Henry Farrell thinks he sees a parallel between music critics and the Mafia:
I think that there’s a similar problem in the relationship between music artists and music consumers, in which critics play a key brokerage role, just as the Mafia does in a rather different sphere of commercial relations. Critics serve to guarantee to the public that certain artists, certain music, is ‘good’ (there are a whole bunch of sociological questions about what constitutes ‘good’ in this sense that I don’t want to get into). But they also want to preserve their own role as critical intermediaries and arbiters of taste – in other words, they don’t want consumers to feel sufficiently secure in their own tastes that they can bypass the critic and formulate their own tastes about artists. Therefore, one could make a plausible case that critics have an incentive to inject certain amounts of aesthetic uncertainty into the marketplace, by deliberately writing reviews which suggest that bad artists are good, or that good artists are bad, so as to screw with the heads of the listening public. This ensures that the Plain Music-Punters of Ireland remain unsure of their own ability successfully to gauge artistic quality, and don’t start ignoring what pop critics say in favor of following their own aesthetic judgements.
That’s about the best explanation I’ve seen for the critical acclaim for the Streets…
I don’t think you can really push this analogy all that far, but it was amusing. I doubt that critics are really consciously slipping in oddball reviews to mess with people’s heads. In the specific case of Pitchfork, which kicked the whole thing off, I think the “adolescent relationship to music” explanation offered in comments is probably closer.
At the same time, though, there is a fairly real need for a reviewer to occasionally pan things, just so you know you’re not dealing with Harriet Klausner. And music critics do benefit from appearing to have more refined tastes than consumers, so I think the dynamic at work here is at least similar to what Henry describes.
There’s such a thing as a music critic? And people listen to them?
I buy music I like, usually things I hear on the various “stations” in iTunes radio under the Alternative and Industrial genres lately.
The idea of someone getting paid for critiqing something as subjective and ephemeral as music for the masses is just surreal. It’s bad enough that people get paid to tell us what movies to like.
At least I’m not alone in not getting “The Streets…”
Podcasts have been the way I’ve heard about most of the new music I’ve picked up in the last year. I hear good things about Pandora, but have felt no real need to try it out.
No doubt something similar applies to college rankings…
Cute critique of critics. Though I think critics get more cred from finding new unknown artists and/or genres. This is probably why The Streets got such acclaim. Their first album really was unique and interesting — at least I thought so. Not over the top incredible mind you but definately a fun album with plenty of interestingly unique musical crossover and plenty of energy to get your bone moving.
However the second album is generally dull to the point of being unlistenable, and the forced narrative is tired before you’re even done with the album. I have no idea why “Grand Don’t Come For Free” got so much high acclaim — probably just riding off the first one.
If you heard The Streets first from their 2nd album, I can see why you think they’re blah.
However the second album is generally dull to the point of being unlistenable, and the forced narrative is tired before you’re even done with the album.
While I agree that the narrative of A Grand Don’t Come For Free doesn’t really work, there are some good songs on the album, particularly “Blinded By The Lights”. It’s nowhere near as good as the first album, but it’s not irredeemably sucky.