I have no problem in principle with a critic giving A- ratings to Souldja Boy's debut, Backstreet Boys' debut, a handful of Lil Wayne/Nicki Minaj/Taylor Swift albums, and Black Eyed Peas' The E.N.D.. Nor do I have a problem with a critic giving B- ratings to The Wall and OK Computer, a C+ rating to Interpol's debut, a D+ rating to King Crimson's debut, and a 'bomb' to Beach House's debut, not to mention a host of mediocre ratings to otherwise widely acclaimed albums by David Bowie, The Smiths and Led Zeppelin. Christgau, however, makes little attempt to explain or justify his (often highly questionable) ratings. His reviews are vague, rambling and self-indulgent. They invariably ignore the content and merits of the album he is supposed to be critiquing. His signature style is thus very disrespectful to the artist, to the reader, and indeed to the critic's profession. He is extremely fortunate to have enjoyed such a successful career.
+I Prefer Small Tits "His reviews are vague, rambling and self-indulgent." Whether you agree with Christgau much of the time or not, these charges are not true. His style is concise. He gets right to the heart of what he sees as important. Your argument that he "ignore(s) the content and merits of the album he is supposed to be critiquing" is probably actually linked to his brief, precise style. It is true that he can dismiss a record unfairly with a cutting remark, and never address things which people actually like about it. This is because he likes what he likes, and he refuses to modify that, even when he admits that his reasons for liking something may be quite personal. His work has had some influence on what I listen for and hear in music, perhaps most importantly by opening me up to listening to music I had not considered before. I definitely do not always agree with him, but that is OK. I am not looking for some kind of oracle to tell me what I must like, but it is usually interesting to read what he has to say about a record. I have learned a lot from him.
It is true. Led Zeppelins albums Physical Graffiti and Led Zeppelin II are much more regarded than a mere B+. same with David Bowies Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars.
@Sam B Moron, King Crimson is in the same level as Genesis and Yes and ELP. I bet you have not heard anything. Robert Fripp is a monster and plays like a God even at 75 y.o.
The problem with King Crimson is that they never had a truly stable line up. Hence the music never matured or developed in any meaningful way. Besides whatever Robert Fripp happened to be thinking of at the time.
prog rock is pretentious and boring. it’s a contradiction, rock is not high-art, it works best as low-art for the masses. its dance music, not miles davis.
@@markodern789 The problem isn't Christgau calling it "ersatz shit"....it's that his reviews were and always will be lazy, self absorbed and pretentious. Tell us WHY you think it's "ersatz shit"....rather than lazily throwing in a Pete Townshend reference for an attempt at gaining "cool" points.
Imagine getting butthurt by one reviewer's opinion of an album you like and going out of your way to post a comment on a well-made documentary about it.
Music Hub this could be the greatest documentary of all time and it still wouldnt change the fact that christgau’s prog reviews (and a lot of his reviews bar none) are pompous, condescending and flat out lazy.
How is this guy one of the most renowned music critics of all time? He gives albums low ratings simply because he finds them "juvenile" or "obnoxious". And in that case, why did he give Eminem's Encore (either his worst or second worst album depending on who you ask) 4/5 while panning his other material? This guy's rating system is inconsistent and makes no sense.
You shouldn't be paying attention to ratings, though in answer to your question, his renown is a product of his brilliant prose. Half of what he dislikes I find brilliant, so I'm not terribly concerned with what HE thinks, just how he says it. His prose goes over most peoples' heads.
I wouldn’t be wrong would I if I said you have less than zero understanding of music, zero understanding of literature, and near zero of everything anyway.
@Sam B I mean it's gotta be constructive. The guy called black sabbath's first album "bullshit necromancy". Like on what basis? And the fact that he rates a bunch of half decent drag Queens known as new york dolls and calls other people stupid who don't like them I mean that's pretty hypocritical for a critic right
I think he's a wanker. The only critics I pay any attention to are the staff at Allmusic.com because they have a collective of people for different types of genres so you don't get a wanker like this that just dismisses an entire fucking genre in itself.
I can agree sometimes his grading can be a little over the top, like the "bomb sign" with no explanation at all about why he dislikes the album. Over than that great work, just try and read one of his critic you'll understand that if you don't know the artist's background you cannot understand what he's talking about; showing there's some real work going on here.
Lots of dum metal heads and rawkers that didn’t like being confused by big words and seeing their favorite albums get lower grades for misogyny and racism.
I didn't realize Christgau was so divisive until I read these comments! Then again, I should have expected this; I'm personally divided about him. When I saw that he dislikes Tupac, Radiohead, & Daft Punk, I was repelled. But when I realized that he gives a lot of pop music a chance, which most pretentious critics don't do, I began to appreciate at least some of his views. I generally like his 1980s-era reviews best. Not so much the 70s. But you can't deny his influence on music criticism.
At 1:20 you've got a guy saying that Xgau isn't living in the times, and he's got his hands behind his head to show off his cufflinks, then cut to Xgau in a black t-shirt and jeans, the uniform of the '90s.
+Rodrigo Oliveira government center - the modern lovers note: I didn't know what it was either. I'm aware of the modern lovers but I just looked up the lyrics and found it. Magical, eh? charming tune.
Has made a habit of creating his own context that will justify his biases. Doesn't realize that he ends up contradicting himself when he randomly overrates something in a genre he really doesn't care/know about because he's paranoid that someone is on to all of this. He often disses albums for not being what they're supposed to. He'll disregard something for being lite Fusion while saying to stick with the real thing (X real rock artist/X real jazz artist). He talked shit about King Crimson, but gave Kanye West an A for sampling King Crimson. Christgau is clearly the one that needs to stick with the real thing since he's an expert in authenticity. If something is well done, then to him, it's to mask lack of realness. He's a nerd that wants to be accepted by the cool kids.
This guy is stuck in the past. He absolutely REFUSES to listen to anything complex and different and sticks only to artists that receive radio play and will bash anything that doesn't stick to traditional song writing or whatever his view of good music is. What a joke.
+Caleb Willis Can you give some examples? He gave an A to Kendrick Lamar and Kanye West's recent albums. Those albums seem quite "modern" to me. How is he stuck in the past?
+WhiteRussianBC Of course that guy can't give examples, cuz he probably still is upset about old Zappa albums not getting an A+. Which infers that dude is likely stuck in the . . . past.
Everyone loves to hate a critic. But I can't help loving Christgau's reviews. His writings on Thelonious Monk, Sonic Youth and Talking Heads are some of the very best. And his five sentence review of the Replacements' Let It Be is my favourite piece of music criticism ever.
He writes well but he really is a non-musician's critic, as he seems more interested in the lyrics than the more purely musical content. I doubt that he would recognise the mixolydian scale if it hit him in the face, which seems very amateurish from a musician's standpoint. I also don't see the sense in being very judgemental about matters of taste or things you don't have the wherewithal to understand. Having said that, he may be useful to non-musician listeners who share the same predilections and preoccupations. It's up to the reader to find critics worth reading.
