it seems to me sometimes, that rock criticism is a pointless function in a world over-saturated with different ways to tabulate taste, none of which look towards the culture bearers or so called experts. being an expert is something of a stigma, actually, as eclecticism and outsiderness, the huge push of critics away from their 'rockist' pasts to their '-hoppist' posturing in an attempt to stay young and, dare i say, relevant.

hot off the presses is the high low culture backlash of the nytimes critics
reviewing the new zagat books. hey, i think kelefa (aka k) is a fucking genius and the biggest breath of air in the building, but there are bigger questions w/ the zagat book than 'what will the sociologists think?' such as, why has our culture become so afraid of the critical voice? is it our fault? is it our editors' faults? our publications? this story i plundered from sasha frere jones' blog lays out one of the symptoms. (was thinking about making this a story or maybe my EMP paper, even). why are the only 'real' opinions going on in the free space of blog land, on girlgroup or the EMP pop list? why is the self-obsessed, omnipotent bs style of of alt.weeklies dissolved in this sacred space, which is even more I than the loathsome and false first of pulp? why is it here that we share what we 'really think, fearing that editors, readers, advertisers etc. would rebel were we to let it out in public? the voice does some of that, bc chuck has a clean eye, but not many places are that brave.

re-reading this, it seems naive. but my goodie pal jay gross said it best when he (paraphrasing) said it's a dark day in music writing when alan light can't even get something together.