Talk:Robert Christgau/Archive 1

Word change
Changed "sexual" to "misogynistic" - Christgau never complains about sexual themes (often, he takes on those who seem to be somehow scared of, or resistant to, sex) - just those that denigrate women. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 05:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite
Notice: I'll be doing a full rewrite and expansion of this article soon. A lot of the information to date has been inaccurate - for instance, the "sexual themes" thing (christgau is one of the most fervently pro-sex critics working today; it's misogyny and homophobia that he has a problem with) and the "world music" thing (Christgau doesn't give a damn outside of Afropop). This article needs help, and I've read more or less every word of published Christgau, so I figure I'll do it. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Christgau is a 1962 graduate of Dartmouth College, according to the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine. This is confirmed by information on the Dartmouth online directory of alumni. Brian G. Crawford 23:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You should be proud:) Thanks, by the way.  I think he went there at age 16 or something, too.  Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"explicit sentiment"
I can only guess at what this could possibly mean. It obviously does not mean that they were explicitly sentimental. If someone does not turn this into something coherent within a few days, I will probably remove it. - Jmabel | Talk 03:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Afropop
The Afropop link leads to a disambiguation, which leads to an article on African music that doesn't refer anywhere to Afropop by that name. Who are you talking about, Thomas Mapfumo and Ebenezer Obey and Fela? An encyclopedia reader ought to be able to say "what's that," click on a link, and find out.68.122.192.42 22:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Photo
We don't have a really great photo of him. Here is what I'm aware of that is GFDL (all of which I took):

The first one is what we've had in the article for about a year. While the one on the right is actually lower resolution, I think it's a better photo as long as we keep it relatively small. I'm switching over to it, but if anyone objects, feel free to go back to the old one. - Jmabel | Talk 06:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup and restructuring
The "History" section is in dire need of subsections and does not appear to be in chronological order. Help on this matter is available. Just64helpin 20:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Updates
If someone has some time to put into this article, have a look at his NPR biography, which has quite a bit that we are lacking, and is certainly citable. - Jmabel | Talk 22:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

greaser
you gotta be kidding with that "greaser" innuendo. that's just ridiculous. clearly you have no idea what Mink DeVille sounds like. or ever see the movie "Grease"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.235.161 (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This dude's website is hella ugly. Really sacrifices some of his credibility for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.178.246 (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Could someone be so kind of adding the IPA spelling of his name (or even maybe recording it?). Fernando Pasc 21:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernando (talk • contribs)
 * http://www.forvo.com/search/christgau/

Links to reviews on album article pages
It seems to be fashionable lately to add links to his website inside album infoboxes' reviews section (usually underneath a link to an AMG review). Unfortunately, most albums don't have a full review on his site, most artists just have a page with a brief review of each album, for example the review linked on this album page. I think we should only have a link when there is a full review for an album, like this rare example. Otherwise, links to pages featuring mini-reviews of all albums by a given artist should be linked from the artist page, in my opinion. Any thoughts? --Alcuin 04:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * PS if there's already a discussion of this elsewhere, please let me know. --Alcuin 04:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the point of adding those links to infoboxes is so that the reader can verify the rating given by the professional reviewer. If you took away a rating just because the link only provides it without including a full review, then you'd actually be censoring that rating (e.g., in the case of Achtung Baby, Christgau's very negative rating provides a discordant note among the other positive ratings; if you take that negative rating away because Christgau didn't bother to make any further comment &mdash;as he didn't think the album worthy of it&mdash;, then the ratings section of the infobox would give the idea of unanimously positive ratings among professional reviewers, which is not the case). Links meant to reference the reader to full reviews (rather than to verify the ratings) should go in the External links section of the article. 213.37.6.65 19:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, review links should not go in the external links section, per a recent change to WP:ALBUM. Otherwise, I agree. --PEJL 11:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * He isn't such a big shot anyways. He really shouldn't be included in the album infoboxes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.137.166.166 (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree, the guy's reviews suck, he doesn't deserve being here, besides, the website looks like made with a Windows 95.  Bachi  (speak to me ) 22:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Remove angst from this article
I think the bit about "similar angst" should be changed to sentiments. Labeling Reed's complaints as angsty is biased. Actually, it's obvious that this entire article is biased in Christgau's favor, even though the guy is known for being a hack who couldn't write a coherent review if his life depended on it. Apparently wikipedia thinks otherwise and is letting their bias seep into the article. I'm not going to try to fix the entire article, but you guys have to change the bit about angst. With that line you are basically slandering anyone who has a problem with Christgau. I can't edit the article because it's protected, so someone else will have to make the edit. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.97.55 (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ratings scale?
Somewhere should be a legend stating what his ratings means. The album articles don't have it, so I thought I look from his article. But nope, not here either. 85.217.47.205 (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly better lead photo
Recent photo (2012 in NYC), might be better. Both are mine; I leave it to someone else to make the call. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 12:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Can the Jody Rosen ID be moved to first mention?
In the Consumer Guide section, Jody Rosen is mentioned without being ID'd. Then she's ID'd on second mention, in the article's last paragraph. Can someone move the ID up to the first mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.81.6.205 (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done. Rothorpe (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2014
Please add the "Bibliography" section between the "Style and tastes" section and the "References” section. The books Robert Christgau wrote are listed below.


 * Any Old Way You Choose It: Rock and Other Pop Music, 1967-1973 (1973)
 * Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the '70s (1981)
 * Christgau's Record Guide: The '80s (1990)
 * Grown Up All Wrong: 75 Great Rock and Pop Artists from Vaudeville to Techno (1998)
 * Christgau's Consumer Guide: Albums of the '90s (2000)

Source: http://www.robertchristgau.com/books.php

114.145.71.5 (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

✅ Thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Using Robert's Reviews
Robert Christgau is a rock music critic, as such shouldn't it be improper to include his reviews for hip-hop albums? They aren't what he is "important" for and are obviously more of a side project if anything. --Iron Chef (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Rober Christgau is well-known as one of, if not THE, earliest prominent music critic in the world to write extensively about the merits of hip-hop -- he is as credible a hip-hop critic as probably anyone alive 218.81.23.72 (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Atheist
Some proof: http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/rock/wtc-01.php, http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/rock/fletcher-04.php, http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/rock/gospel-91.php. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoomazooma (talk • contribs) 03:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah...that explains his inabiliy to recognise beauty. Can someone find a reason that he is so snide and pissy in his writings?--137.186.208.233 (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * look, I don't like the guy, but just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean they can't recognise beauty. also, learn to spell inability. - Drthatguy (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * True. But if you're going to correct spelling, at least capitalize and spell correctly.  136.181.195.10 (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Why even bother replying to the moron who picks on an obvious typo as something to criticise or even comment on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.196.185 (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Just because someone is living does not mean their article needs to be a PR puff piece
His musical taste is his own. The way he dismisses high-quality albums, and albums with very high-quality songs on them, because either they're not to his taste or he didn't give them enough time to sink in says more about him than about the music. It doesn't matter how influential he has been, how long he's been at it, or how much effort he puts into music reviewing. The bottom line is that what he does is extremely subjective and he does not help things by making his reviews generally extremely opaque. If a reviewer wants to present useful information then he/she has to, at the very least, give a mark for each track separately. Contrary to the common claim, it is not necessary to be long-winded to present clearer, more useful, music reviews. I listened to one of his recent A+ albums, a narration about a woman's pet dog. It was thoroughly terrible and didn't qualify as music in the first place. It was spoken word theater and that's not to MY taste. I don't doubt that he and some others find such material compelling. I don't. I also don't claim that I am the universal arbiter of art — the "dean" of popular musical taste. This article is a PR puff piece and needs to be better balanced, regardless of how many on Wikipedia are fans of his style of narcissistic preening masquerading as musical evaluation. I appreciate him for making people interested in music and I am happy for the select few whose taste matches his closely. Unfortunately, for the rest of us, it doesn't. Worse yet is his opaque style that makes people frequently guess as to what it is he's trying to say. Only foolish reviewers give a single mark for an album. Each track deserves its own evaluation, even if it's just a mark and not a paragraph or sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.134.184 (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