A lot of Robert's reviews are bs. He gave lower grades to amazing albums like AC/DC's "Back In Black" a B-, Van Halen's first album a C, etc. and he gave higher grades to bad albums like Soulja Boy A- or stuff like that. There are better music critics that are more open minded, unbiased, and precise.
Definitely don’t agree with fucking Soulja Boy, but AC/DC and Van Halen (except for Eddie Van Halen, he was a guitar virtuoso if there ever was one. R.I.P.) are just overrated same-y chauvinistic party rock.
Ironic because you sound extremely narrow-minded and biased yourself. There’s no such thing as being “precise” for something subjective like criticism. B- is not a low rating. That’s like a 7.5 out of 10. And seems right to me. There’s many better albums than that. And sounds like he is open-minded when he doesn’t predictably trash music like Soulja Boy who in retrospect is one if the most influential musicians of the last century.
its allright bob.......im going to look at "magical mystery tour's" deletion as an oversight....though rolling stone magazine should issue an apology to the beatles and all their fans. i am also going to look at "london calling" being represented in the top 10,000 as a joke......you rolling stone editors have got such a sense of humour...ha ha he he he....i wonder how many people took that as serious....you got me ....good one!......well done for releasing your list on april the 1st.
Once you find out that he is just the personified music voice critic of the post 60's new left you can literally predict how he is going to review any given album. Or at least that's how I spent 20 minutes accurately calling every album rating by the letter grade exactly on his site.
@@smkxodnwbwkdns8369, you miss the point. What he is referring to is that his approach to rock music, as was Lester Bangs, Dave Marsh and Jann Wenner, is that rock is supposed to be the PEOPLE'S music that is emotive, simple and danceable. It has been said that blues-based critics like Xgau, Bangs, etc., hated progressive rock because (a) unlike punk and metal, progressive rock is largely a middle class/affluent class phenomenon rather than a blue collar approach; (2) progressive rock is generally apolitical, rather than a neo-Marxist bent; (3) progressive is classical and folk-based, rather than blues based, with the belief that rock sprung from the cradle of the black music such as bebop jazz, blues, rhythm and blues and soul music, and; (4) Progressive rockers like ELP, Yes, Pink Floyd, Tull, Rush, etc., were wildly successful, far more successful than the punk rockers that followed, which grated at their social sensibilities. As Xgau petulantly wrote of ELP, "These guys are as stupid as their pretentious, elitist fans." Why hate the fans for liking a type of rock that wasn't a 2-minute dance song? A shitload of bitterness and resentment that exists to this day. Put another way, some of the Ramones were politically conservative, but they played what Xgau considered to be essential rock n' roll, which is simple chords in 4/4 time, no more than 3 minutes, and immediately danceable. The critics far preferred music that connects to emotions rather than cerebral aesthetics.
@@robertglisson6319 Rock and Roll IS dance music coming from the blues, and trying to make cerebral music with a standard rock unit (bass drums two guitars vocal) is roughly like trying to compose an epic poem with a limited vocabulary-you are using the wrong tools. Thats why so much prog sounds so awkward and herky jerky. Punk exploded in England and bands like Sex Pistols had success in proportion to prog bands of the time though it translates into many less copies due to population differences. It took 15-20 years but almost every successful and big band since about 1990 are more influenced by Sex Pistols than Steely Dan. In a way grunge was some succeeding generation of punk. I love cerebral music but that is in the form of Jazz (I prefer modern jazz to classics) and Wagner, Mozart. For what Wagner was doing which is amazing multi-dimensional and meaningful serious art, he would never attempt to compose in a format like rock music for the same reason he didn’t write folk music with drums and spanish guitar. Prog rock was misguided because they were adulterating a format that is supposed to be about the body not the mind. You can write prog blues, prog native american dance music, prog country music, but that wouldn’t be any good either. Hip-hop with artists like Kanye West and Kendric Lamaher are going through the rock equivalent of prog rock: bloated self-indulgent pomp and pretentiousness when like punk the rap that will be remembered wont be Kanyes/Kendrick Lamar it will be what people contemptuously call mumble rap, juicewrld, no different than the middle class contemptuously termed punk rock as an insult when it later became the dominant form of rock during the 90s and 00s. When lil wayne first blew in 2008, I knew it was among the best rap around and would be influential, but in my middle class school so many people derided lil wayne mocked it as stupid and all these things… well, today lil wayne is clearly the most influential rapper from that era. People mocked Sex Pistols but then Guns n Roses and Nirvana, bands very influenced by punk, took over the world. I honestly haven’t thought about your ideas before and it sounds like theres some truth to it but its not the full picture. Theres strictly aesthetic and musical reasons to dislike prog. and like you said, ramones and other conservatives were appraised for the music in spite of their politics. Lynerered skynnerd was as red republican as you can get and they were a fantastic blues based band.
@@robertglisson6319 punk was more higher class than some proggers.This whole "middle class* thing is stupid,most of usa are middle class and poor people don't listen punk at all.In fact in most societies music is not present among the poor generally it's the middle and upper class who Care about music,most poor people Just listen to a song while drunk and dance without even knowing the name of the artist.Your whole analysis is based on a false idealized conception of lower and middle class
@@robertglisson6319 have you ever met a poor person in your life ? No poor person in any society Care about music let alone its message or its relevance
in fact few people understand his view on music. Xgau's taste, that makes him dislike sooo many mainstream bands or albums, few people understands it. The thing is he is not biased nor he dont take seriously his job, but people dont understand, cause is not like understanding an idea its more like be in another body and brain and experience the way other taste for example flavors... In taste nothing is written, so instead of just criticize and denie the man's work try to understand... A lot of fanatism going on thats why many people hate this man. For instance i love pink floyd xgau not, i couldnt care less, but instead i try to understand why and doing so is that I learned a lot of new music and new genres, ironically I learned to apreciate 2000+ music rap/pop/indie music which is music from my generation that Ive always discriminated. Discovered new rock artists i ended up loving Neil Young, Arcade fire, etc... I still love prog rock a lot but I totally understand why Xgau not, its about the pounderousness and stuf like that... Anyway despite tastes I still believe Xgau is a great critic that contribute with a whole different new and great music taste and point of view...
Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read - Frank Zappa. The minute Christgau writes a song, then you can take his criticism seriously. The man is a professional writer, not a musician. If you want to understand something about plumbing, would you ask a telephone operator? Same should go for music. As a default, always ask a musician, not a writer - ESPECIALLY when it comes to rock music.
You don't have to be a musician to know if an album or song sucks. Same as you dont have to be a film director to know the difference between a bad movie to a good one.
@@Kittylover074 Maybe so, but in essence what you're saying is that you don't have to create something to have an opinion about it. I don't question that. EVERYONE is entitled to an opinion. What I do question is whether someone who DOESN'T create something should get paid to make us think his/her opinion matters. It rarely does.
Soulja Boy is so much more talented than King Crimson and Pink Floyd. The "Self-Proclaimed" Dean of Rock Critics says so. I can almost swear the man is a fucking troll.
