I certainly understand the ease of capitulating to reasonableness, but I think Matos goes too easy here. To say that this attitude doesn't exist anymore is simply not true; I run into it every time I post something criticizing it. You can say it's been gone for 10 years (really? Since In Utero?) but Matos is right, we're still having the argument, boring as it may be at this point. And let's not forget the comments box here. (Check the words of "Earl" if you want a good example.) I'm not exactly convinced that this attitude has at least been eliminated in music critics--I mean, I read Pitchfork, dude--but even granting this for now, it's pretty clear that if music critics don't publicly use "sellout!" as a criticism publicly anymore, this is less out of being convinced and more out of embarassment, of the counter-attitude having enough capitol that you look like a dumbass if you go against it without spending some time justifying yourself. (Plus, dicks like me will then write snotty posts breaking down your dashed-off review you did so you can have another can o' soup in the cabinet.) But it hasn't really seemed to have changed attitudes very much. The, uh, institutional rocksim (if you will--have I chased everyone away yet?) is still there even if it's not critically correct to say such things in polite society.

But more importantly, who gives a fuck about music critics? As I would say in that post I mean to keep writing, we're all embarking on our crusade for different reasons. For everyone who wants to change the minds of music critics, there's someone like Matthew, who wants to change the tastes of music fans to affect how music is consumed, or someone like me, who wants to change the attitude of musicians to affect how music is made. What we're criticizing is something that has a broad impact--as Matos points out, it's "ingrained auteurism," not just disliking Janet Jackson.

posted by Mike B. at 4:43 PM 0 comments