# Which Rock critic do you think knows best?



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Here is a sample of their views, including who they think is good and otherwise:

Robert Christgau:

https://www.robertchristgau.com/get_chap.php?k=A&bk=70

Piero Scaruffi:

http://www.scaruffi.com/music/best100.html

George Starostin:

http://starling.rinet.ru/music/index.htm#Period

Jimmy Guterman:

http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/jimmy.htm
http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/steveparker/slipped_discs.htm


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

None of the Above.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

All of the above, pretty much. They're all very knowledgeable. For my tastes though, Scaruffi (obviously), because he not only has gone through the entire history of Rock, but Jazz and Classical too, as well as other arts. He has a far wider spectrum of art that he is relating his selections to than the others, leading to (in my opinion) a more extensive understanding of what he's listening to, and (equally important in terms of reliable criticism), an extremely high "quality control" among his selections (if one jives with his criteria or something similar).


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Molly Meldrum.........................


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Speaking for myself only, it is hard to imagine a more sterile use of my time than contemplating the opinions of rock critics. I affirm that I have made a god of my own tastes (as have all of us, truth be told); people actually are only rapturous when some critic also likes their fave group or artist. By the way, this applies to all the arts.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Greil Marcus... Lester Bangs...


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> None of the Above.


I've read all of them, and they generally don't actually analyze the music in their reviews, but make general qualitative arguments, and bring up all sorts of political, cultural, historical baggage to support their views. I'm leaning towards Starostin though of the 4.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> I've read all of them, and they generally don't actually analyze the music in their reviews, but make general qualitative arguments, and bring up all sorts of political, cultural, historical baggage to support their views. I'm leaning towards Starostin though of the 4.


Rock writers, Rock historians, anthropologists, sociologists: when Rock critics put away their personal aesthetic baggage and write as historians, etc., they can often make interesting reading. And they are as entitled to their tastes and opinions as anyone else. But they have, certainly in the fields of Rock and Pop, no special claim to authenticity, accuracy, superiority of taste and judgment above anyone else. When they agree with me, they're great, perceptive, intuitive, sensitive..... When they tell me that what I like is rubbish, then they are obviously........


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> Here is a sample of their views, including who they think is good and otherwise:
> 
> Robert Christgau:
> 
> ...


I've only been looking at some of Christgau's opinions so far. Interesting to take notice of his views. It's no so important if his opinions agree with mine but, my god, to how much music has this guy been listening in his live and formed an opinion on.

I'm sure, once you know your critic, you can dig up some great music you like this way.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

David Fricke is probably my favourite. The one I disliked the most was Gary Bushell when he wrote for Sounds in the 70s/80s.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Where is my name?


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Which rock critic knows best?

ME!!!!


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

Jim Miller......


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

nikola said:


> Where is my name?





Merl said:


> Which rock critic knows best?
> 
> ME!!!!


We make a new poll with you two in it, don't worry.


----------



## EarthBoundRules (Sep 25, 2011)

Starostin is my personal favourite, by a long shot.

Although I dislike his pretension when replying to people on his site and while our tastes couldn't be any more different, he stays pretty consistent with what he believes to be good qualities in music. Of course there are exceptions, like him saying he would take 15 good and 15 bad songs over 10 good songs and 5 bad songs in his Sandinista (by The Clash) review, and yet in nearly every review he talks about the filler-to-good-song ratio bringing albums down.

But perhaps the reason I like him the best is just that I like his writing style. He always gives me new insights into the music from a different point of view when he writes, and it always entices me into wanting to listen to the album he's reviewing.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Warning: rant incoming

I don't like to spread negativity about people, but I'd give you $1000000 if you can find a worse music critic in any genre than Piero Scaruffi. I don't get how anyone can take the guy seriously. Sorry, I need to call him out.

It's all bad. His views on classical music are, I suppose, ordinary enough (though I'm sure there are MANY users on this forum who are much, much more well informed about music history, the classical canon, and especially music theory), with some (permissible) eccentric personal biases showing through even at the top of his lists and whatnot, but his rock (and jazz) criticisms are absolute garbage. It simultaneously manages to be pretentious, vacuous, misinformed, annoyingly contrarian, pseudointellectual, often inconsistent, and frankly, stupid; adjectives I'm not sure I'd combine to describe anything else. Besides all the obvious ******** of course (MANDATORY NOTE: there are ways that you can legitimately try to frame a criticism against the Beatles; his is NOT one), I'm surprised I haven't been able to find anyone pointing out his fetish for debut / early albums of many groups (a reasonable preference for sure, but one which he never really seems to back up).

Even outside of music, all I really gather from him is that he's an egocentric, self-promoting charlatan. Perhaps I'm generalizing, but his material regarding [insert topic here] is nothing special at best, and usually just downright awful (though his worst work tends to be in criticism of music / other arts). He's beyond arrogant; he probably thinks he's some kind of intellectual polymath when in reality he fails at even being a decent pundit in just one area. Sometimes I can't even tell if he can genuinely estimate how much he knows or not.

I don't think I would mind him quite as much if he framed his work as being just an out-there opinion, or if he acknowledged his shortcomings, but he doesn't, and neither do his followers.

Of course, there are plenty of people like him around the world, but it's surprising (and disappointing) that someone with his breadth of knowledge could be this stupid and immature, especially at such an old age. And it's equally disappointing (though not surprising) that he has as many devout followers as he does, or that people will say they disagree with him while acknowledging that he's a "genius" (not true, by the way).

Scaruffi has certainly listened to a lot of music, but that has seemingly only served to make him the worst music critic of all time, hors concours.
I will admit, though, Christgau comes close, and probably beats Scaruffi in the pretension department, insofar as that's even possible.

Perhaps I'm biased in some regard, but none of this has to do with our differences in taste. At least in classical music, there are critics (and people) whom I admire with entirely different tastes from my own, and there are people whose taste I agree with but whom I loathe as critics. Of course, music criticism (especially rock criticism) is bound to be a pretty dumb business anyway...

Sorry about that; definitely felt good to say though.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

For the best rock music critics, the writers of allmusic actually seems to be reasonable and not overly supercilious.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Warning: rant incoming
> 
> I don't like to spread negativity about people, but I'd give you $1000000 if you can find a worse music critic in any genre than Piero Scaruffi. I don't get how anyone can take the guy seriously. Sorry, I need to call him out.
> 
> ...


I'm glad you got that out. I also think Scaruffi is quite full of it. Because he is a visual arts fan he tends to infuse his reviews, drawing undue references to the cosmic, dadaism, etc.

And yes he has no musical theoretical training. So in Classical he is just choosing from already critically acclaimed works and rehashing into a list not much different than a general consensus. His inclusion of Nyman's Piano Concerto into the best piano concertos list is probably his own going out on a limb, albeit a funny one.

I did discover one interesting rock album from his list, by Red Crayola. But agree his reviews as pseudo-intellectual trash.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Yeah, you get the sense that for classical he has a few favorite oddball works of his own and just randomly adds them to what almost seem like templates of traditional lists (made up of works that I wouldn't be surprised if he's only heard at most once or twice).

I find that the only music critics I would ever consider taking seriously are musicians themselves (or at least people with substantial musical ability / training). That goes for pretty much any field though, I suppose.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

I used to read Jon Landau's column, _Positively 84th Street_ in RS back in the day. This was before he helped produce _Born To Run_. Other than musicologist Alan Pollock's Beatles work I don't read too much rock criticism. I have more than enough to read with TC's rock critics.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I never read any rock critics. Just guitar and jazz magazines.


----------