How legit is this guy?
I don't see how we link to reviews by this guy for music wikis. The guy writes two sentences, often having nothing to do with the music, about a couple albums, and people link to them on the album page. I think anybody could do that, and including all his ten-word reviews is a farce. You might as well link to random blog posts on the page. EDIT: Oops, it seems like Alcuin seems to already said this. Nonetheless I think it's an issue that needs to be adressed. 70.179.107.205 00:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. [attack removed] A little picture of a bomb is not a review. This guy doesn't even discuss the music in his pointless littles 2 sentence remarks. I honestly think that all links to this guy should be removed. 75.28.139.80 21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Even if some people don't like him, he's arguably the most famous rock critic in the world, and he's been doing it for 40 years. His website contains over 13000 reviews of more than 5000 artists, making it a useful resource. Anyway, most of his reviews are longer than two sentences and most of them do discuss the music. Jerry warriner 15:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The reviews on his site often contain insufficient details on the music he is supposedly critiquing. These reviews are frequently laden with errors and nonsensical phrases. His allegedly esteemed position should not make his meagre writing sacrosanct; if people want to read his views, they can follow the link from his article. Blobchin 22:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That's exactly right. How about a compromise- we keep the reviews for albums that have at least one full, relevant paragraph, and delete the links to ones that say absolutely nothing about the music, like this verbatim review of Black Sabbath's "Paranoid" :

They do take heavy to undreamt-of extremes, and I suppose I could enjoy them as camp, like a horror movie--the title cut is definitely screamworthy. After all, their audience can't take that Lucifer bit seriously, right? Well, depends on what you mean by serious. Personally, I've always suspected that horror movies catharsized stuff I was too rational to care about in the first place. C-  That is not a review, it's just rambling! He gets paid for this bull? The sad thing is, this is one of his more coherent articles. Others just put a grade next to the title. All links to reviews like this need to be removed.


 * Christgau is as noted the most famous rock critic in the world. It is true that his reviews are often so brief that they might not be considered professional reviews if they were by anyone but him. Review ratings by Christgau are very common in Wikipedia album articles. For example, in my sample of about 1500 album articles there were recently 347 reviews by Christgau. That, combined with the new Template:Rating-Christgau recently adopted (and mentioned at WP:ALBUM) shows consensus for keeping his reviews in Wikipedia. If you want to lobby for limiting them, may I suggest you take this to WT:ALBUM? Until then, they should stay. --PEJL 09:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So, just because he's supposedly the "most famous," that makes it okay for him to blather on about nothing and pass off as a legit review? If your job is to properly review and critique music, then you do just that. It doesn't matter how "famous" you are, you can't use your clout to half-ass it. Roger Ebert is a famous movie critic, but his website isn't littered with one sentence throwaways about movies. He writes well thought-out essays, complete with short summaries of the movies, their strong and weak points, and his thoughts on them. You see the difference? And so what if there's a template [attack removed]? That's what we're trying to fix, by eliminating it! At least the links to nonsensical ramblings passed off as "reviews." (And how did christgau get so damn "famous," anyway?)75.39.165.17 11:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The point isn't that there is a template, the point is that including ratings by Christgau in the professional review sections of album infoboxes is widely accepted, as evidenced by the existence of the template, by the template being noted at WP:ALBUM, by how often his reviews are included in album infoboxes, and by him being noted in WP:ALBUM. If you think ratings by Christgau (all or some) shouldn't be included in album infoboxes, the place to argue this is WT:ALBUM, not here. Incidentally, there are currently ongoing discussions about his ratings there. --PEJL 11:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he is highly legit.
I favor using Christgau reviews whenever available. His early arrival, his position at the Village Voice, and his Consumer Guide publications made him the foremost music critic in the United States for about 30 years, and his body of reviews is one of the biggest by a single reviewer. (Tho I wish the Forced Exposure reviews were available online, especially Coley and Johnson.) He's intelligent and frank, and certainly has credentials.

I particularly favor the dense, consise style of his Consumer Guide capsule reviews (tho admittedly, it helps to have some familiarity with his conventions and preferences). The Black Sabbath review quoted above is actually a good example of terse and informative writing, and describes the album better than a lengthy, reverent review with lots of quoted lyrics (example) might &mdash; if you want that, Xgau's not your guy.

Of course, some people will disagree on taste (especially fans of heavy metal, U2, and my fave King Crimson). And his website isn't very slick (tho it is economical and downloads much more quickly via dialup than AMG or Rolling Stone). But he's exactly the guy I go to about unfamiliar popular music in subgenres I don't spend much time in. / edgarde 12:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And yes, this conversation should be taken to WT:ALBUM, where I'm actually advocating for more Christgau. Wanna FIGHT? / edgarde 13:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, great. Let's just make it ****ing Christgaupedia already.  And yes, I want to fight.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.10.99 (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not just anybody can get a review out via Esquire, The Village Voice, Playboy, Spin, Creem, Rolling Stone and National Public Radio. He tends to be very terse and I have very different tastes than Christgau, we would often disagree, but I still find his opinions to be interesting.  And his high notabilty has made his opinions as notable as any other writer for the All Music Guide or Rolling Stone.  We should not only select the reviews we agree with for a given article. -MrFizyx 17:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's critics that post shoddy reviews without any actual criticisms, that solely rely on their station within the community ("40 years"), is what makes reviewing itself a subjective means, and one that has very little respect. Please, can we do away with this personality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.129.230 (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please take complaints like this to WT:ALBUM. This talk page is for discussing edits to this article. / edgarde 04:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "[...]Christgau readily admits to disliking (even "prejudice" against) the musical genres heavy metal [...]". Now tell me why lots of heavy metal albums have ratings by this man. If he has prejudices against this genre then he can't review them correctly. I mean, if I hated modern art, then I wouldn't write reviews on it. It is simple: if you hate a subject on the whole, then you can't distinguish between what is good and what is bad regarding that subject. This is why even the best albums have a B-. A are nearly nowhere to be seen. So take away those links please, because he clearly doesn't understand anything about heavy metal or hard rock. He just delivers random B- or funny little pictures. According to him, nobody should buy heavy metal or hard rock albums. What is the point in this? People who read those articles are not interested in seeing he dislikes this genres, but in understanding which albums are worth listening to. Summing up: keep links to his reviews for albums he understands something about and take them away from those he has prejudices against because he is not legit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FateForger (talk • contribs) 13:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Led Zeppelin IV, Motorhead / edg ☺ ☭ 03:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