Josh Carter Pardon me. I was drinking when I typed that comment. I'm sure he never said that, at least never in any of his little reviews. What he has said is that King Crimson, particularly in regards to "In The Court of the Crimson King" is one of the most overrated bands of all time. He has also stated that Pink Floyd's "The Dark Side of the Moon" had no soul. His review of Soulja Boy's debut album, which he awarded an A-, is easily one of his most infamous reviews. I think these three things were what I was trying to comment about. However, I must say that I do regret typing that. Music is subjective, yeah, yeah, yeah, and I respect the opinions of others. But he...... just comes off as such a pretentious snob. Fuck it. I still think he's a troll.
+MaritimeViper Why are you trying to compare two different albums from two different times? It's not the same music style. And he never said Soulja Boy was better than Pink Floyd you moron...
That Soulja Boy review was grade-A trolling, but not all of his reviews are. He knows exactly what he's doing. Besides he gave positive ratings to most of Crimson and Floyd's 70s output. That's a lot more positive reviews than Soulja Boy has recieved.
It seems to me that Christgau is one of those people who is more interested in music that is more in line with things that he had heard and seen in his writing career like hip-hop and punk. To him it's more original than more inventive and artistic strains of music like progressive rock (although according to some comments I've seen he is rather fond of Art rockers like David Bowie and Roxy Music). But try comparing his musical taste to someone like me. Me, I like anything that is rock, I'll listen to things like hard rock and heavy metal, folk rock, roots rock, psychedelic rock, post punk and new wave, jazz fusion, and yes progressive rock including art rock. Plus other styles I'm taking interest like ska, reggae and shoegaze. Everyone has different tastes and opinions in music, including me. However I'm one one of those non-trendy types so I not really interested in what's being put out in the mainstream today. I'm really one of those people who really look for those lost gems of rock that would almost be forgotten thanks to the cd and the internet.
I agree with his Prince album ratings (Purple Rain A-, etc.) and his ratings of the Beastie Boys Licensed to ill and Pauls Boutique (A+ and A) but cmon why a B+ for Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars that albums great!
Sometimes I read Christgau's reviews. I find them useful. If he hates something, that's a pretty good sign I'm going to like it. And vice versa. The guy seems to prefer simple, conventional music that doesn't try too hard or doesn't try to be ambitious. Which I can understand. Pretense is annoying and can ruin an otherwise decent record. Not everyone likes busy, dynamic, complex music. That's not a judgment, and it's not to say that kind of music is always better. It's a matter of taste. Some people just wanna dance. Some people just wanna tap their toes. Some people just want something to put on in the background. I do too sometimes. I just sorta resent this idea that any music which tries to be anything other than that is inherently pretentious. I sense that sort of undercurrent in this guy's criticism.
He’s a bit harsh regarding mellow peaceful singers like Roberta Flack in the 1970s. He called Roberta boring and not a soul singer. Her success is well established worth $20 million. We enjoyed her vocals.
Just wanted to come back here 2 years later and say again what a monumental tool Robert Christgau is. He is NOT a good music critic. He simply does not have enough range of appreciation for that.
Prior to becoming a rock critic, Christgau was a chronic loser and a failing journalist who was fired from a string of jobs including that of junior novelist, crime reporter, sports writer, and freelance reporter. Finally, he was offered the job of music critic and he took the job of "music critic" literally thinking he had to criticize as much music as possible. Being a chronic malcontent he excelled at this and people of like mind enjoyed his Archie Bunker type sarcasm. Having said that, I always liked reading Christgau's reviews because if I knew he liked an album then I made it a rule not to buy this album. On the other hand, if he disliked an album, I knew I would probably love it and I often went out an bought the album. Rarely was I ever disappointed.
Guys, as a big fan, I can tell you that there are plenty of good reasons to dislike Christgau's work: a) He conflates certain types of music (e.g. heavy metal, progressive rock) with the attitudes of their creators (e.g. white-boy chauvinism, genteel impotence); b) he overrates a lot of country-rock artists like Mother Earth, Gram Parsons and "Basement Tapes" Bob Dylan because they represent some kind of cultural synthesis of which he theoretically approves; c) his lefty politics may alienate a lot of readers, and they openly influence his opinions on A LOT of albums; d) he has a tendency to perceive and dismiss "joke" tracks (see his Flipper page) where the band seems serious; e) he holds some kind of boomer-ish belief in the "transcendence" of sex or whatever; or f) the snark factor. "Not liking King Crimson and Rush" and "being too mean" are not among them.
He's a fan boy no doubt but I've never read a review of his and said 'wow let's buy that album'. It really makes no sense for Wikipedia to link to his website.
Meh, some of the hate he earns is quite justified imo. His reviews are characteristically short and are more often than not vapid and even malicious. I've read probably hundreds of reviews on Pitchfork and Allmusic and they tend to be much better written and actually build an argument. In short, Christgau has never given me a reason to care about his opinion when others are much more respectful and articulate. Also, for those angry prog rock fans out there since many of you are as pretentious as this guy, let me just say that Art Rockers like Bowie, Byrne, Roxy Music, and Eno have gotten some of the best rated reviews Christgau has ever offered. Take that as you will.
Is the second sentence the proof of the first? He pretty much gives everything an A- nowadays because he's no longer broadly surveying everything on the market in a given year but rather focusing on what he expects he'll personally enjoy.
I respect critics who know music is subjective and it's self-expression - art - and when they give them honest reviews based on THEIR feelings knowing music can't really be justified by anything. On the other hand, Robert is a douche. And that's coming from someone who has respect for a lot of people deemed assholes - Robert here hardly writes a good review that'd make anyone say "Oh, I understand why you do/don't like it". I can't even tell when he's talking from his own views sometimes lol.
I bet he's a fucking nightmare to live with. He's clearly good at what he does. His success is evident. But you can't help but think "this guy is clearly an idiot". Maybe I'm intimidated by his confidence?
What exactly is that observation based on? I despise him and almost everything I've read by him and I share taste with him on just as many fronts as I don't. It's his miraculous accumulation of praise in spite of inhuman, shortsighted, and shallow writing that vexes me so.
where the f u c k is "magical mystery tour" in roling stone's top 500. could someone please explain that to me....if it is at all possible. im sorry robert i think "sail away" sucks...........now "face to face" by the angels....there is a five star album.
Lol; Christgau dislikes Tupac / 2pac, without giving a proper reason. He called 2pac's 'Greatest Hits' album, the greatest myths. He is a fan of Notorious BIG. I do give him credit for not reviewing 2Pac's 'All Eyez on Me' album though. He is a fan of Eminem, which I'm okay with.
@topraman519 i don't bother reading his reviews because they make no sense to me lol i just look at his grading of the album and take that into consideration. i'm 50/50 with his opinions. sometimes they're spot on and sometimes they're absolute trash. it's hard to find a "great" music critic, though... unless you can help me out and recommend one?
So many times I wildly disagree with him, and it's hard to say he isn't pretentious. But he's also hilarious at times, witty in a annoying way, and dedicated to his work with an enormous archive of all the music he's listened to and reviewed. He doesn't care whatsoever about not wording things too harshly or giving a much-acclaimed album a low score. I respect how he in absolutely no way bends to public opinion or rides a hype train; it is what it is, like it or not. Pretty much every bit of praise and criticism he receives I agree with, and that sums up Christgau if you ask me, which you didn't. A MINUS
This guy helped form my taste. I don't always agree with him, but he's usually thought-provoking. Is he an ass? Probably--I don't know. Does it matter? No. No, it does not.
