pull in a question I posed a few weeks back, is the critic defined by their audience? Because it sure as hell doesn't just lie in the intent. How can I be a taste-maker if I'm not influencing anyone?
So is there a ready checklist by which you can define a taste-maker critic? Of course not: like all definitions, it is mutable and flexible and determined by the medium it exists within. And yet I need to be able to state - as unambiguously as possible - what a taste-maker critic is, because without doing so, how can I define the changing role of the taste-maker critic in web 2.0 environments?
In the past few days, I've been engaging in a (one-sided) argument with the fine readers of Drowned In Sound over a particularly cantankerous blog post overview of dull-ass Icelandic band Sigur Ros. Most are down with the idea I should be free to write what I like, even if they disagree with the sentiments and feel the post is gratuitous and rather pointless. Interestingly, almost without exception, the entire (message board posting) readership of DiS seem - quite touchingly - affronted that I should be seeking to engage them in dialogue over my views, one staff writer even going as far to suggest, "I wish a little of the old True would come back instead of just trolling for hits".
It's almost like a entire generation of music fans have never engaged with a taste-maker critic - because this is what I've always done!
Oh, and here's a tentative checklist for a taste-maker definition... If I could be bothered, I'd draw some arrows linking and circling the following to indicate the relationships. Maybe one of my readers could oblige?
Taste
Opinion
Personality
Writing skills
Trust
To be fair to our "readers" the bulk of the people who post, react and respond on the boards represent a vocal minority. 300k+ people come to DiS every month and about 5% of people who read the music forum actively post. Basically, a helluva lot of people can be found lurking, searching for tid bits or to follow debates, yet I can see why people think it's just a small cluster of quite often negative people, which is seemingly what puts people off bigging up up things they like... I've not done a tally but I'd estimate that about 60% of threads and/or responses to them are negative.
ReplyDeleteAs for the actual point of your blog, I think that the succinct nature of modern media seems to leave little room for 'opinion' and I hate it. I started writing because I had too many opinions that no-one in my small down wanted to listen to, let alone engage with. Like moving from warm alcopops to wild turkey on the rocks, it started with instant messenger conversations and email discussion groups, and soon became awful attempts to write like Lester Bangs (and failing miserably, obvs) (in fact after 12years of blogging I'm still shit at the writing bit but don't tell the Sunday Times or they'll pull my column).
I love when I know a writer's taste, don't agree with that taste and can find things to like because they absolutely hate it. And even moreso, nowadays at least, I love reading skilled writers because there are so few of them. I could read Charlie Brooker writing about painting teacups and I know it'd still be fascinating. Ditto Stevie Chick writing about records I'm never likely to like or John Doran writing about records from genres that I don't for a second relate to or understand.
I dunno if I answered the question.
i would say that i love reading entertaining writers, rather than skilled writers. above anything else, i think Charlie Brooker, Stevie Chick and John Doran are entertaining and fun to read.
ReplyDeletewould 'Entertainment Value' be part of the checklist? although i guess you could say that it comes from the writer's personality.
i remember that there was a time when i was buying the NME because anything written by Steven Wells was so entertaining to read, even if i disagreed with it.
Ha - seeing as how I was the 'staff writer' who got reffed in the above, I suppose I might as well clarify that my principle problem with some of the things you've been posting of late is not the opinions expressed, nor the provocation, it's just that a lot of these pieces are short and rather functional. I don't particularly get a lot from reading them because to me it doesn't seem like there's that much there. I mean, arguably posting a link to an 'article' that's simply a link to another blog (I believe that's what you did with Coldplay..?) is so bound to get a reaction that it's an end in itself, but I all I really meant is I enjoy a bit more substance, I don't find the words of the Defending... series very provocative because they feel perfunctory, though I guess the mode of dissemination (promise the readers an article, make them jump through the hoop of clicking a link, then merely express a short opinion that could have easily been put up on the boards OR JUST ANOTHER LINK) is.
ReplyDeleteLike, I thought the recent Riot Grrl stuff had way more merit than the whole Defending... series, but a little of the background chatter I've picked up from your blogs, twitter et al would suggest you were dissatisfied with that because it didn't get the hits. I dunno. It's just a personal thing, maybe 'the True of old' is a bogus concept, but it's surely reasonable to assert that different pieces of journalism have varying degrees of literary merit... from my perspective, anyway, the Defending... series seems to be a bit sizzle over beef, given it's a) not exactly the most substantial thing you've ever done b) seems to have an air of wanting your click rate up as priority over a genuine dialogue and c) is classical 'trolling' insofar as that's what wandering in and perfunctarily slating a band that a large proportion of readers like in order IS.
This certainly isn't meant as an insult, more genuinely kicking an idea around, but there's a guy who posts on DiS who goes by the name of kickinginkansas who starts threads like this all the time (generally at the expense of Animal Collective - actually you'd like him, I think he's into twee) and does these brilliant one-line reviews of stuff like Wire's top 50 albums of year, does a great high wire act between actual trolling and being a pretty valuable member of the DiS community. His profile is by far the most viewed on the site (MORE THAN THE HOT GIRLS!!!) and I sort of wonder if by virtue of anonymity, lack of baggage, and the fact he attempts to get a rise WITHIN DiS rather than attempt to drag the debate away to a blog, he's kind of carrying off what you're trying to do in a less forced way, because he's more a creature of that world. Or not. I dunno. Certainly he's kind of like everyone sort of loves him/sort of hates him/is happy he's around.
God that was long. Don't want to sound hostile. Short summary: as an exercise in provocation, a link to a link to somebody else's blog about Coldplay is okay, but I guess the 'old' True I was talking about had a little more FLAIR.
I was leading a workshop session in school today with staff, and one the things i was asking people to consider was the human qualities that are most valuable to us as teachers. There were a lot of generalisations, naturally, that covered just about the whole gamut of positive qualities of human nature, but there were also some that kept being repeated. I'm intrigued that there are strong connections to the words you have chosen in your post. Opinion, personality and trust. Trust, in particular.
ReplyDeleteI often tell people that the reason i became a teacher (apart from to get the DSS off my back) was the same reason i wrote fanzines. It was to do with a need to communicate - a desire to share a passion about the things that thrilled and moved me.
Great writers (like great teachers) can enthuse and excite people because of HOW they say things. The WHAT can be almost irrelevant. Jerry, I know you have alluded to that previously with reference to Shaw (i think!?) and Sean is saying the same things in his comments. Technologies are changing the face of education just as they are changing the face of journalism and criticism. It's therefore ever more vital that we retain and promote those human qualities that make for great critics and great teachers. Identifying those qualities and explicitly talking about them seems like a good start.