His reviews are poorly written and often don't make any sense in relation to what's being reviewed. If you're unfamiliar with certain popular music subgenres, just go to the All Music Guide. Music criticism is subjective. Of course there are going to be internalized biases and standards in that industry. Ridiculous that anyone should have a critic determine what they should listen to; think for yourself. Often times, what critics say don't gel with the public at large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.135.42 (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please take complaints like this to WT:ALBUM. This talk page is for discussing edits to this article. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Why Christgau (and others) often write very short reviews
Why do Christgau (and others) often write very short reviews? Because that is what someone is paying them to do. Christgau was one of the pioneers of long-form rock criticism: 10-15,000 words to talk about a rock album or band. However, there is no market for that these days. Even Rolling Stone rarely commissions a critical piece (as against a celebrity lifestyle piece) of that length any more, and Christgau was never a "lifestyle" writer.

Christgau is now in his mid-60s, and is writing (above all) for those of roughly his generation who still care, and (secondarily) for younger people who have some sense of what precedes them: far more than one can pick up from an occasional listen to a "classic rock" station. I don't agree with his dismissive remarks on Sabbath cited above, and I wouldn't call it a gem of a review, but it actually says quite a bit for such a short review. 64 words + a rating, and he manages to qualify his dismissal with an explanation of why he personally doesn't relate to what he considers to be at least one of its major appeals to its audience. I consider myself a pretty good writer, but I doubt I could have said so much in so few words.

I've certainly heard Christgau talk about (and lament) the loss of venues for long-form criticism. Does anyone know of a citable place where he has written about this? - Jmabel | Talk 05:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "64 words + a rating, and he manages to qualify his dismissal with an explanation of why he personally doesn't relate to what he considers to be at least one of its major appeals to its audience. I consider myself a pretty good writer, but I doubt I could have said so much in so few words." -- You must be an awful writer dude, those kinds of reviews are a dime a dozen on Amazon, Rateyourmusic, and every other open review site. 98.208.57.129 (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

He might be legit, but anyone could do what he does
A critic's view of Robert Chrisgau:

If someone paid me to do what he does I'd be the happiest man in the world. Write a few sentences, don't worry about little things like grammar, punctuation or making sense, and be applauded as an important person and get lots of money for it. His job is about as respectable and beneficial to society as a lawyer's. But hey, he was one of the first, so I guess that means he's some sort of legend. I should be the first at something...maybe the first to jumprope while rolling my eyes and singing Yesterday. D- 76.200.176.22 (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nowhere near pretentious enough, nor were there enough bogus and nonsensical phrases. C- - Drthatguy (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of lawyers in the world. Can you name them all? There is only one Robert Christgau. Like it or not, he is famous. Money and fame are not allocated based on purely rational criteria. Ann Coulter and Orly Taitz are both lawyers and I can do without having to be further annoyed by their opinions and antics. And, that's just in terms of pop culture value. However, as far as the value of lawyers goes, law does have the side-effect of being the only way ordinary people can attempt to pursue a remedy in cases of injustice (despite the fact that law's primary mission is the safeguarding of elite privilege). Being first at things is extremely important in the art world. Anyone can place a urinal in an art museum but it was Duchamp who did it first. And, despite hindsight bias, not everyone was capable of doing that. It took someone with a particular viewpoint to do it. Thus, Duchamp did it quite some time after the first urinal was invented. The biggest problem with his reviews is the one I mentioned below. It's a problem with most music reviews. They are typically narratives that focus more on the biographical details of the band (or the reviewer) than on the quality of the music. The biggest issue of all is when a reviewer doesn't give each track its own mark/analysis. Many many albums are not so homogeneous that all the tracks can be treated fairly with a single mark. That's a very rare circumstance. Music reviewers make the error of thinking they're rating a term paper or some other homogeneous thing. An album is not. It is composed of individual songs, songs that can stand alone and which can be very very different from one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.134.184 (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

"This focus has a tendency to render much of his writing fairly useless"? New Journalism angle
This paragraph was recently added to the "Styles and tastes" section:


 * "Like many writers who embraced the new journalism of Tom Wolfe, Joan Didion, and Hunter S. Thompson, subjectivity lies at the heart of Christgau's writing style and observations. As such, as a critic Christgau tends to focus on the public persona and the social context of an artist, viewing any artist's work as an extension of that persona within a social context. This focus on a critique of the relative merits of the artist's public personality has a tendency to render much of his writing fairly useless as an evaluation regarding the merits of a work being discussed, though not always."

I think the New Journalism connection is interesting, but the implication that Xgau writes about artists's public personas to the exclusion of the work itself seems just empirically wrong to me, on top of being original research. If you go to his random A-list page, you'll most likely find that all or almost all of the reviews you get discuss the music itself. In any case, I think words like "useless" definitely push this section into POV. --Over9000plateaus (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "the implication that Xgau writes about artist's public personas to the exclusion of the work itself seems just empirically wrong to me". That view absolutely applies to his dismissal of Siouxsie and the Banshees. He is so wrapped up in her that he makes statements that have no basis in reality, along with an obvious hatred that caused him to say things like "I kept waiting for Siouxsie to end". He is clearly unaware that Steve Severin wrote roughly half of the Banshees' songs, in terms of lyrics. How is that about Siouxsie? She sung those songs but he wrote them. They're his imagery, his ideas, his personality. Imagine if he had dismissed the Beatles so casually based on John Lennon's personality and image. Forget McCartney, eh? It seems as if he got offended by her use of the swastika as a punk and never managed to let that go, even though she went as far as to create a mawkish propaganda song called Israel to try to apologize and has written about half a dozen songs condemning herself, including one where she says there's a hell that's surely waiting for her. Some music critics seized on the swastika and decided to never give her a fair hearing again, as if the mistakes of youth must be carried with someone forever. If he were to take the time to actually experience the Banshees' music, from start to finish, he would find a lot more there than he can dismissed with schoolyard names like "Siouxsie Pseud" and the superficial analysis that would lead a person to claim Once Upon a Time: The Singles is their best work. But, given the taste he has shown, a taste that leads to second-rate music like Sonic Youth's "Trash/No Star" record receiving an A, it seems that her biggest crime wasn't being born in America, especially around New York. Oh, and Mr. Christgau... Budgie wrote some of the Banshees' songs, too. If you really want to see her taste more specifically you should listen to The Creatures or her solo album. They don't sound like the Banshees. They also put into perspective his peevish dismissal of her as "banal exoticism". If one wants banal exoticism one listens to songs like Gecko by The Creatures. Another claim was that Once Upon a Time represents three years of the band's development. He is unaware that they toured for something like two years before finally being signed by a label. These are basic facts that pro music reviewers could take the time to find out if they're so interested in biographical interpretations, like how many years were involved in the production of a singles collection. The Banshees' artistic development began sometime in 1976. Love in A Void is one of their very early tracks from the time prior to their signing. That means Once Upon a Time is 4-5 years of artistic development, not three as he claims. (Fortunately for the Banshees they jettisoned the anti-Semitic line in Love in a Void during that time of artistic growth, prior to their signing. By the time The Scream was released, too, pure punk was already history.) This would be a matter of nit-picking if not for how it fits into the whole. It seems he's more interested in finding angles to dismiss the band's merits with than much else. Oh, look, a singles collection from just three years! I agree, though, that Once Upon a Time is lighter than it could be, in terms of content. This is, in part, because, contrary to his strong claim, the Banshees are a band that is better understood through their album tracks — not their singles. But, one has to do more than listen to just one of their albums to know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.137.0 (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Criticism
There certainly needs to be a substantial section on criticism of Christgau. He's one of the most frequently derided music critics of all time, this needs to be reflective in this article. The article as it is now is extremely biased in favor of Christgau and attempts to paint as a major, important writer of high quality who is above criticism. Irresponsible. He's received more criticism than the vast majority of music authors, and has taken an enormous number of unexplained, divergent positions on various issues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.13.138 (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I also agree, the guy has no idea what he's talking about. --DvdBengals 00:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So find something citable and add it. / edg ☺ ★ 00:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So find something citable and add it. - Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=Radiohead nuff said