First of all, he wrote in print for the Village Voice decades before the internet age, so "internet troll" is hardly a fair description. Secondly, I may have erred in stating that he provides arguments per se but even if your taste is not his, I think calling his reviews "esoteric claptrap" is a bit much. He's an undeniably literate, erudite critic who has treats his subject with great respect and renders his opinions in an entertaining, lapidary and, yes, insightful manner.
The hate for Christgau is unnecessary, but predictable and rather self-inflicted. Someone who openly dislikes certain genres of music shouldn't really be 'professionally' reviewing music they are unaccustomed to enjoy, and will likely misunderstand. It's like an XXL writer reviewing a Scandinavian death metal band. It's hardly reliable, but will leave people butthurt.
a guy who thinks souljaboy is better than pink floyd, ac/dc , and radiohead's ok computer isn't worth anybody's time . "Angus Young does come up with killer riffs, though not as consistently as a refined person like myself might hope" refined person like myself ? joke of the century
What really pisses me off about RC is not his opinions, but his arrogance...he thinks he's above certain kinds of music, namely progressive rock, hard rock, heavy metal. He gave Rush's Farewell to Kings a D, with some 1-line review, and never got around to reviewing another one of their albums. What bothers me even more is the fact that I often agree with his positive reviews (Motorhead, Rockpile, Graham Parker).
I must agree with him on Rush, and I saw them/loved them in 77 & 78. I feel sorry for anyone who may be jealous of such experiences. Still, they are nice guys.
i like robert christgau. i guess the grading is obnoxious but at least he tries to make useful and accessible his reviews, which are written extremely well. who's got time to read a pagelong article for an album from 2001? even accepting that his opinion is non-authoritative that of somebody who's heard thousands of records probably is a good guide. who actually gives a shit whether he's right or fair? i want to know what's a good album and his website/book is really the best start. otherwise try the /mu/ recs which are pretty good too. you've gotta be selfish as a consumer.
To those that call him pretentious: to do so is to diminish the idea that music can and should have great cultural importance and meaning. You criticize a depth and in doing so wrongly simplify something very complex. Anyway, he's honest, analyzes music by how it fits into/changes historical and cultural norms, and should be valued for doing so intelligently. I rarely completely agree with Christgua. But thats another reason why he's worth reading.
People calling him pretentious can’t define the word pretentious. He may be other things but he is definitely not pretentious by any rational metric. Unless you’re an anti-intellectual afraid of big words and writing that isn’t on a 10th grade level, most people’s reading level.
@SclafaniBagni yeah and you might be right, but at the end of the day he's just like anybody else, a man with an opinion that doesn't change anything, no matter how much he thinks it does.
Someone got it right; it's generally all about taste, but the thing is to provide thoughts on why it's good/bad. Xgau is entertaining, indeed. Also, he usually seems to pay more attention to the various forms of prejudice expressed in music.
@Mr11MUSICMAN While I generally agree with you that he got Radiohead "wrong", I get what he was getting at with the Soulja Boy thing. Soulja Boy was a direct reaction to the direction hip hop was taking- it was something new. You may not enjoy the music, but its value DOES have objective status outside of your subjective beliefs. At the end of the day, Radiohead wrote far better music, but Ok Computer was just another pessimistic alienation album; it's exalted status can seem a bit silly.
This man is a legend in his own mind.
I have no problem in principle with a critic giving A- ratings to Souldja Boy's debut, Backstreet Boys' debut, a handful of Lil Wayne/Nicki Minaj/Taylor Swift albums, and Black Eyed Peas' The E.N.D..
Nor do I have a problem with a critic giving B- ratings to The Wall and OK Computer, a C+ rating to Interpol's debut, a D+ rating to King Crimson's debut, and a 'bomb' to Beach House's debut, not to mention a host of mediocre ratings to otherwise widely acclaimed albums by David Bowie, The Smiths and Led Zeppelin.
Christgau, however, makes little attempt to explain or justify his (often highly questionable) ratings. His reviews are vague, rambling and self-indulgent. They invariably ignore the content and merits of the album he is supposed to be critiquing. His signature style is thus very disrespectful to the artist, to the reader, and indeed to the critic's profession.
He is extremely fortunate to have enjoyed such a successful career.
+I Prefer Small Tits
"His reviews are vague, rambling and self-indulgent."
Whether you agree with Christgau much of the time or not, these charges are not true. His style is concise. He gets right to the heart of what he sees as important. Your argument that he "ignore(s) the content and merits of the album he is supposed to be critiquing" is probably actually linked to his brief, precise style. It is true that he can dismiss a record unfairly with a cutting remark, and never address things which people actually like about it. This is because he likes what he likes, and he refuses to modify that, even when he admits that his reasons for liking something may be quite personal.
His work has had some influence on what I listen for and hear in music, perhaps most importantly by opening me up to listening to music I had not considered before. I definitely do not always agree with him, but that is OK. I am not looking for some kind of oracle to tell me what I must like, but it is usually interesting to read what he has to say about a record. I have learned a lot from him.
It is true. Led Zeppelins albums Physical Graffiti and Led Zeppelin II are much more regarded than a mere B+. same with David Bowies Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars.
Seems like your big artist/band is born to earn high score and pop star is born to be discriminated. That‘s why rock buddy always amusing.
This guy called "In the Court of Crimson King", which is one of the first and key progressive rock album, 'ersatz shit'.
@Sam B Moron, King Crimson is in the same level as Genesis and Yes and ELP. I bet you have not heard anything. Robert Fripp is a monster and plays like a God even at 75 y.o.
The problem with King Crimson is that they never had a truly stable line up. Hence the music never matured or developed in any meaningful way. Besides whatever Robert Fripp happened to be thinking of at the time.
I like that album but that's pretty funny
He’s right. Can’t behind it. Pretentious and inaccessible.
prog rock is pretentious and boring. it’s a contradiction, rock is not high-art, it works best as low-art for the masses. its dance music, not miles davis.
Prog rock group releases a genre defining masterpiece
Some grumpy old man : *D+*
“Ersatz shit”
Beaver Ent. Wasn't he like under 30 when he reviewed that album?
@@markodern789 The problem isn't Christgau calling it "ersatz shit"....it's that his reviews were and always will be lazy, self absorbed and pretentious. Tell us WHY you think it's "ersatz shit"....rather than lazily throwing in a Pete Townshend reference for an attempt at gaining "cool" points.
Imagine getting butthurt by one reviewer's opinion of an album you like and going out of your way to post a comment on a well-made documentary about it.
Music Hub this could be the greatest documentary of all time and it still wouldnt change the fact that christgau’s prog reviews (and a lot of his reviews bar none) are pompous, condescending and flat out lazy.
Before there was "surfing the web for hours on end," there was "thumbing through Christgau's Consumer Guide books for hours on end."
