Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Rolling Stone's record review section turns 50: a disappointing passage

Inside Rolling Stone's Album Reviews Section - Rolling Stone:

Not really a fan of this section and I tend to question RSs motives in who they cover and the reasons for the favorable reviews so artists seem to get every time they release something. Music critic and pop cultural historian Jim DeRogatis, author of the Lester Bangs biography Let It Blurt, was once the editor of the RS review section and shared with at a book event that Jann Wenner , founder and very hands on editor, decreed that there are artists who will never get a negative review, among them Dylan, The Boss, Tom Petty,...the usual suspects.

 I believe him, and I'm convinced Wenner corrupted the integrity of his reviewers; the section isn't a place of true criticism, the practice of discussing thins at length, in detail, with the instance of rendering an honest estimation. It has been, for a long time, a tedious exercise in rubber stamping new albums with praise that rarely rise above the corroded cliches and platitudes that have haunted music reviewers for decades. There are notable exceptions, of course, chief among them Mikal Gilmore, a sterling prose stylist and a man given to nuanced consideration of history and tradition and contextualizes his praise against high standards. It should be said as well that the record review section was my most essential writing laboratory . 

As in the already mentioned Marcus, Bangs, Landau and RJ Gleason (and Robert Christgau at the Village Voice and Duncan Shepard at the SD Reader), these were my models for what I thought a fine critical prose should read like. For that I am grateful. That just makes it sadder to note that what was indeed the freshest and most invigorating forum for commentary has cease to be a place for independent thinking and has become, in most part, a section of corporate shilling.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Say something clear and smart.Lets have a discussion.