 * Take a gander at the guy's website- looks like the code was written in 1996.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.219.80 (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem right that an article on Christgau does not contain the phrase "colossal blowhard" -- GWO (talk)

This article is incredibly biased. He often dismisses albums that are elsewhere regarded as classics and his reviews are nearly incomprehensible by any standards. This should be reflected in the article more - Drthatguy (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is hinted at in the Lou Reed "tirade" paragraph. A number of people (famously Reed, Sonic Youth and Public Enemy) objected to Christgau's kingmaker status, especially on the New York scene. Sourced and notable information of this type should probably be added.
 * However, this article is constantly reverted for angry vandalism and indignant examples inserted by superfans offended by Xgau dismissing Radiohead, Dark Side Of the Moon, Black Sabbath or some other sacred cow. Deviating from the hegemonic rock canon per The Rolling Stone (or whatever) does not by itself make Xgau wrong, or "incredibly biased". That said, sensible, NPOV (not to mentioned sourced) description of Xgau's leanings could also benefit this article&mdash;this may already be adequately covered under Style and tastes. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave Marsh and Robert Christgau are jokes. Both men have so many egregious errors in their works that it is lazy "journalism," if you can call it that. Christgau's the dean of nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.135.42 (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's amusing that his self-description as "Dean of American Rock Critics" is thought to merit inclusion. Since when do entry subjects get to self-aggrandize? Nicmart (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Dean's List section
I don't really see the point of adding this content. This is supposed to be an article about Robert Christgau, not a forum for his opinions or reviews. Dlabtot (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * His occupation, and the reason he has a Wikipedia article, is forming opinions, writing reviews. Dan56 (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, but if people want to read all this content, they can follow the various links to read it. You haven't answered my question:  why does this content belong in Wikipedia? Dlabtot (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You didn't ask a question; you just made a declamatory statement complaining about the content's inclusion. Dan56 (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I added the section. The way I see it, a list of a critic's annual favorites are equivalent to a filmography, discography, or any other list of "works". It's also equivalent to lists on pages like Pazz & Jop, giving a publication's annual choices for best musical release; or equivalent to pages like Academy Award for Best Picture, giving an institution's annual choices for an award. The only difference is that this is a single person, not a publication/institution, but nonetheless a single person who is in the trade of naming favorites. It's a reliable indicator of the critic's tastes evolving over time, and tastemaking is what critics do. It's superficially true that someone can seek out Christgau's page and click through all of those links themselves, but they actually can't see them all presented this way in a list on Christgau's site; besides, it's also true that many artists post their discographies online, sometimes quite comprehensive ones, but that doesn't stop Wikipedia from also having those discography articles. —BLZ · talk 09:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The list has received significant coverage in third-party sources, at least one of which establish the list's notability: Henry Hauser from Consequence of Sound has said "the Dean's annual 'Pazz & Jop' poll has been a bona fide American institution. For music writers, his year-end essays and extensive 'Dean's List' are like watching the big ball drop in Times Square." It is notable, and satisfies the criteria detailed at WP:CSC. Dan56 (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Unwarranted content removal by Nicmart
has removed the claim that Christgau has been known as the "Dean of American rock critics", arguing that this label has only been used by him. This is not true, and I provided further evidence in the form of a reliable source and explained this in my edit summary, but this was inexplicably reverted by Nicmart. So along with The Boston Globe's Cleo Simon saying in 1998 that Christgau has been "hailed by many as the Dean...", I will add here that the earliest published usage of this label I could find was in the 1971 collection of essays The Con III Controversey: The Greening of America, in which editor Philip Nobile offers the footnote: "Robert Christgau is the Dean of American rock critics..." This is enough, although I can find more (obviously), including the citation that was already in place and supported other text Nicmart altered or removed without explaining why, including portions of a quote. Dan56 (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What source included in the entry supports your claim. There was a link to a Noisy article which calls him "the self-anointed Dean of American Rock Critics,” a statement which supports the way I rewrote the article. That Cleo Simon said something in 1998 does not make it true. Nicmart (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is sick. You are shifting the goalposts. Now it is not enough that the claim is supported by Nobile and Simon--two sources. Now what do you want? For God himself to say it in The New York Times? Well, I don't believe in God. And I believe the burden is on you to demonstrate the sources I have provided are not credible enough to support the claim. So go 'head and open an RfC or something, because you're not gonna get through to me with this ridiculous effort. Dan56 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The original narrative prior to my rewrite makes it clear that Christgau applied the term to himself when drunk. Further, Christgau himself is quoted as debunking the notion that a “dean” of rock critics is a genuine thing. Now your source is not “Cleo Simon,” as you claimed at first, but Clea Simon, and your alleged source is not a readable link. As I’ve already noted, your other source is probably Christgau’s self-description at the bottom of one of his essays published in a book. By any reasonably scholarly standard your sources don’t stand up. For some reason you insist on using lame sources to establish something for which there is no real evidence. There is only evidence that Christgau has persistently puffed himself as “dean of rock critics.” I’m not going to revert your insubstantial claim again because it isn’t worth the effort, and this discussion will alert people to the thin gruel on which you base your assertion. You have apparently offered Clea Simon in 1998, though we don’t know if she was a credible source and we can’t even read what she wrote. I just googled “‘Clea Simon’ Christgau” and found nothing connecting the two. If is a contributor’s responsibility to provide verifiable sources, and you have not done that. Nicmart (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The first hit on Google for "Clea Simon" and "Christgau" is this from Harvard University Press, which shows her review and quote. Dan56 (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not going to revert me because you have no grounds to do so. Because you have been incompetent in your argument here and have ignored all the sources to reputed music and literary critics I provided further below, along with the aforementioned sources that are easily found online: here is a reprint of Simon's original review from The Boston Globe. Dan56 (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