How is this guy one of the most renowned music critics of all time? He gives albums low ratings simply because he finds them "juvenile" or "obnoxious". And in that case, why did he give Eminem's Encore (either his worst or second worst album depending on who you ask) 4/5 while panning his other material? This guy's rating system is inconsistent and makes no sense.
You shouldn't be paying attention to ratings, though in answer to your question, his renown is a product of his brilliant prose. Half of what he dislikes I find brilliant, so I'm not terribly concerned with what HE thinks, just how he says it. His prose goes over most peoples' heads.
@@dantean exactly
Honestly, I wouldn't worry too much about it. The guy is either trolling for attention, or completely disconnected from reality. Or both.
I wouldn’t be wrong would I if I said you have less than zero understanding of music, zero understanding of literature, and near zero of everything anyway.
I asked that too considering he’s never written or sung a song. He’s the one that’s obnoxious.
Love the guy. His reviews I disagree with? Those are the ones I learned the most from.
This guy probably hates the happy birthday song.
Kikardo Rodríguez C-
I feel like you picked the most universally hated song possible lol
@Sam B I mean he hates every band that I like.
@Sam B I mean it's gotta be constructive. The guy called black sabbath's first album "bullshit necromancy". Like on what basis? And the fact that he rates a bunch of half decent drag Queens known as new york dolls and calls other people stupid who don't like them I mean that's pretty hypocritical for a critic right
Who doesn’t? It’s repetitive and monotonous and we have deal with it every time someone has a birthday. D.
"The Self-Proclaimed Dean of Rock Critics". That 'title' just screams WANKER
Does anyone actually like Robert Christgau
Yes! He takes the review process very seriously, and never puts any band on a pedestal judging each album on its on merit.
+procrastinator300 I like him, his work means a lot to me!
I think he's a wanker. The only critics I pay any attention to are the staff at Allmusic.com because they have a collective of people for different types of genres so you don't get a wanker like this that just dismisses an entire fucking genre in itself.
I can agree sometimes his grading can be a little over the top, like the "bomb sign" with no explanation at all about why he dislikes the album. Over than that great work, just try and read one of his critic you'll understand that if you don't know the artist's background you cannot understand what he's talking about; showing there's some real work going on here.
> takes the review process seriously
> gives soulja boy an A+
damn everyone hates him haha. I want his vast music collection though x)
Go and take it, he won't mind cause he doesn't really likes music.
Lots of dum metal heads and rawkers that didn’t like being confused by big words and seeing their favorite albums get lower grades for misogyny and racism.
I didn't realize Christgau was so divisive until I read these comments! Then again, I should have expected this; I'm personally divided about him. When I saw that he dislikes Tupac, Radiohead, & Daft Punk, I was repelled. But when I realized that he gives a lot of pop music a chance, which most pretentious critics don't do, I began to appreciate at least some of his views. I generally like his 1980s-era reviews best. Not so much the 70s. But you can't deny his influence on music criticism.
To each their own but after seeing other bits I’ve seen about him and this video, he seems like a right prick.
Christgau has always sucked, a legend in his own mind.
i always wanted to write about music but the thought of being a music critic sent shivers down my spine
People are just jealous they never saw Ornette Coleman and John Coltrane for $1.
Zappa said of Rock Journalism…
“people who can’t write, writing about people who can’t speak…”
At 1:20 you've got a guy saying that Xgau isn't living in the times, and he's got his hands behind his head to show off his cufflinks, then cut to Xgau in a black t-shirt and jeans, the uniform of the '90s.
what that song shortly after the movie title?
+Rodrigo Oliveira government center - the modern lovers
note: I didn't know what it was either. I'm aware of the modern lovers but I just looked up the lyrics and found it. Magical, eh? charming tune.
Has made a habit of creating his own context that will justify his biases. Doesn't realize that he ends up contradicting himself when he randomly overrates something in a genre he really doesn't care/know about because he's paranoid that someone is on to all of this. He often disses albums for not being what they're supposed to. He'll disregard something for being lite Fusion while saying to stick with the real thing (X real rock artist/X real jazz artist). He talked shit about King Crimson, but gave Kanye West an A for sampling King Crimson. Christgau is clearly the one that needs to stick with the real thing since he's an expert in authenticity. If something is well done, then to him, it's to mask lack of realness. He's a nerd that wants to be accepted by the cool kids.
This guy is stuck in the past. He absolutely REFUSES to listen to anything complex and different and sticks only to artists that receive radio play and will bash anything that doesn't stick to traditional song writing or whatever his view of good music is. What a joke.
+Caleb Willis Can you give some examples? He gave an A to Kendrick Lamar and Kanye West's recent albums. Those albums seem quite "modern" to me. How is he stuck in the past?
+WhiteRussianBC Of course that guy can't give examples, cuz he probably still is upset about old Zappa albums not getting an A+. Which infers that dude is likely stuck in the . . . past.
Everyone loves to hate a critic. But I can't help loving Christgau's reviews. His writings on Thelonious Monk, Sonic Youth and Talking Heads are some of the very best. And his five sentence review of the Replacements' Let It Be is my favourite piece of music criticism ever.
He writes well but he really is a non-musician's critic, as he seems more interested in the lyrics than the more purely musical content. I doubt that he would recognise the mixolydian scale if it hit him in the face, which seems very amateurish from a musician's standpoint. I also don't see the sense in being very judgemental about matters of taste or things you don't have the wherewithal to understand. Having said that, he may be useful to non-musician listeners who share the same predilections and preoccupations. It's up to the reader to find critics worth reading.
I actually work for Russ Smith at Splice Today. He's the same old Mugger we all know and love.
A lot of Robert's reviews are bs. He gave lower grades to amazing albums like AC/DC's "Back In Black" a B-, Van Halen's first album a C, etc. and he gave higher grades to bad albums like Soulja Boy A- or stuff like that. There are better music critics that are more open minded, unbiased, and precise.
Definitely don’t agree with fucking Soulja Boy, but AC/DC and Van Halen (except for Eddie Van Halen, he was a guitar virtuoso if there ever was one. R.I.P.) are just overrated same-y chauvinistic party rock.
Ironic because you sound extremely narrow-minded and biased yourself. There’s no such thing as being “precise” for something subjective like criticism.
B- is not a low rating. That’s like a 7.5 out of 10. And seems right to me. There’s many better albums than that. And sounds like he is open-minded when he doesn’t predictably trash music like Soulja Boy who in retrospect is one if the most influential musicians of the last century.
@@smkxodnwbwkdns8369a B- is a bad grade after 1989. He calls it a “turkey”
@@smkxodnwbwkdns8369 he literally gave the first three Black Sabbath albums all C-.
its allright bob.......im going to look at "magical mystery tour's" deletion as an oversight....though rolling stone magazine should issue an apology to the beatles and all their fans.
i am also going to look at "london calling" being represented in the top 10,000 as a joke......you rolling stone editors have got such a sense of humour...ha ha he he he....i wonder how many people took that as serious....you got me ....good one!......well done for releasing your list on april the 1st.
Christgau isn't as bad as you guys think. He's showed much love and respect to a lot of great albums and artists. Look it up.
