Wow! This discussion has gotten pretty intense! However, this is much too important of a discussion regarding what is being done here on "The Listology" to leave unresolved. I have some final thoughts on the matter that I hope will, if nothing else, clarify my position once and for all.
Lester, you wrote in your last reply to me:
"I do not agree that a critic should factor in historical importance or influence when making quality assessments of an album. That's the historian's job, not the critic. Of course, one can be both, but one should also not confuse the two or try magically to mix the two in the same list."
I reply:
How can a historian help but be a critic with certain tastes and predilections? Without getting too postmodern, a historian, to a certain extent, cannot help but bring their own point of view into their historical assessments. To illustrate, should we expect a Southern and a Northern historian to view a certain event that happened in the Civil War the same? The notion that history is a static and dispassionate discipline is not only an ill-informed position, but a dangerous one in that it is too narrow in what it allows as a possible definition of history.
Bearing this in mind, I fail to see any "magic" in the two, history and personal taste, being used together to comprise the art of criticism.
You then state:
" "Critical objectivity" is too often bowing to history rather than quality or giving too much weight to the critical mainstream. The tempering you speak of is usually simply watering down one's personal assessments with the majority, and that serves little purpose."
I reply:
While this may sometimes be the case, I think this is WAY too board of a judgment on your part. Someone could just pass off the critical mainstream's opinions as their own, but I think that their lack of depth and personal ability to make unique judgments in the face of their subject matter would show through before too long.
Besides, what if one of your "CC Lists" happens to very closely coincide with one of your personal lists? Would you like it if I simply assumed that you were, in your own words, "using historical knowledge as a crutch"? There are better ways to evaluate good critical analysis, one of which would be a pointed discussion much like the one we are currently engaged in.
You close with:
"A critic's job is much braver and tougher than that, and a critic should be learned and confidant enough in his or her own skills not to rely on safety catches such as the critical mainstream or history."
I reply:
I agree, but a critic has a responsibility to consistently demonstrate varying degrees of historical knowledge in their work, because their work does not exist in a vacuum. Many different people with many different levels of understanding read their work, and if they constantly alienate segments of their audience, their relevance to their chosen field of criticism should be questioned and their contribution possibly not weighed as heavily. Also, it would be quite arrogant and unrealistic to act as though one were outside of the influence of predecessors and peers in one's chosen field.
In closing, I'm not trying make a value judgment on any given philosophy of critical analyses, I would just like you, Lester, to concede that my particular approach to the art of criticism is a sound one. Insofar as I can tell, this has yet to be done in your posts concerning me. Whether you agree with me or not should be a matter for discussion, not dismissal.
As Theology and Geometry as my witnesses, I remain,
While your post is fairly complete, I feel there is one album you've neglected to mention that is a cornerstone of the genre. The "Headz" compilation released in '94 on MoWax not only showcases many of the genre's sylistic signatures, but also "endtroduced" us to one of the people on your list, DJ Shadow. Seeing that Tricky is on the list in some capacity 3 times, I feel you could easily dispense with his "Premillenial Tension" and replace it with "Headz", which 1) would not diminish his contribution to Trip Hop in the least and 2) give a very influential record its proper due.
Also, I was pleased to see the unconventional choice of "Outer Perimeter" on the list. Like Company Flow's "Little Johnny From The Hospital", this probably leans a bit more towards Experimental Hip Hop, but the distinction between this style and Trip Hop from an instrumentation standpoint is a whole other discussion altogether.
All in all, a pretty solid list. But with people such as yourself and Lester Bangs on this site, I would expect nothing less.
I just want to clarify my point about not enjoying a particular artist while still conceding their importance in a given genre or style. I wasn't saying that Tricky, for example, was a bad musician as much as I was trying make the point that I could dislike Tricky's collective output, yet still have enough "critical objectivity" to give him his due in a musical genre he has contributed to. And on a personal note, I think a good critic must temper their subjective predilections with the more objective events of history, which often means acknowledging value where there does not seem to be much substance. The combination of the two, and especially their resulting tension, are the essence of any worthwhile critic's output.
I suppose what spawned my comment in the first place was that you made the assumption that because I agreed with Tricky's presence on the list that this implied I liked him after telling you previously that I didn't. While it is true I like one of his records now, I don't feel it is fair to infer that I either liked or disliked him given my initial comments on the subject here.
I'm sure you know where I am coming from, but I just wanted to clarify myself for the sake of future discussions because I may post a list on a certain genre in the future and list within its ranks a band I dislike, yet cannot dispense with for reasons of relevance and/or influence.
Now it's my turn to shut MY big mouth and get to work some lists! ;)
You should know that it is not necessary to actually enjoy a particular artist in order to concede their importance in a given genre or style. I still think Tricky is somewhat overrated, not to mention quite pretentious, but to ignore his contribution to this style would be criminal. And while I am man enough to admit that I rather do now enjoy "Maxinquaye", I still think Tricky's other solo efforts smack of mediocrity.
It's good to hear from you again, Lester. I hope you are doing well and look forward to future lists and discussions. :)
To Lester Bangs and Johnny Waco,
Wow! This discussion has gotten pretty intense! However, this is much too important of a discussion regarding what is being done here on "The Listology" to leave unresolved. I have some final thoughts on the matter that I hope will, if nothing else, clarify my position once and for all.