That section has claimed that it is widely known that Christgau is dean of rock critics. No source is provided to support that claim, and the entry demonstrates that the only person who has applied that label to Christgau is Christgau himself. So I rewrote it to remove the unsupported claim while leaving most of the rest intact. Dan56 reverted my rewrite and has posted a claim that by correctly removing an unsupported claim and reverting his reversion, I’m engaged in an “edit war.” Entries are supposed to be supported by sources, so I am on solid ground eliminating an unsupported claim, and it is up to Dan56 or someone else to substantiate the unproven statement which I removed. Nicmart (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Are you completely ignorant of the obvious fact that I had provided a source, even when you removed the content again? Did you not read a single word I wrote above, in the edit summaries, at your talk page? Is this a matter of incompetence on your part? Because your behavior is baffling. Dan56 (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The notation within The Con III Controversey: The Greening of America is a description of Christgau almost certainly after one of his own essays, which was very likely provided by Christgau, not the editor. It’s not a credible source. You don’t even provide the full context of the essay so it’s connection can be evaluated. Nicmart (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course it was provided by Christgau; he came up with the title, and it stuck with other people. That is the gist, and it is going over your head. "Christgau, who once jokingly referred to himself as the 'Dean of American Rock Critics' only to find that the label stuck..." (Margaret Eby, BKMag), another one. Christgau, known as the "dean of American rock critics" (Dan DeLuca), "known as the Dean of..." (Nate Chinen), "known as the dean of ..." (Grove Music Online) Dan56 (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Christgau, who’s often referred to as the Dean of American rock critics." (Claiborne Smith, Kirkus Reviews) Dan56 (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not "God", but it is someone in The New York Times: "For a long time he’s been called the 'dean of American rock critics.' It’s a line that started out as an offhanded joke. These days, few dispute it. - Dwight Garner (critic) Dan56 (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Now you are actually hunting for sources to verify your assertion. That’s what you are supposed to do before you post it the first time. However, the Times essay does not say that he is widely known as dean of rock critics. Nicmart (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wasn't your original argument that he is not called this title by anyone other than himself? Dan56 (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you still here? If all you have to offer this article is debasing my efforts to actually appease your silly little complaint, then go away. Your argument and biased nit-picking have no merits here, and I am positive would not be taken seriously by any competent editor on Wikipedia. But I dare you to try (WP:Third opinion, WP:RFC) Dan56 (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm with Dan56 on this. It's true that Christgau dubbed himself the "Dean of American rock critics", half in jest. But as Dan56 has pointed out, and as numerous secondary sources on the subject will verify, the sobriquet has taken on a life of its own and remains a title that others associate with Christgau. From a 2006 article in Slate, written by Jody Rosen, himself an esteemed and widely published critic:
 * "When Robert Christgau appointed himself Dean of American Rock Critics, he was 'slightly soused at a 5th Dimension press party' in the early 1970s. Christgau was in his late 20s at the time—not exactly an éminence grise—so maybe it was the booze talking, or maybe he was just a very arrogant young man. In any case, as the years passed, the quip became a fact. [...] Unlike other first-generation pop critics, who drifted into other kinds of work, lost interest in current pop, or, in the case of Lester Bangs, died, Christgau was persistent. He continued to write about the records that arrived in his mailbox every day, keeping his ears and mind open to new music more than most critics 40 years his junior. He also earned the 'dean' title by teaching. A huge percentage of the working rock critics of the last three decades are graduates of the Voice music section, shaped by Christgau's mentoring and fearsome line-editing."

Later in the piece, Christgau is referred to as simply "the dean". Elsewhere: the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette profiled him in 2017, noting that the nickname is self-proclaimed but then using "the Dean" to refer to Christgau throughout the piece. Rolling Stone has discussed and used the nickname; so has PopMatters; so has Deadspin; so has Pitchfork; ; on the radio news program All Things Considered, NPR's Arun Rath asked Christgau "why do we think of you as the dean of rock writing?"; The Advocate; Charles R. Cross, in The Seattle Times, wrote that Christgau "christened himself 'the Dean' as a joke, and the nickname stuck"; and so on. The nickname is self-endowed, it's a bit tongue-in-cheek and/or provocatively boastful (as most of these sources note), but nevertheless it is widely associated with Christgau and worthy of mention. —BLZ · talk 21:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Does Christgau know anything about music at all?
Reading both the criticisms and defenses of Christgau's work, I notice a conspicuous lack of discussion of his ability to analyze or even notice the musical elements of the records he criticizes: e.g. pitch, melody, harmony, chord changes, rhythm, etc. Nor have I ever seen a review of his that emphasized musical qualities themselves, as opposed to posture, image, resemblances, cultural significance, and so forth. The contributor Over9000Plateaus claims above that "If you go to his random A-list page, you'll most likely find that all or almost all of the reviews you get discuss the music itself." But they don't, actually. They contain a lot of general claims about the music, homespun terminology, and evocative metaphors, but they give no indication of any musical knowledge per se. Of course this is not evidence itself that Christgau is musically illiterate, but one way or another, some authoritative secondary source would be very helpful in estimating the value of his work. Jackaroodave (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Everything I've seen of his suggests that he is musically illiterate. Outside of Wikipedia, he appears to be irrelevant to everyone other than Village Voice readers and those who view a certain part of NYC as the centre of the universe. His comments come across like those of a tone-deaf nobody who has achieved fame for reasons having nothing to do with an ability to rate music.77Mike77 (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Outside of Wikipedia, these comments appear to be irrelevant to everyone. Dan56 (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

...except you.77Mike77 (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I am part of Wikipedia. And alas, they are irrelevant even to me; I did not read past "he appears to be irrelevant to everyone..." Dan56 (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * By the way, check this out. I have plans to nominate it for featured status 😛 Dan56 (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

What kind of "fresh out of understanding music 101" nonsense is this that you think music criticism in the modern era relies on analysis of the melody, harmony, development, etc.? What is this nonsensical neo-Schenkerian reactionaryism? Grow up. 45.31.114.192 (talk) 06:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow, funny comments, and very weird. So he is like a Sesame Street "Cookie Monster" type, getting famous because of the sheer volume of his comments about album after album? Even though he doesn't seem to have a clue? I sort of get it now - a musical know-nothing spending countless hours listening to albums (many of which he doesn't understand), and spitting out printed reactions in the Village Voice, album after album. I suppose he deserves recognition for listening to so many albuns, but that doesn't justify his deification in so many Wikipedia articles.77Mike77 (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, Sesame Street's Cookie Monster, who—as we all know—became "famous because of the sheer volume of his comments about album after album." Great analogy, it makes perfect sense just the way you wrote it and I wouldn't change a thing. Maybe you should apply for a music reviewing job? The market's tough, sure, but considering you've figured out that Robert Christgau is a fraud and the quality of your prose is positively sparkling, it sounds like you'll become one of the most esteemed music critics in no time. —BLZ · talk 05:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Maybe look up the word "analogy" in a dictionary, for starters.77Mike77 (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Say he is being deified. What are you gonna do about it, buddy? 🧐 Dan56 (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Analogy: "A comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification." I suppose you're right that your Cookie Monster comparison wasn't an analogy, insofar as it failed to explain or clarify anything at all.
 * But more importantly, Wikipedia is not a forum, so it's time to draw this "discussion" to a close. Your personal feelings about Christgau are all you've brought to the table here. While you have captured our imaginations and enthralled us with your wit and piercing insight, you haven't made any relevant commentary about the page itself. You haven't said Christgau isn't notable—if you believed that's what you were doing, let me remind you that you have failed to discuss any relevant evidence (reliable secondary sources) or Wikipedia policies. All you've done is point out that Christgau is notable, then complain about that and say he is unworthy of his notability. If you want to vent your distaste for Christgau somewhere else, there are plenty of other options for you to publish these thoughts; for example, most blogging platforms provide free registration with a valid email address. —BLZ · talk 18:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * not sure how active you are here these days, and it's now long after you raised the issue, anyway ... I've just added something on Christgau's (self-confessed) lack of formal understanding of music.
 * I agree that the inclusion of secondary sources discussing this point and its possible relevance to the validity of his critiques would be very welcome. (Perhaps some additions have taken place in that regard over the last year-plus – I don't know.) Somehow I doubt whether it would present much of a challenge to his standing, because so few rock critics and music journalists have any sort of formal grasp of music.