+Mobley Hernandez the thing that annoys me most he calls us brits elitists and calls himself the dean of music critics
ray wilson Yeah that is kind of pompous. His opinion isn't necessarily better than yours. But he definitely knows his shit.
Could be some haters are missing the sarcasm.
Who gives a shit what music critics think. Some of the best albums ever made were dismissed out of hand by these bunch of hypocrites.
@PGROSYE02 what was wrong with nicki minaj's album?
Once you find out that he is just the personified music voice critic of the post 60's new left you can literally predict how he is going to review any given album. Or at least that's how I spent 20 minutes accurately calling every album rating by the letter grade exactly on his site.
I guarantee that’s bs. He’s bestowed praise on many conservative musicians, not that it matters.
@@smkxodnwbwkdns8369, you miss the point. What he is referring to is that his approach to rock music, as was Lester Bangs, Dave Marsh and Jann Wenner, is that rock is supposed to be the PEOPLE'S music that is emotive, simple and danceable. It has been said that blues-based critics like Xgau, Bangs, etc., hated progressive rock because (a) unlike punk and metal, progressive rock is largely a middle class/affluent class phenomenon rather than a blue collar approach; (2) progressive rock is generally apolitical, rather than a neo-Marxist bent; (3) progressive is classical and folk-based, rather than blues based, with the belief that rock sprung from the cradle of the black music such as bebop jazz, blues, rhythm and blues and soul music, and; (4) Progressive rockers like ELP, Yes, Pink Floyd, Tull, Rush, etc., were wildly successful, far more successful than the punk rockers that followed, which grated at their social sensibilities. As Xgau petulantly wrote of ELP, "These guys are as stupid as their pretentious, elitist fans." Why hate the fans for liking a type of rock that wasn't a 2-minute dance song? A shitload of bitterness and resentment that exists to this day.
Put another way, some of the Ramones were politically conservative, but they played what Xgau considered to be essential rock n' roll, which is simple chords in 4/4 time, no more than 3 minutes, and immediately danceable. The critics far preferred music that connects to emotions rather than cerebral aesthetics.
@@robertglisson6319 Rock and Roll IS dance music coming from the blues, and trying to make cerebral music with a standard rock unit (bass drums two guitars vocal) is roughly like trying to compose an epic poem with a limited vocabulary-you are using the wrong tools. Thats why so much prog sounds so awkward and herky jerky.
Punk exploded in England and bands like Sex Pistols had success in proportion to prog bands of the time though it translates into many less copies due to population differences. It took 15-20 years but almost every successful and big band since about 1990 are more influenced by Sex Pistols than Steely Dan. In a way grunge was some succeeding generation of punk.
I love cerebral music but that is in the form of Jazz (I prefer modern jazz to classics) and Wagner, Mozart. For what Wagner was doing which is amazing multi-dimensional and meaningful serious art, he would never attempt to compose in a format like rock music for the same reason he didn’t write folk music with drums and spanish guitar. Prog rock was misguided because they were adulterating a format that is supposed to be about the body not the mind. You can write prog blues, prog native american dance music, prog country music, but that wouldn’t be any good either. Hip-hop with artists like Kanye West and Kendric Lamaher are going through the rock equivalent of prog rock: bloated self-indulgent pomp and pretentiousness when like punk the rap that will be remembered wont be Kanyes/Kendrick Lamar it will be what
people contemptuously call mumble rap, juicewrld, no different than the middle class contemptuously termed punk rock as an insult when it later became the dominant form of rock during the 90s and 00s. When lil wayne first blew in 2008, I knew it was among the best rap around and would be influential, but in my middle class school so many people derided lil wayne mocked it as stupid and all these things… well, today lil wayne is clearly the most influential rapper from that era. People mocked Sex Pistols but then Guns n Roses and Nirvana, bands very influenced by punk, took over the world. I honestly haven’t thought about your ideas before and it sounds like theres some truth to it but its not the full picture. Theres strictly aesthetic and musical reasons to dislike prog. and like you said, ramones and other conservatives were appraised for the music in spite of their politics. Lynerered skynnerd was as red republican as you can get and they were a fantastic blues based band.
@@robertglisson6319 punk was more higher class than some proggers.This whole "middle class* thing is stupid,most of usa are middle class and poor people don't listen punk at all.In fact in most societies music is not present among the poor generally it's the middle and upper class who Care about music,most poor people Just listen to a song while drunk and dance without even knowing the name of the artist.Your whole analysis is based on a false idealized conception of lower and middle class
@@robertglisson6319 have you ever met a poor person in your life ? No poor person in any society Care about music let alone its message or its relevance
For what it’s worth, Christgau was much kinder to Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin than Rolling Stone and other music publications at the time.
Genuinely impressive. How much time did you have to spend studying his reviews in order to perfect his style like that?
He gave Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music a C+ rating, so he clearly doesn't gush over white noise.
That album is hard to listen too, and i. enjoy Merzbow
in fact few people understand his view on music. Xgau's taste, that makes him dislike sooo many mainstream bands or albums, few people understands it. The thing is he is not biased nor he dont take seriously his job, but people dont understand, cause is not like understanding an idea its more like be in another body and brain and experience the way other taste for example flavors... In taste nothing is written, so instead of just criticize and denie the man's work try to understand... A lot of fanatism going on thats why many people hate this man. For instance i love pink floyd xgau not, i couldnt care less, but instead i try to understand why and doing so is that I learned a lot of new music and new genres, ironically I learned to apreciate 2000+ music rap/pop/indie music which is music from my generation that Ive always discriminated. Discovered new rock artists i ended up loving Neil Young, Arcade fire, etc... I still love prog rock a lot but I totally understand why Xgau not, its about the pounderousness and stuf like that... Anyway despite tastes I still believe Xgau is a great critic that contribute with a whole different new and great music taste and point of view...
You’re one of the rare kind of people that aren’t completely brain dead. It’s a country of zombies out there.
Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read - Frank Zappa.
The minute Christgau writes a song, then you can take his criticism seriously. The man is a professional writer, not a musician. If you want to understand something about plumbing, would you ask a telephone operator? Same should go for music. As a default, always ask a musician, not a writer - ESPECIALLY when it comes to rock music.
You don't have to be a musician to know if an album or song sucks. Same as you dont have to be a film director to know the difference between a bad movie to a good one.
@@Kittylover074 Maybe so, but in essence what you're saying is that you don't have to create something to have an opinion about it. I don't question that. EVERYONE is entitled to an opinion. What I do question is whether someone who DOESN'T create something should get paid to make us think his/her opinion matters. It rarely does.
Saying music critics have to be musicians and songwriters themselves to critique music is such dumb, fallacious, and lazy argument.
That pretentious dork doesn’t know what he’s talking about
His reasons usually miss the point entirely either due to lazyness or just to troll people, he doesnt take his job seriously at all
Beavis Dupont Because that's relevant.
Professional waste of space.
Anytime I say "Christ.." I always say Christgau instead.
@CoolToobmovie
Care to elaborate?
This guy right here knows what real music is....
