Michael Barthel has a great post over at Idolator about the anti-intellectualism of some music writers in particular and music criticism generally. This is particularly ironic, as Barthel notes, when the critic in question slams him with a Borges reference. (That would be Jorge Luis Borges for those of you not on a first name basis.) It’s a great post for a number of reasons, including that Barthel calls out incoherence of someone trying to hide their philosophical depth for some sad approximation of street cred.
Populism, in this context, is essentially the denial of expertise. If it’s true that no one, given the instantaneous access, needs the contribution of critics, surely they need even less the dubious contributions of most music blogs, who act primarily as extensions of PR one sheets, without the objectivity. Music crticism has many unexplored tensions with the academy. Some of them certainly come from the fact that many music writers, especially in their late 20s to mid-30s come to criticism from a University-era heavily steeped in postmodern theory. Many of them, by choice, chance or deficiency have not continued on into academia. Those anxious influences frequently crop up in either naïve rejection or equally naïve assimilation.
Music criticism also has a habit of writers competing with their subjects for having the most “rock and roll” values, something art historians probably don’t have hanging over their heads. Consequently, Lester Bangs gets idolized for in part, getting fucked up all the time, because that’s way more hardcore than doing a systematic study of the evolution of brand mentions in hip hop lyricism. That’s clearly not as cool. Surely some people use philosophical jargon to obscure their insecurities, but just as many people deign to defend American Idol or Shania Twain based on some just as postured sense of contrarianism. Barthel touches on some crucial issues that are worth arguing at length, but that wouldn’t cool, so I’ll keep it brief. Foucault my ass.