Lester, you wrote in your last reply to me:
"I do not agree that a critic should factor in historical importance or influence when making quality assessments of an album. That's the historian's job, not the critic. Of course, one can be both, but one should also not confuse the two or try magically to mix the two in the same list."
I reply:
How can a historian help but be a critic with certain tastes and predilections? Without getting too postmodern, a historian, to a certain extent, cannot help but bring their own point of view into their historical assessments. To illustrate, should we expect a Southern and a Northern historian to view a certain event that happened in the Civil War the same? The notion that history is a static and dispassionate discipline is not only an ill-informed position, but a dangerous one in that it is too narrow in what it allows as a possible definition of history.
Bearing this in mind, I fail to see any "magic" in the two, history and personal taste, being used together to comprise the art of criticism.
You then state:
" "Critical objectivity" is too often bowing to history rather than quality or giving too much weight to the critical mainstream. The tempering you speak of is usually simply watering down one's personal assessments with the majority, and that serves little purpose."
I reply:
While this may sometimes be the case, I think this is WAY too board of a judgment on your part. Someone could just pass off the critical mainstream's opinions as their own, but I think that their lack of depth and personal ability to make unique judgments in the face of their subject matter would show through before too long.
Besides, what if one of your "CC Lists" happens to very closely coincide with one of your personal lists? Would you like it if I simply assumed that you were, in your own words, "using historical knowledge as a crutch"? There are better ways to evaluate good critical analysis, one of which would be a pointed discussion much like the one we are currently engaged in.
You close with:
"A critic's job is much braver and tougher than that, and a critic should be learned and confidant enough in his or her own skills not to rely on safety catches such as the critical mainstream or history."
I reply:
I agree, but a critic has a responsibility to consistently demonstrate varying degrees of historical knowledge in their work, because their work does not exist in a vacuum. Many different people with many different levels of understanding read their work, and if they constantly alienate segments of their audience, their relevance to their chosen field of criticism should be questioned and their contribution possibly not weighed as heavily. Also, it would be quite arrogant and unrealistic to act as though one were outside of the influence of predecessors and peers in one's chosen field.
In closing, I'm not trying make a value judgment on any given philosophy of critical analyses, I would just like you, Lester, to concede that my particular approach to the art of criticism is a sound one. Insofar as I can tell, this has yet to be done in your posts concerning me. Whether you agree with me or not should be a matter for discussion, not dismissal.
As Theology and Geometry as my witnesses, I remain,
Dr. Nut
Johnny Waco,
While your post is fairly complete, I feel there is one album you've neglected to mention that is a cornerstone of the genre. The "Headz" compilation released in '94 on MoWax not only showcases many of the genre's sylistic signatures, but also "endtroduced" us to one of the people on your list, DJ Shadow. Seeing that Tricky is on the list in some capacity 3 times, I feel you could easily dispense with his "Premillenial Tension" and replace it with "Headz", which 1) would not diminish his contribution to Trip Hop in the least and 2) give a very influential record its proper due.
Also, I was pleased to see the unconventional choice of "Outer Perimeter" on the list. Like Company Flow's "Little Johnny From The Hospital", this probably leans a bit more towards Experimental Hip Hop, but the distinction between this style and Trip Hop from an instrumentation standpoint is a whole other discussion altogether.
All in all, a pretty solid list. But with people such as yourself and Lester Bangs on this site, I would expect nothing less.
The Vanguard of Taste and Decency,
Dr. Nut
Lester,
I just want to clarify my point about not enjoying a particular artist while still conceding their importance in a given genre or style. I wasn't saying that Tricky, for example, was a bad musician as much as I was trying make the point that I could dislike Tricky's collective output, yet still have enough "critical objectivity" to give him his due in a musical genre he has contributed to. And on a personal note, I think a good critic must temper their subjective predilections with the more objective events of history, which often means acknowledging value where there does not seem to be much substance. The combination of the two, and especially their resulting tension, are the essence of any worthwhile critic's output.
I suppose what spawned my comment in the first place was that you made the assumption that because I agreed with Tricky's presence on the list that this implied I liked him after telling you previously that I didn't. While it is true I like one of his records now, I don't feel it is fair to infer that I either liked or disliked him given my initial comments on the subject here.
I'm sure you know where I am coming from, but I just wanted to clarify myself for the sake of future discussions because I may post a list on a certain genre in the future and list within its ranks a band I dislike, yet cannot dispense with for reasons of relevance and/or influence.
Now it's my turn to shut MY big mouth and get to work some lists! ;)
Pontificatously Posted,
Dr. Nut
Lester Bangs,
You should know that it is not necessary to actually enjoy a particular artist in order to concede their importance in a given genre or style. I still think Tricky is somewhat overrated, not to mention quite pretentious, but to ignore his contribution to this style would be criminal. And while I am man enough to admit that I rather do now enjoy "Maxinquaye", I still think Tricky's other solo efforts smack of mediocrity.
It's good to hear from you again, Lester. I hope you are doing well and look forward to future lists and discussions. :)
I remain unmoved,
Dr. Nut
Molest me again, sir, and you shall feel the lash of my biting wit and searing logic against your pitiful shoulder!
Take you heed!,
Dr. Nut