 * The text I added only gives Christgau's side. It's taken from Bernard Gendron's book Between Montmartre and the Mudd Club: Popular Music and the Avant-Garde, which, I think it's fair to say, is overly academic, something of a hard slog to read through. Might be useful to check in the likes of Rock Criticism from the Beginning: Amusers, Bruisers, and Cool-Headed Cruisers (which does cite Gendron, particularly on the rise of music critics and build-up of recognition of rock/rock 'n' roll as a genuine art form by the US cultural press); and Steve Jones' Pop Music and the Press. JG66 (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Kudos to you, JG66, for recognizing that Jackaroodave's initial question was much more substantive and considered than what followed. I was hasty in minimizing the entire section.
 * I think JG66 is right to say that Christgau's relative lack of music theory from any formal perspective is worth commenting on (to the extent it's been remarked on in secondhand sources), but probably not much of a hindrance for him. His lack of formal knowledge or expression leaves him equal to his contemporaries and the rock critics that followed. But lack of theory knowledge isn't really an obstacle when writing about rock music. Speaking in generalities, rock is supposed to be different from other (earlier) genres of music in that it is simpler, louder, more immediate, more accessible, and more attuned to factors like attitude, "look", vibes, and other cultural/social unquantifiables. It's supposed to be about immediate aesthetic impact and impression. That isn't to say theory isn't relevant to rock music or that all rock music is simplistic, but theory-oriented approaches to rock music are usually targeted to a niche audience of people who are themselves attempting to become musicians, not to the general listening public of consumers. (Hence, the "Consumer Guide".)
 * I found another excerpt from Christgau on this issue, from a column already cited once in the article. This is about why he chooses to write about rock much more than jazz, even though he likes jazz music:
 * "I believe I like the jazz I do for technical reasons that are beyond my ability to comprehend concretely or specifically and hence express, having to do with polyrhythms and harmonics a writer as knowledgeable as Whitney Balliett, the New Yorker's catholic and eloquent jazz critic, is hard-pressed to render. Rock has its own complexities, but these occur largely on a social level which any intelligent observer can get at. Jazz is mostly music."
 * That was published in 1970. Make of him what you will, but I feel Christgau is quite honest about his failings as a "technical" music critic, while also perceptive about the ways that the role of a rock critic differs from the jazz critic, the classical music critic, and so on. —BLZ · talk 08:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * BLZ: That's most gracious of you, and hey, no worries about hiding the initial question!
 * I agree with what you're saying, and what Christgau implies, that if a critic focuses on musical theory, they're liable to completely miss the all-important aesthetic consideration in appreciation of popular music. (ie, it doesn't matter if the music looks good on paper and ticks all the right theoretical boxes – how does it make you feel as a listener?)
 * Going back to the need for secondary sources here, I've read that Christgau was hugely influential in identifying trends in the 1960s/early-'70s counterculture and thereby contributed to our definition of the era. He also wrote pieces in the late '70s acknowledging the existence of a "Rock-Critics Establishment". Certainly in the case of the counterculture issue (and, I confess, I simply can't remember where I read that – could be the Rock Criticism from the Beginning or Pop Music and the Press books mentioned above), it would be great to have some coverage in the article, to establish the degree of impact he has had. Right now, we include a good few personal endorsements but nothing that strikes me as too meaningful.
 * Without trying to hijack the thread(s) below on the inclusion of the annual Dean's List winners, or debate the issue here: I do question the inclusion of those winners, but their appearance would be justified no end, imo, if it's convincingly established up-front that Christgau had a substantial role in areas such as documenting and defining the counterculture and helping to do the same, at the time, with the rise of rock critics in the lead-up to punk's (full) emergence. Reason being, of course, with those achievements attached to his work, the opinions conveyed in his choice of Dean's List winners actually matter here, away from the individual album articles. JG66 (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Pop Music and the Press, pp. 27–29, are about Christgau. Unfortunately, p. 28 is missing from Google Books' preview. I also just discovered that there's a ~30 min. documentary about Christgau called Rock n' Animal (1999), available on YouTube in four parts. The YouTube upload looks official, by the way: the uploader is "lostfootagefilms"; Lost Footage Films takes credit for the doc on their website (and links to the YouTube video). The doc features commentary on Christgau, both positive and (harshly) negative, from Joe Levy (then-music editor at Rolling Stone), Nelson George, Russ Smith, Richard Goldstein, Ellen Willis, Ann Powers, Anthony DeCurtis, John Rockwell, Eric Weisbard, Arto Lindsay, Jon Langford, and (no shit) Modest Mouse (they give him an A–; "gotta have something to work towards," says Isaac Brock). —BLZ · talk 19:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like Rock Criticism from the Beginning is much more in-depth on Christgau, pp. 151–159, but Google Books drops 155–156. —BLZ · talk 20:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that – I knew I'd seen a fair amount discussion of RC in those books. In others too; I'll have to go through notes I've compiled over several years, and scores of screenshots I've shamelessly scavenged also. I'm more interested in seeing the Richard Goldstein article expanded, because that's very poor right now. I imagine that if I do some work there, and continue on Music journalism, it'll end up feeding into this article also. (But hey, no one here has to wait for me to act, of course.) JG66 (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just watched the Rock n' Animal doc (well, three of the four parts). Very interesting.
 * At the (subscriber-only) Rock's Backpages archive, a search for Christgau reveals a decent number of results, unsurprisingly. Among those, two late '70s pieces by Dave Marsh for Rolling Stone could be useful here (1, 2), as could a 2013 piece for RBP by Barney Hoskyns, "Music Journalism at 50" ... JG66 (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've started an article on his '90s Consumer Guide book. If either of you find anything connected to it, please add it there or mention it here. The book articles can be used to consolidate more specific information about his column (summary style). For instance, I've reduced the grading system subsection in this article in favor of having the grades explained there more, and have made his grade template (honorable mentions, duds) redirect there, which has helped it get a lot of page views already. Dan56 (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This Rolling Stone interview in promotion of the '90s book has interesting material (sexism in music, CD-age music industry), possibly usable here. Dan56 (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting responses, including the not-a-forum. Thank you all. Concerning the necessity of musical chops for a rock--as opposed to a classical or jazz--critic: I confess I was moved to raise the question by the vast disparity between Christgau's dismissal of Amy Winehouse as a Shangri-La manquée and her musically competent peers' invocation of Sarah Vaughan. Jackaroodave (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Not that I see a world of difference between Sarah Vaughan and a "Shangri-La manquée", but where exactly did he dismiss Winehouse as that? Dan56 (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Dang! Busted for OR and synthesis, and maybe selective amnesia. Just strike "as a Shangri-la manquée": "the vast disparity between Christgau's dismissal of Amy Winehouse and her musically competent peers' invocation of Sarah Vaughan," and try his review of Lily Allen here: https://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/bn/2009-02.php
 * At issue is the claim above that Christgau gets a pass because he's not a classical or jazz critic, for whom knowledge of music is a necessary condition.
 * (Really? Not a world of difference?) Jackaroodave (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar with that article; I added portions of it to Amy_Winehouse. And yes, really. Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Porn quote
Yes, he said it. Actually, he said a lot of things. Some editor, however, found this bit worth including.

