Over the past few years, there’s been a big shift in the critical landscape when it comes to music. When we think of music critics, we tend to think of curmudgeons celebrating records that the general public has never heard of and hating on anything in the top-40. But in the past few years, there’s been a real shift toward “poptimism” among even the most previously stuffy critics.
The basic concept behind poptimism is that “rockism” - the critical mentality that some music is more “authentic” or “legitimate” than other music - is a bad thing, a dumb and closed-minded approach to criticism. In short, “the velvet underground = legitimate = good, ashlee simpson = manufactured - bad.”
Of course, people tend to take things to extremes, so now you have the Lester Bangs of our day pulling stunts like listing an obscure noise record that only sold 50 copies on cassette as their #1 record of 2006 and then Mariah Carey’s album as #2, and so on. Pitchforkmedia.com, previously the vanguard of all things obscure and independent, now reviews and critiques Lil’ Wayne albums with the same solemnity previously reserved for Captain Beefheart and Sun Ra reissues.
What’s going on?
I think that this is all simply a big knee-jerk against the past several decades of rock criticism - indiscriminately embracing and intellectualizing the most banal and base pop music is the last taboo in a world where there is no such thing as true obscurity, 12-year-olds have equal access to Scott Walker and Serge Gainsbourg records through filesharing services. You can’t out-obscure the John Peels and Lester Bangs of the day, so you swing it around and go for the nuclear option, writing about Hillary Duff records with the same sincerity - you take it to the one place that they won’t go. Mix in a little of that irony that our generation loves so much ("no guys, I’m totally serious. Really.), and you’ve got poptimism.
I think, rather than holding records up to some objective standard of goodness, more critics are evaluating them by the standards of their genre. An Ashlee Simpson record may be manufactured and a product of studio craft rather than musicianship, but if you want something poppy and light and it delivers that, than by those standards it is satisfactory.
On one level, that does make sense. On another, I think it’s sort of a copout because it seems to reward albums more for meeting genre requirements than for trying anything new or interesting.
I’m not a poptimist as I think of the term (one who critically praises pop music over all other musics, and evaluates all music by the standards of pop music), but I do like Black Dice and Mariah Carey, I think Lil’ Wayne is one of the best artists around in any genre right now and I think that any artist, whether Hilary Duff or Van Morrisson is worthy of sincere evaluation.
Some of the reasons my approach makes for better criticism:
It better reflects how people listen to music. Apart from cliques of snotty college kids, no one listens exclusively to indie rock (or whatever). Especially in a post iTunes world, people are much more likely to enjoy a range of music, including “acceptable” and “unacceptable” music.
It better reflects how people listen to music pt. II: When we want to play a record, we don’t go around evaluating nonsense like, how much of a classic is this album? A person does not look through her record collection and choose to listen to “London Calling” over her new Daughtry CD because it’s “greater”; she choose the one she feels like listening to at the time. She doesn’t enjoy humming along whenever “Glamorous” comes on the radio any less because it’s not as appropriate to like as the Iron & Wine album in her CD changer.
You’re being a dishonest critic if you start pretending.
There is no objective standard of goodness. And what’s wrong with “poppy” or “light”? Why is that not as good as “difficult” and “heavy”? And one doesn’t have to evaluate within the standards of a particular genre to praise an Ashlee Simpson (or any other) record. Just don’t evaluate it by the standards of a genre it doesn’t have anything to do with, especially a genre that is, like everything else in today’s music world, a niche market. Evaluate whether the music is good.
And to answer the OP’s question: Poptimism started in the early '80s amongst British critics.
But I’d say that that defeats the point of criticism. If criticism becomes nothing more than “this is a good CD because I like listening to it,” then criticism serves no purpose.
I believe that The Great Gatsby and a Danielle Steele novel can be viewed through a critical lens that claims the former is a “better” work than the latter. This is completely independant of the fact that I might enjoy reading one more than the other.
Depends. Is criticism about creating an elitist club of people who know the right things to say at the right times, or is it writing interestingly about the subject at hand, shedding light on its intricacies and subtleties and exploring the way it pleases or displeases us?
It seems like in the past month, it’s suddenly become cool to like “Weezy.” What happened? I first knew him as the barely-coherent cromag dropping the third verse on “#1 Stunna” before returning with the totally simplistic and retarded “The block is hot.” I know he’s done some records since then, so I thought that maybe he had somehow undergone a major metamorphosis and artistic maturation in the interim (hell, he was only like 16 when they did “#1 Stunna!”), so I checked out Dedication 2 and nope - it’s same ol’ Weezy, barely mumbling a couple words per line, coming up with embarrassing and lame rhymes over 808 ringtone beats. And dude, what’s UP with the 38 bpm beats on that record!? I know that everything south of the mason-dixon has to be extra slow, but I couldn’t help but feel that the beat was being slowed down even more so that Wayne could keep up with it, as he often barely manages four or five words per line.
Seriously, what?
The speech on “I’m the greatest rapper alive” confirms that he’s basically been lobotomized by the weed and sizzurp, and then they can’t even properly flip “Bang Bang, my baby shot me down”!!! I gave up.
Well, I’m confused (not intending to be snarky at all). You mentioned “sincere evaluation,” which I agree with, but I’m not sure how that applies in your scenario differently than any other. I would hope that a critic was sincerely evaluating something as opposed to being dishonest or unthourough.
The problem with evaluating a song or work based solely within the approved framework for the genre is that it doesn’t leave room to be critical about the genre itself, or about the song independant of genre.
A song might be a “good” pop song, and yet still fail other litmus tests.
