3 posts on consuming oceans of music and my rancid response

The redoubtable Simon Reynolds’ post.

Nick Southall’s view at Stylus.

Gutta’s pick up (which has my response posted as a comment.

I’m particularly interested by this statement in the Stylus piece:

It’s a critic’s job to find clever ways of explaining, in absolute, pseudo-objective terms, why he or she doesn’t like something, to say and then to prove that something is bad, rather than admit that they simply don’t like it. But to not explain is to sell your readers, and yourself, short, so explain one must.

Couldn’t agree less. Unless Southall is saying that this is the job imposed upon critics, which might be true. My take on the critic’s role is that it’s merely an opportunity to think about music – what that results in is really up to the individual. I’d rather stay silent about something than take it to bits – doing that is all too frequently about someone’s arrogance – illustrated earlier in his piece by this observation:

Capitalism and the free market may give us the right to choose, but it waters down and obfuscates our options with reams of self-perpetuating, low-quality product.

The author’s only 26 or maybe it’s because he is 26… I can just imagine writing that at that age. Sorry if that’s horribly patronising. I do think we’re in an incredibly privileged position to have such access to music. Obsession is a potential problem, but deal with it successfully and a lifetime of pleasure – at least in that area – is your reward. Both Simon Reynolds and Nick Southall have chosen to be music critics and an avalanche of music is the inevitable result. Sounds like the former isn’t really complaining, just reflecting, but perhaps Southall should get another job.