Let's apply the same thinking to a politician, we'll call X. As a political figure, X is controversial. Her supporters love her. He detractors hate her. As she is powerful, she's in the news a lot. She delivers a lot of speeches, many of which are available from various sources. Her supporters can dig up lots of quotes showing X has been remarkably prescient, calling for changes which, when blocked by the other party, seem (in retrospect) to have been major missed opportunities. Her opponents, however, are also good at digging through speeches and, from their work, it seems that X is remarkably stupid and cruel, wants to destroy the country and enjoys nothing more than torturing children. Rather than letting either side add in the most splendiferous, horrible, endearing, terrifying, humanizing, salacious things X has ever said, we limit the use of [[wp:psts|primary}} sources to the most basic, non-controversial information. She says she was named after her mother's favorite astronomer? Yes. She said it felt good to kick the dog that mauled her son's face? No.

Yes, it's uncommon for people to talk about liking porn. Seeing it in print is surprising. That's exactly why we should not include it. If it's relevant information, a reliable secondary or tertiary source will discuss it. If they don't, it's trivial (and likely included here for its weak shock value). - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I stopped reading after "let's apply the same thinking to..." (WP:OTHERSTUFF) Dan56 (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't have a strong opinion on including this, but I don't see a relevant guideline or policy to support excluding this either. And I am not seasoned enough in BLPs to make anything further about this. I think it'd be best to restore the long-standing revision and further talks (WP:BRD), specifically by opening an RfC. Dan56 (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * By the way, third-party source titled Robert Christgau Is Writing a Memoir, Enjoys Porn, by The Atlantic Dan56 (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * (I started writing this before Dan56's replies) I agree with your conclusion, but I'd quibble with your hypothetical about a politician. This part is right: "If it's relevant information, a reliable secondary or tertiary source will discuss it". But the part about "surprising" information being "exactly" the kind of information that we should exclude seems wrong—not totally backwards exactly, it's just not a relevant variable much of the time. Your hypothetical supposes we'd exclude the information you described because it's polarizing one way or the other, rather than because of factors like notability or proportion, both of which tie back to grounding in secondary sources. I'm not sure that the additional POV considerations in place for a political figure apply to a cultural/literary figure like Christgau—POV considerations are of course still important, but it's difficult to directly compare how we'd handle a politician's bio vs. a pop-culture writer's bio. The lines drawn between quoting, misquoting, interpretation, and willful misinterpretation is also unclear in your analogy, although I think it's relevant to unpack these issues more clearly here—more on that below.
 * I don't want to get too bogged down in your hypothetical because I fundamentally agree with your bottom line, but for different reasons. As I see it, the two main issues with "the porn quote" are (1) proportionality, (2) the statement's relative noteworthiness-in-its-own-right, both of which essentially go hand-in-hand.
 * First, proportionality: in this revision, there are 28 words in "the porn quote" sentence, and 21 words in the sentence about Christgau's marriage to Carola Dibbell and his adopted child. Christgau has written extensively about his relationship with Dibbell, who is an independently noteworthy figure and subject of interest in her own right, and talked about how she's an influence on his writing etc. Now, I don't necessarily think the porn quote is so outrageous that it undermines the part about his marriage and, judging by the statement, certainly Christgau doesn't feel that looking at porn should be seen as inherently outrageous or unspeakable. But in an ideal, comprehensive encyclopedic biography, if the porn quote is included then certainly I would want to see much more about his decades-long relationship with the love of his life.
 * Second, the statement's relative noteworthiness-in-its-own-right: as noted in his edit summary, Christgau is known for a comparatively high degree of candor/frankness when writing about sex and his personal life. Not to the same extent as, say, Larry Flynt, but certainly more than, I don't know, Mary Baker Eddy. However, Flynt's commentary on sex and porn are an essential part of his public life as a businessman and free-speech crusader, and have been the subject of extensive secondary commentary and biography. The only source cited here is Christgau's essay itself. Has anyone else commented on these remarks or mentioned these remarks as an essential aspect of his personal life?
 * Last point, but possibly the most important. After reading the quote in its original context, I question its relevance even more:
 * "Two things about memoirs often annoy me: they go on too much about the nature of memory and there's not enough sex in them. ... As for sex, it's not because I like pornography, which I do, and which performs its arousal function quite well with no outside help. Nor is it because I'm nosy, which I am, and aren't you? It's because in my experience sex and the love that generally comes with it—a big qualification, I know, but even memoirists who've had a lot more loveless sex than I have either include sex in their primary love relationships or should explain why they don't—plays a determinative role in most lives."
 * In context, the comment is not even directly about porn use. It's an aside, a deployment of dry humor for rhetorical purposes, made in service to a broader point that memoirists shouldn't neglect or omit the role of sex in their lives. I think there'd be different considerations if the main thrust (pardon the expression) of the essay, or even of the statement in isolation, was about his own personal life—but it's not, it's a somewhat offhand remark made in service to bigger-picture writing advice. Again, I doubt Christgau himself would consider this tantamount to character assassination or anything like that given his laissez-faire attitude on such things (as reflected by the quote itself, however you read it). But even so, I'm unconvinced that the statement reflects a notably relevant part of his personal life.
 * I think there could be something to say about Christgau's repeated advocacy for candor when writing and talking about the role of sex in our lives; just google "christgau writing about sex", he's talked about it in his own writing and in interviews [editor's note: Dan56 identified some of these same secondary sources before I could hit "publish changes"]. But advocating frankness about sexual topics in general is a different matter than coming out of the closet as a porn consumer—and it shouldn't become a disproportionate focus of our recounting of his personal life. —BLZ · talk 21:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I skimmed through much of the above. I think it's relevant to Christgau's sexual politics, and given the political and sociological nature of his writing (his professional life), this gives it more relevance (as information about his personal life). As for the weight discrepancy with text about his marriage and daughter, the solution would be to add more about those topics rather than remove text about the porn topic. Also, his music writing has been referenced in Pornography and Sexual Representation: A Reference Guide, and he covers the topic further in Book Reports (2019). So his connection to pornography (even outside his personal life) is a bit substantial. Dan56 (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not really possible to judge the context of how Christgau is being cited in Pornography and Sexual Representation. Not saying there's nothing there, but it's way too early to say what it is—the word in the title and the string "Given music critic Robert Christgau's determination to chronicle the lives and careers of weird and sexy musicians of..." are not enough to work with. What if that chapter's about "Sexual Representation", not "Pornography" (seems like it probably is)?
 * I agree that an overview of Christgau's sex+gender politics would be good. At the moment, the only indication that he's connected in any way whatsoever to the idea "feminism" is a mention midway through a dismissive quote, which is itself positioned midway through a section on his writing. (That quote itself is fine, and helps present a spectrum of notable perspectives, but it tells us very little about Christgau's politics as such.)
 * But prioritizing his statements about porn feels like we're several layers deep into a nesting doll of subtopics (political views in general > views on sex and gender > views on sex in particular > views on pornography). Even then we'd have to disentangle "views on pornography" from closely related topics like "views on writing about sex" (more relevant to his views on writing than to his views on sex per se) or a general attitude against uptight-ness writ large. It's also a bit like writing "Christgau does not like Black Sabbath" without other context (about his taste, about his musical prejudices in general, about his attitude toward metal music in general). It may be true, he may have discussed that viewpoint multiple times, and others may have even commented on that view; yet even with context, a reader would likely wonder why you're singling out that viewpoint in particular. And at least his dislike for Sabbath is about music criticism; his views on porn are much, much further afield from the things that make Christgau a noteworthy public figure. —BLZ · talk 22:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I originally removed that quote because it was not clear why this was notable, of the many, many things that he has written, and even in the context of the particular article being cited. The article (now) cited does indeed feature "..., enjoys porn" in the title, but magazine article titles are not chosen by their authors, usually, but rather by editors trying to pick something eye-catching. The quote about porn is a parenthetical to a main point about the role of sex in memoirs. In retrospect I should have of course first brought this up on this talk page, but I obviously underestimated how controversial this might be. Khromegnome (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

