Music Journalists Are Incom--Oh, Never Mind

'I give props to Bruno Mars' Doo-Wops & Hooligans, but I'd rather get lost in Ariel Pink's trippy Before Today, which sounds like an album made by an alien who visited Earth in 1976, listened to a ton of AM gold, then tried to replicate the sounds he heard, from very imperfect memory, some 30 years later—check out "Can't Hear My Eyes" and "Menopause Man."'


This snippet of an article from Slate's Jonah Weiner encapsulates why I don't read much music journalism anymore. I like the idea that the purpose of criticism is ultimately to tell the audience about one's own subjective experience of a work, but there's no lazier way to do that than with tortured similes like the one quoted here. The only thing that can push me away from an article faster is when some cheeky writer decides to invent a new genre to describe a not-particularly-original artist, as when Pitchfork described Melissa Nadler's sound as "narco-folk."

Even when I do manage to get all the way to the end of a piece of music writing these days, I usually find that
every critic has pretty much the same tastes: mostly indie darlings like Vampire Weekend, as well as a few hip-hop superstars (usually Kanye West, or just Kanye as he's invariably called) thrown in to prove that they're not snobbish racists.

Weiner goes on in the same article to praise records that "[burst] with ideas and references and signifiers that can be like oxygen to people whose jobs necessitate that they find interesting, involved things to say about music all day." But is it really interesting and involved to play a public game of spot the allusion with every album you listen to? I submit that Weiner's need to point out that he got it when Vampire Weekend referenced The Source and Wire demonstrates that it is not.

I used to devour music magazines in order to discover new artists, but these days I'd vastly prefer to let Last FM or Pandora serve that purpose. I still love music, but I've found that I don't much care what artists have to say about their own work, much less what most music critics have to say about it. I imagine this has something to do with my taste for ethereal and shoegaze bands, who put sound above message. I've never wanted to hear Kevin Sheilds or Liz Fraser say what their songs are really about, because I suspect the truth couldn't possibly live up to my experiences.

Maybe if I listened to more music in which lyrics are of central importance, I'd feel differently, but then again maybe not. A few years ago when I was obsessed with Joanna Newsom's Ys, I intentionally avoided any discussion of the songs' meanings. I knew what they meant to me, and that was good enough.

I'm sure a lot of artists and critics would be appalled by this, but at least I know I'm not a hypocrite. I've written music for most of my life, and one of the most thrilling moments I ever had as a songwriter was when a friend told me what she thought one of my songs meant. She was completely wrong, but I didn't care. I was happier that she had imposed her own subjective meaning on my lyrics than I would have been if she had known exactly what I was singing about.

By now I've completely lost the plot of what I was even writing about at the beginning of this post, so I'm not going to sum up. I'm just going to implore music journalists to be more concerned with passion than the need to make sure everyone knows that they get it.