the differences between a taste-maker critic and a critic

Polar Bear is Dying raises a very fair point in response to a previous post that cuts straight to the heart of my research. What is the difference between a taste-maker critic and a critic? Don't all critics influence taste in some way or other?

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

The slow death of Everett True

More (edited) stuff from Twitter last night. The babble of voices is meant to reflect the...well...babble of voices. I love Andrew's 140-character answer to why writing (criticism) is important: "Because it is the dominant way of recording history. Because it influences other people. Because it conveys your beliefs."

everetttrue c'mon, c'mon...anyone know of any music criticism that ISN'T rooted in Bourdieu's theories of cultural capitalism?

niteshok@everetttrue Yeah: How To Be A Live Music Critic

louispattison@everetttrue Semi on-topic but have you read Carl Wilson's Celine Dion book in the 33 1/3 series? V v good.

everetttrue anyone in Brisbane got a dog-eared copy of (Paul Morley’s) Ask they’d care to loan me? Doesn't have to have canine characteristics, of course

everetttrue 1) can a music critic exist without an audience? 2) Is a music critic defined by their audience? 3) Does the term 'music critic' automatically confer authority? Is this down to (misplaced) notions of autonomy? 4) Is an audience defined by their music critic?

aramadge@everetttrue 1) Yes. 2) No. 3) I owe you a beer.

angusbatey@everetttrue 1) Yes 2) No 3) No (but if it did, then yes to part two) 4) I should hope not, but they should be informed and perhaps guided.

kicking__k@everetttrue 1) Depends on whether they feel the need to feedback or share their opinion, but they're only a critic if they're critiquing.

everetttrue yeah but, 1) a tightrope walker is a tightrope walker, is physically quantifiable. is it simply down to the statement, "I am a music critic"?

angusbatey@everetttrue If you listen to music - really properly listen - and think about it, and react or form an opinion, then you're a music critic. I don’t think it’s about writing or anything like that - it's about the nature of your relationship to music.

kicking__k@everetttrue 2) Some aspire to lead, others to follow (much modern music press claims to do former while secretly aiming more at the latter)

everetttrue so music criticism is performance. wait a sec...there's a fellow up here who argued that a couple of years back: Marc Brennan's his name...

aramadge@everetttrue What? Writing something produces a more tangible outcome than walking 10m on a piece of string, audience or not.

kicking__k@everetttrue 1) I'd say more institutional/culturewide recognition, like the value conferred by being in print, as opposed to blogging.

angusbatey@everetttrue Not performance as such - more about being an engaged participant rather than passive recipient in the music/listener exchange.

everetttrue@angusbatey but isn't the difference between opinion and criticism a) being informed and...um...isn't that the difference? most critics are passive, however. n'owt to do with feminism.

aramadge@everetttrue How could he or she possibly speak for the reaction of all potential listeners? Engages with the music’s effect on the critic.

everetttrue@kicking__k isn't recognition via blogging culturewide these days? c.f. citizen journalism

angusbatey@everetttrue The acquisition of information is a function of level of engagement. You only learn about it if you care.

everetttrue but most (rock etc) music criticism engages with the music's effect on an audience, not the actual music itself

kicking__k@everetttrue 1) If a music critic belongs to the media (i.e. 'in the middle'), s/he's always dependent on having subject + audience.

angusbatey@everetttrue I think the act of criticism is inherently interrogatory so cannot be entirely passive, even if it has no impact on the art/ist

everetttrue@angusbatey what if it has no impact on its audience?

everetttrue@aramadge agreed. i'm just referring to the fact that surely a critic is writing with an audience in mind, even if it's just themselves. re: piece of string analogy. surely, that's for the audience to decide?

angusbatey@everetttrue You can only hope for impact. You'd still write it, it's not defined by its reception. This is getting very tree/forest/sound.

aramadge@everetttrue RE: string...You were talking about how it's “physically quantifiable”. The piece of writing more quantifiable than the walk.

angusbatey@everetttrue Also, define "audience". The most important audience may be yourself - your criticism may impact on future thoughts.

everetttrue Ziggy Stardust does not exist without an audience. Neither does Everett True. Or am I only talking about one strain of rock star/rock critic?

angusbatey@everetttrue BTW, didn’t mean "This is getting very tree/forest/sound" to sound so potentially impatient - just a trun(k)cated observation.

niteshok@everetttrue "If you're not writing to be memorable, then why the fuck are you writing?", right?

angusbatey@everetttrue Ziggy still had to learn to play gtr. He wouldn't do that in front of an audience. Did he exist while honing craft? I'd say

aramadge@everetttrue But even if both only have one audience, themselves, then both exist.

angusbatey@everetttrue indubitably yes. So ET is still ET if all his Twitterfollowers are asleep and they never see his words of wisdom. You don't stop being a rock star/critic just cos other people forget to pay attention. Ask Anvil!