There are musicians who hate Robert Christgau with the heat of THOUSAND SUNS!!! That's at's good enough for me.
Soulja Boy is so much more talented than King Crimson and Pink Floyd. The "Self-Proclaimed" Dean of Rock Critics says so.
I can almost swear the man is a fucking troll.
when did he say that?
Josh Carter Pardon me. I was drinking when I typed that comment.
I'm sure he never said that, at least never in any of his little reviews. What he has said is that King Crimson, particularly in regards to "In The Court of the Crimson King" is one of the most overrated bands of all time.
He has also stated that Pink Floyd's "The Dark Side of the Moon" had no soul.
His review of Soulja Boy's debut album, which he awarded an A-, is easily one of his most infamous reviews.
I think these three things were what I was trying to comment about. However, I must say that I do regret typing that. Music is subjective, yeah, yeah, yeah, and I respect the opinions of others. But he...... just comes off as such a pretentious snob.
Fuck it. I still think he's a troll.
+MaritimeViper Why are you trying to compare two different albums from two different times? It's not the same music style. And he never said Soulja Boy was better than Pink Floyd you moron...
Hey fuckface, I already admitted my comment was stupid and took it back. Read.
That Soulja Boy review was grade-A trolling, but not all of his reviews are. He knows exactly what he's doing. Besides he gave positive ratings to most of Crimson and Floyd's 70s output. That's a lot more positive reviews than Soulja Boy has recieved.
It seems to me that Christgau is one of those people who is more interested in music that is more in line with things that he had heard and seen in his writing career like hip-hop and punk.
To him it's more original than more inventive and artistic strains of music like progressive rock (although according to some comments I've seen he is rather fond of Art rockers like David Bowie and Roxy Music). But try comparing his musical taste to someone like me. Me, I like anything that is rock, I'll listen to things like hard rock and heavy metal, folk rock, roots rock, psychedelic rock, post punk and new wave, jazz fusion, and yes progressive rock including art rock. Plus other styles I'm taking interest like ska, reggae and shoegaze.
Everyone has different tastes and opinions in music, including me. However I'm one one of those non-trendy types so I not really interested in what's being put out in the mainstream today. I'm really one of those people who really look for those lost gems of rock that would almost be forgotten thanks to the cd and the internet.
Alex Richardson leggo yo eggo
I wonder what he said about the Carpenters.
I agree with his Prince album ratings (Purple Rain A-, etc.) and his ratings of the Beastie Boys Licensed to ill and Pauls Boutique (A+ and A) but cmon why a B+ for Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars that albums great!
Sometimes I read Christgau's reviews. I find them useful. If he hates something, that's a pretty good sign I'm going to like it. And vice versa. The guy seems to prefer simple, conventional music that doesn't try too hard or doesn't try to be ambitious. Which I can understand. Pretense is annoying and can ruin an otherwise decent record. Not everyone likes busy, dynamic, complex music. That's not a judgment, and it's not to say that kind of music is always better. It's a matter of taste. Some people just wanna dance. Some people just wanna tap their toes. Some people just want something to put on in the background. I do too sometimes. I just sorta resent this idea that any music which tries to be anything other than that is inherently pretentious. I sense that sort of undercurrent in this guy's criticism.
Christgau..trollin when trollin wasn't cool.
He’s a bit harsh regarding mellow peaceful singers like Roberta Flack in the 1970s. He called Roberta boring and not a soul singer. Her success is well established worth $20 million. We enjoyed her vocals.
christgau is the man.
good one!
Just wanted to come back here 2 years later and say again what a monumental tool Robert Christgau is. He is NOT a good music critic. He simply does not have enough range of appreciation for that.
Dude is way too pretentious. After all, he's only a critic. Gotta keep some humility if you can't play shit yourself.
@PGROSYE02 i think the entire concept of grading music is pretty trivial if you ask me
Prior to becoming a rock critic, Christgau was a chronic loser and a failing journalist who was fired from a string of jobs including that of junior novelist, crime reporter, sports writer, and freelance reporter. Finally, he was offered the job of music critic and he took the job of "music critic" literally thinking he had to criticize as much music as possible. Being a chronic malcontent he excelled at this and people of like mind enjoyed his Archie Bunker type sarcasm.
Having said that, I always liked reading Christgau's reviews because if I knew he liked an album then I made it a rule not to buy this album. On the other hand, if he disliked an album, I knew I would probably love it and I often went out an bought the album. Rarely was I ever disappointed.
"Christgau was a chronic loser and a failing journalist who was fired from a string of jobs"
*citation needed
Hate him yet sounds like him. Hmm.
And you don't like Blood on the Tracks?
Interesting to see the mindless activities of being a crappy critic
Guys, as a big fan, I can tell you that there are plenty of good reasons to dislike Christgau's work: a) He conflates certain types of music (e.g. heavy metal, progressive rock) with the attitudes of their creators (e.g. white-boy chauvinism, genteel impotence); b) he overrates a lot of country-rock artists like Mother Earth, Gram Parsons and "Basement Tapes" Bob Dylan because they represent some kind of cultural synthesis of which he theoretically approves; c) his lefty politics may alienate a lot of readers, and they openly influence his opinions on A LOT of albums; d) he has a tendency to perceive and dismiss "joke" tracks (see his Flipper page) where the band seems serious; e) he holds some kind of boomer-ish belief in the "transcendence" of sex or whatever; or f) the snark factor.
"Not liking King Crimson and Rush" and "being too mean" are not among them.
He's a fan boy no doubt but I've never read a review of his and said 'wow let's buy that album'. It really makes no sense for Wikipedia to link to his website.
Meh, some of the hate he earns is quite justified imo. His reviews are characteristically short and are more often than not vapid and even malicious. I've read probably hundreds of reviews on Pitchfork and Allmusic and they tend to be much better written and actually build an argument. In short, Christgau has never given me a reason to care about his opinion when others are much more respectful and articulate.
Also, for those angry prog rock fans out there since many of you are as pretentious as this guy, let me just say that Art Rockers like Bowie, Byrne, Roxy Music, and Eno have gotten some of the best rated reviews Christgau has ever offered. Take that as you will.
RYM crews could never understand RC, nor could they ever reach his level.
Is the second sentence the proof of the first?
He pretty much gives everything an A- nowadays because he's no longer broadly surveying everything on the market in a given year but rather focusing on what he expects he'll personally enjoy.
I respect critics who know music is subjective and it's self-expression - art - and when they give them honest reviews based on THEIR feelings knowing music can't really be justified by anything. On the other hand, Robert is a douche. And that's coming from someone who has respect for a lot of people deemed assholes - Robert here hardly writes a good review that'd make anyone say "Oh, I understand why you do/don't like it". I can't even tell when he's talking from his own views sometimes lol.
WHY DOESNT HE RATE MUSIC LIKE I WANT HIM TO GOD DAMN IT
It was a joke
I bet he's a fucking nightmare to live with. He's clearly good at what he does. His success is evident. But you can't help but think "this guy is clearly an idiot". Maybe I'm intimidated by his confidence?
ah this was enjoyable to watch...