Nothing in this thread has anything to do with criticism, because criticism has nothing to do with whether or not you (or the author) liked the work. Criticism is all about placing a piece in the appropriate cultural context and extracting meaning from it within that context. That context may or may not be historical, but it almost always reflects a theory of some form.
It is very possible for criticism to crawl entirely up its own asshole. When it does that, we call it ‘postmodern’ and use it to get laid (the only possible use postmodernism will ever have). In general, however, criticism is important as the juncture of logic, philosophy, psychology, history, and aesthetics.
Is it wrong when Ebert and Roeper praise action movies alongside serious dramas? If not, why not? Why can’t people like many genres? Is it OK to like showtunes, which are arguably among the most poppy and contrived and manufactured songs ever? Or, since they are “theater,” they somehow meet a higher standard?
Alright, we’re basically only talking post Tha Carter for Weezy, possibly post-500 Degreez. And his rise has been incredible through that period, and even at the heights he’s reached now, he’s given no sign of slowing down; he just keeps getting better. For a start, there’s the pure pleasure of the sound of his voice, that insane, oily croak, similtaneously sinuous and abrasive. And this isn’t just a case of “it’s not what he says, it’s the way he says it”; Wayne absolutely loves words. He’s an impressionist, and his rap isn’t so much about narrative or concrete ideas as it is about fleeting thoughts and concepts, imagery and metaphor, off the wall wordplay and ridiculous punchlines.
One of his most recent tracks, “Dying” illustrates how far he’s pushing that impressionism:
It’s unearthly to listen to; he’s turning rap into gangsta psychedelia. And then he abandons the gangsta-isms altogether:
Or take his remix of DJ Khaled’s “We Takin Over” (his verse on the original is fantastic, but the remix (from “Da Drought 3”) is better. I’d select quotes, but the whole thing is fantastic. Scroll down for the lyrics and to listen to the stream. It’s hilarious (“My flow just grew legs and walked out… BYE!”), brave (“Damn right I kissed my Daddy”), befuddling (“Every day Christmas, I’m egg nogged out”), clever (the interweaving and disparate references to domesticity, family and horror that just pop in and out of the rhyme) and awe-inspiring (“Creative gifted bastard/Spit sporadic/I’m so diplomatic/ democratic/Touch it, Bring it, Push it systematic”).
I like the “Best Rapper Alive” speech and the “Bang Bang” flip (though that one’s on Don Cannon, not Weezy), but if you’re not into the ringtone beats (they just sound Southern to me), his most recent album proper, Tha Carter II, is filled with thick guitar and keys productions, like mid '90s West Coast updated to '05 and relocated to the third coast. Maybe that’d be more to your liking? I guess his beats tend to be slow - it allows maximum room for his voice to soak through the track - but he does an absolutely dizzying take on Jay-Z’s “Show Me What You Got,” which is also on Da Drought 3.
I’d give Dedication 2 another listen. Surely you can find something to like about “Georgia Bush”?
We’re talking about something entirely subjective. Criticism will always have something do with whether the author likes the work. Just because the author must back up their opinions with well-reasoned argument doesn’t mean that their tastes are irrelevent; that’s like saying that newspaper opinion pieces are about real events, not the author’s opinion.
It mean that if how “manufactured” an artist is (what does that mean?) has nothing to do with the genre under discussion, then you probably shouldn’t be evaluting the music in that form. If you’re discussing “a product of studio craft rather than musicianship,” you should probably not be using musicianship as a standard for evaluating the music.
I don’t think you should evaluate a song purely within the genre, though examining how it fits into the genre might help your analysis. The key point is that at the end of the day, you’re going to have to apply a litmus test. Please suggest other tests if you have any in mind (I’m being 100% sincere), but I’ve thought thoroughly through many and the best one I can come up with is to ask:
And to then answer that question with the knowledge that music is for listening to. Listen to the music. Is it good for listening to?
I’d say criticism should use the first four to explore the fifth.
And how do you determine which things have “nothing to do with the genre under discussion?” You’re making it sound like these side issues are very cut and dried.
I think it’s pretty clear what I meant by “manufactured.”
Why not?
What the hell else would it be good for? Eating? You’re passing this off as a deep-but-simple insight; it’s not. Almost all music is judged by this criterion, because “is it good to listen to?” can mean all things to all people. There are flaws in any standard for judging music, including this one.
They’re not cut and dried, and that’s why criticism involves actually making an argument. Sometimes it’s obvious that a criterion has nothing to do with a genre - for instance, you don’t judge Chuck Berry’s rock ‘n’ roll in terms of Berry’s rapping ability. More contentiousness issues require greater critical analysis.
From what you’ve said so far, it seems to have something to do with music that is “poppy and light.”
What’s so special about musicianship that it should be a standard?
What the hell else would it be good for? Eating? You’re passing this off as a deep-but-simple insight; it’s not.
[/quote]
Not simple but deep, just simple and true. You see…
That’s exactly the point. The argument is what criticism is about, not the conclusion.
No, that’s just an assumption you’re making. Do I really have to explain why I think Ashlee Simpson is something of a fake commodity as opposed to a skilled musician?
In music-making? No particular reason, I guess. I said nothing negative about pop music or studio craft, and I already explained that.
Lord have mercy. That Li’l Wayne song was the worst piece of rapping I’ve seen since about 1980. It was repetitive, simplistic, utterly unimaginative, and good God, you consider stringing together three or four rhyming words in a couple of lines awe-inspiring? I’ve heard Del Tha Funky Homosapien do better than that as a matter of course. It’s just not that difficult or rare.
Seriously, from my perspective, there’s nothing about your critique that’s the least bit critical.