Line Out - Comments on Re: The Raconteurs Coming to Seattle in April; Trying to Kill Music Journalism Now

Comment by Eric Grandy

Eric Grandy — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:56:11 -0800

FIRST!1!!

Comment by Ari Spool

Ari Spool — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:08:29 -0800

Stars released a record last year in the same way: "We're done, here ya go!" I didn't give a shit because I don't like Stars, but it didn't seem to stop people from praising the album. I think we gave it four stars in this here rag.

In any case, I agree, it's not about criticism or thoughts. It's about the front page of Myspace and publicists. And fuck that shit.

Comment by laterite

laterite — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:13:05 -0800

Well put, Brendan. The agelessness of a composition is just as important as its timeliness.

Comment by flamingbanjo

flamingbanjo — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:36:07 -0800

That being said, if you still aren't sure how you feel about Van Halen, it's very possible that the most cogent, insightful critique in the world won't help.

Comment by j-lon

j-lon — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:48:34 -0800

People need trusted filters to navigate and prioritize the firehose of cultural product. Critics are one such filter. The so-called hype-machine is another. Historically, these two things have been in symbiotic alignment. The web is breaking that alliance down. New filters are emerging (e.g., more fan-based comment on music).

But one way or another, if you are a musician trying to be heard and to sell yourself to an audience large enough to support you financially, you're going to need some filters to help people find you.

And the most valuable filters are the ones the user trusts. So whether it's KEXP, Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, the Stranger, or Eric Grandy, the ultimate criteria is trustworthiness.

Therefore, to me, the issue isn't whether critics will become irrelevant; the real issue is whether the new landscape will provide enough financial support for good, smart critics to continue their work full-time.

If this support isn't present, it may not be the end of the world, but we definitely will have lost something. And this may be hairsplitting, but I don't think criticism is about being smartest. It's about being the most insightful. Often those two things coincide. But just as often they don't, because the critic chooses to show off his or her smartness at the expense of digging for more insight.

Comment by another irrelevant critic

another irrelevant critic — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:01:40 -0800

the ultimate criteria is trustworthiness.

That should be criterion.

Otherwise, an insightful post.

Comment by manic preacha

manic preacha — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:28:00 -0800

All good points. When it comes down to it, critics are just another opinion.