What exactly is that observation based on? I despise him and almost everything I've read by him and I share taste with him on just as many fronts as I don't. It's his miraculous accumulation of praise in spite of inhuman, shortsighted, and shallow writing that vexes me so.
Him and Will Self should have a discussion. They'd end up talking over each other as if the other person wasn't there. Sketch idea.
don't read his reviews if you like prog, or british music. you'll get mad
+Sgt. Pepper I really don't think he understands the genre much less appreciate it.Maybe he,like J.D. Considine are intimidated by it
matt thecat he literally thinks New York Dolls > Pink Floyd
+Sgt. Pepper he givs zappa bad reviews as well he just hates complex rock
+Sgt. Pepper he also said gilmore is crap guiter player
Progressive rock - ha ha ha - there's a misnomer if there ever was.
where the f u c k is "magical mystery tour" in roling stone's top 500. could someone please explain that to me....if it is at all possible. im sorry robert i think "sail away" sucks...........now "face to face" by the angels....there is a five star album.
Lol; Christgau dislikes Tupac / 2pac, without giving a proper reason. He called 2pac's 'Greatest Hits' album, the greatest myths. He is a fan of Notorious BIG. I do give him credit for not reviewing 2Pac's 'All Eyez on Me' album though. He is a fan of Eminem, which I'm okay with.
@topraman519 i don't bother reading his reviews because they make no sense to me lol i just look at his grading of the album and take that into consideration. i'm 50/50 with his opinions. sometimes they're spot on and sometimes they're absolute trash. it's hard to find a "great" music critic, though... unless you can help me out and recommend one?
Can he explain honestly Hwy he likes Cool Hwip??
Christgau v. Bangs- Go!
So many times I wildly disagree with him, and it's hard to say he isn't pretentious. But he's also hilarious at times, witty in a annoying way, and dedicated to his work with an enormous archive of all the music he's listened to and reviewed. He doesn't care whatsoever about not wording things too harshly or giving a much-acclaimed album a low score. I respect how he in absolutely no way bends to public opinion or rides a hype train; it is what it is, like it or not. Pretty much every bit of praise and criticism he receives I agree with, and that sums up Christgau if you ask me, which you didn't. A MINUS
Mike,m I disagree. He trashed albums from Led Zeppelin early on, only to change them later to a much higher rating.
@@robertglisson6319 You disagree with what?
@@robertglisson6319 same with king crimson
i hate this guy but i can't stop reading his reviews because they're so ridiculously brutal.
I just want EVERYONE to know that I LOVE my cat!
Truth be told, the man's 50:50. Sometimes he nails it and sometimes he doesn't.
Anyone else noticed.. 36 likes, 18 dislikes... shouldn't the bars be equal?
@Pasalaqcua He absolutely is, but do you think he would deny that? If nothing else, he's honest.
I'm the king of youtube comments
This guy helped form my taste. I don't always agree with him, but he's usually thought-provoking. Is he an ass? Probably--I don't know. Does it matter? No. No, it does not.
I adore how Bob exposes the common idiot’s deplorable taste in music. Love reading the comments.
First of all, he wrote in print for the Village Voice decades before the internet age, so "internet troll" is hardly a fair description. Secondly, I may have erred in stating that he provides arguments per se but even if your taste is not his, I think calling his reviews "esoteric claptrap" is a bit much. He's an undeniably literate, erudite critic who has treats his subject with great respect and renders his opinions in an entertaining, lapidary and, yes, insightful manner.
The hate for Christgau is unnecessary, but predictable and rather self-inflicted. Someone who openly dislikes certain genres of music shouldn't really be 'professionally' reviewing music they are unaccustomed to enjoy, and will likely misunderstand. It's like an XXL writer reviewing a Scandinavian death metal band. It's hardly reliable, but will leave people butthurt.
a guy who thinks souljaboy is better than pink floyd, ac/dc , and radiohead's ok computer isn't worth anybody's time .
"Angus Young does come up with killer riffs, though not as consistently as a refined person like myself might hope"
refined person like myself ? joke of the century
What really pisses me off about RC is not his opinions, but his arrogance...he thinks he's above certain kinds of music, namely progressive rock, hard rock, heavy metal. He gave Rush's Farewell to Kings a D, with some 1-line review, and never got around to reviewing another one of their albums.
What bothers me even more is the fact that I often agree with his positive reviews (Motorhead, Rockpile, Graham Parker).
I must agree with him on Rush, and I saw them/loved them in 77 & 78. I feel sorry for anyone who may be jealous of such experiences. Still, they are nice guys.
Rush is shit
Reptile estrin 6 months later, and out of my fanboy high, I have to agree.
Those who can’t, critique. No ones above the people making music. Fuck all critics of the arts they shouldn’t have influence over the consumer
I can't take critics seriously, they get paid just for writing their own opinions. And they even talk about their opinions like they are facts
I can't take this guy seriously, especially since he give nicki minaj's album an A. Thats just funny.
i like robert christgau. i guess the grading is obnoxious but at least he tries to make useful and accessible his reviews, which are written extremely well. who's got time to read a pagelong article for an album from 2001? even accepting that his opinion is non-authoritative that of somebody who's heard thousands of records probably is a good guide. who actually gives a shit whether he's right or fair? i want to know what's a good album and his website/book is really the best start. otherwise try the /mu/ recs which are pretty good too. you've gotta be selfish as a consumer.
the modern lovers are so fucking awesome
💯
Hahahaha, oh god! I'm here exactly because of this
That's a fucking RIDICULOUS opinion of such a great work!
To those that call him pretentious: to do so is to diminish the idea that music can and should have great cultural importance and meaning. You criticize a depth and in doing so wrongly simplify something very complex. Anyway, he's honest, analyzes music by how it fits into/changes historical and cultural norms, and should be valued for doing so intelligently. I rarely completely agree with Christgua. But thats another reason why he's worth reading.
People calling him pretentious can’t define the word pretentious. He may be other things but he is definitely not pretentious by any rational metric. Unless you’re an anti-intellectual afraid of big words and writing that isn’t on a 10th grade level, most people’s reading level.
he wasn't even smart enough to be pretentious. i don't think it ever occured to him to try.
@SclafaniBagni yeah and you might be right, but at the end of the day he's just like anybody else, a man with an opinion that doesn't change anything, no matter how much he thinks it does.
Someone got it right; it's generally all about taste, but the thing is to provide thoughts on why it's good/bad. Xgau is entertaining, indeed. Also, he usually seems to pay more attention to the various forms of prejudice expressed in music.
@Mr11MUSICMAN While I generally agree with you that he got Radiohead "wrong", I get what he was getting at with the Soulja Boy thing. Soulja Boy was a direct reaction to the direction hip hop was taking- it was something new. You may not enjoy the music, but its value DOES have objective status outside of your subjective beliefs. At the end of the day, Radiohead wrote far better music, but Ok Computer was just another pessimistic alienation album; it's exalted status can seem a bit silly.
8:43 Really? You're going to keep having people slurring Christgau's reviews to the camera? Goodbye.
@SclafaniBagni let's just say I don't think it's exactly A material.
Man
lou reed was right to loathe him