everetttrue@aramadge so what does differentiate criticism from opinion, esp in the context of web 2.0?

everetttrue@angusbatey i've got bugger all Twitterfollowers. give me MySpace anyday! 15-yr-old goths + lonely h-wives! I was Book of The Week there, y’know...

kicking__k@everetttrue Some, but atypically. I think most bloggers are less about opinion or debate than they are the act of distributing.

aramadge@niteshok@everetttrue "Writing to be memorable" sounds like a load of shit. What about writing because it’s important? Polemic.

aramadge@everetttrue Did anything ever differentiate the two? If it did, it wasn't a printing press or a publishing model. It was in the writing.

angusbatey@everetttrue Myspace scares me. Facebook too. I thought I'd hate this but like it a lot.

everetttrue@aramadge i thought it was (partly) the platform. People treat you differently, depending where you're from. Take that Guardian blog furore...no one cared about the fact I'd had a go at the Australian music press cos I was Everett True. It was all because it was "The Guardian" - that's what conveyed the notion of authenticity. You could argue that it took me years to get to the position where I could represent "The Guardian" but I think that's irrelevant. Anyone can represent "The Guardian"

everetttrue@aramadge what is 'important'? depends on yr approach as a critic. there is more than one.

everetttrue@kicking__k another means of spreading 'the word'...?

niteshok@aramadge Why is writing important, though?

everetttrue At QUT, Journalism studies (partly) argues that it's not about the platform but the writing...sorry, i think that's being deliberately naive

aramadge@everetttrue If you'd been writing for The Times it would have been just as big. It was "Everett True" and not "The Guardian".

aramadge@everetttrue Yes, what is important may depend on the writer. But I believe it is a better inspiration than fame.

aramadge@niteshok Whoa! Why is it important? Honestly, I have no idea how to put an answer into 140 chars. But I will think of a way to.

everetttrue@aramadge I really don't want to disagree with you, but I have to. I'm simply not that well-known. Not here in Australia. And not in the UK, either.

kicking__k@everetttrue The writing affects how it's processed - one expects a blog to be informal, and print to be learned - often the best in either field plays with that expectation.

aramadge@niteshok Because it is the dominant way of recording history. Because it influences other people. Because it conveys your beliefs.

everetttrue@aramadge i think we're talking about the same thing here. writing to be memorable = writing about what's important. it's not about fame.

aramadge@everetttrue The original journo must have known. After that, "Everett True" became "legendary British critic" and it turned into drama.

aramadge@everetttrue I suppose, but it doesn't go both ways. I can think of many memorable idiots. Then again, perhaps they are important too?

angusbatey@everetttrue It's not about the platform *or* the writing - it's about the engagement with the subject, the intellectual process.

everetttrue@aramadge It was the Courier-Mail. It was an easy hook. I'm nowhere near as famous as I'm given credit for. It used to be flattering but...(shrugs)

everetttrue wait. i am getting so confused holding down...what...five different conversations at once.

aramadge@everetttrue Anyway we're getting off topic. Back to opinion vs criticism. Re: deciding by platform, wasn't that always bullshit anyway?

everetttrue@aramadge not totally. the platform confers authority, a crucial part of the critic's role.

aramadge@everetttrue I mean, a certain tabloid critic may have published more critical writing than their broadsheet counterpart.

everetttrue@aramadge what i mean is...in the babble of voices that is web 2.0, how is one more voice - however well-informed and succinctly argued - going to stand out?

aramadge@everetttrue Perhaps all today's situation means is that the critic has to earn their own authority rather than rely on the masthead.

everetttrue@aramadge without authority, who is going to afford the critic the necessary power to fill their role?

aramadge@everetttrue A fair point, however a good writer will find their way to the story by circumventing the powers that demand said authority.

everetttrue@aramadge agreed. and that'd be nice but i don't see it happening. i really don't. you could argue 'Pitchfork' but...i have issues with that...but of course i'm arguing from a blinkered perspective. i once had authority. i no longer have authority. Hence i feel embittered by the situation and it colours my judgment. i try not to let it.

aramadge@everetttrue What are your issues with Pitchfork? Certainly, it's not perfect. But nor is it the only example of web criticism.

everetttrue@aramadge because they're up their own arse, and don't attempt to engage with the world outside their own narrow worldviews. and it’s not even their own arse, it's Simon Reynolds' - and much as I like Simon, I do not want to be up his bottom.

aramadge@everetttrue Couldn't that be said of a lot of music criticism via traditional publishing as well, though? I think it could.

aramadge@everetttrue Why do you believe you no longer have authority? Do you really think a multitude of voices has killed "Everett True"?

everetttrue@aramadge the title of my PhD thesis is precisely that. (straight up!) i'm not sad about it - more intrigued. actually, it's more down to the fact i refuse to stay put, and keep uprooting myself just when all seems to be settled.

aramadge@everetttrue RE: Simon Reynolds and his arse... That is something we can both emphatically agree upon. :)