According to, "If it's relevant information, a reliable secondary or tertiary source will discuss it. If they don't, it's trivial (and likely included here for its weak shock value)." A secondary source -- discussing and highlighting this information -- has been cited. So, according to what SummerPhDv2.0 said, that would make this information relevant. Dan56 (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, everything we include must be verifiable. It does not follow that everything verifiable should be included. I can verify what kind of shirt Christgau was wearing in some days in the past, along with his feelings on Islam, the book of Genesis, museums and chicken parmesan (riddled with contradictions, a confusing love story, more entertaining then instructional, the additions overwhelm the substance). - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So information -- that's been established by a secondary source as being relevant -- should be excluded? Dan56 (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It has been verified by a secondary source. Relevant is a different question. Secondary sources establish that Richard Nixon's head appears as a character in Futurama. It is not, however, relevant to include in Richard Nixon. In this case, the secondary source is not really discussing that Christgau likes porn. It's an aside which may put him on the "receiving end of some scowling critic's snark." With WP:WEIGHT in mind, compare the piece discussed here with the shorter piece about his wife and daughter. It's 20% or so of his personal life? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should it be removed from a "personal life" section of a BLP, that the article's subject said he enjoys pornography?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should it be removed from this BLP, that the article's subject said he enjoys pornography and the reason why? It was removed from the "personal life" section by an editor, before I restored the information, citing instead a secondary source (as requested by the editor) that highlighted the same information. Dan56 (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * No - For a personal life section, it seems fine, especially given the subject has defended pornography in a past essay. And along with the original The Barnes & Noble Review essay in which Christgau expressed these remarks, there is a tertiary source (as requested by a dissenting editor above) that cites and discusses the remarks, titled Robert Christgau Is Writing a Memoir, Enjoys Porn (by The Atlantic). Dan56 (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but... – See my comment above. The answer to the question as framed is "yes", but there's more going on. I also think it's probably a tad premature for an RfC, given that this request was made before, the other reverting editor, or anyone else had a chance to weigh in. There hasn't been a discussion yet, only opening remarks. —BLZ · talk 21:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes - Picking and choosing tiny sections of primary sources is a WP:WEIGHT problem. Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no cherry picking from a primary source going on here, dude. Dan56 (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a primary source and someone pulled out a tiny piece of it because they wanted to say Christgau likes porn. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're incompetent if you think this is a primary source. Dan56 (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * False and entirely unfounded accusations of policy violations don't help your argument. Dlabtot (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not false and I did not accuse anyone of violating policy. The quote was taken as a small piece of a primary source and became it's own paragraph in his "Person life" section. The piece, though brief, is longer than the info on his wife and daughter. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're a hypocrite. Dan56 (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously no - Most people enjoy pornography, but how many notable people have multiple reliable sources stating so? Dlabtot (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To make a somewhat-glib comment, most people are also nosy, but wouldn't admit it, especially in print. The quote in question here also includes this admission from Christgau, with the same weight as the part about porn. Should the "personal life" section of this article also include this? Khromegnome (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Cherry-picking embarassing quotes is not to be tolerated anywhere, but especiallyin an article about a fairly marginal BLP.  Coretheapple (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Presumably this user meant "yes" (it should be removed), so I have edited this entry to say so Khromegnome (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes (it should be removed because) this is not a particularly notable fact about the person, worthy of such prominence in their "personal life" section. Obviously there is some debate, but BLPs one should err on the side of non-sensational articles. Khromegnome (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, exclude it (invited by the bot) For all of the many good reasons given in this discussion.  To this I would add whether it is informative for the article, which is another use for wp:weight.    There are millions of things that each person has "said once", it sounds like this is in that category. (?)  A cherry picking of one of those is not informative. North8000 (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
Picking and choosing tiny sections of primary sources is a WP:WEIGHT problem. Allowing cherry picking from primary sources invites some "some scowling critic" to do just that. I've found it from those wishing to various subjects devout Christians, atheists, biased reporters, pedophiles, etc. We need not identify a goal and a motive to avoid the problem entirely. If independent reliable sources are not interested in the subject's opinions on porn, why would Wikipedia's readers be? With enough searching, we could compile a completely worthless laundry list of things Christgau (or anyone) likes/dislikes. He was friends with Marshall Berman. He struggled with infertility for years. He enjoys movies and museum shows. BLPMINOR info I won't add. His politics are "congruent" with Marxist humanism. He sees Islam as riddled with contradictions. He grew up reading the King James Bible and considers Genesis the "quintessentially foundational work" but says it's really just a "confusing love story". That's all from one brief quote from one of his books and none of it belongs here. I neither like nor hate Christgau. Plenty of others have strong opinions because of what he said about (musical act name here). - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Didn't you say above "If it's relevant information, a reliable secondary or tertiary source will discuss it. If they don't, it's trivial (and likely included here for its weak shock value)." ?? A secondary source has been cited, in case you haven't noticed. So, according to what you said, this would mean it's not trivial information and is relevant. Why are you making this shit up about cherry picking from primary sources? What primary source is being cited in the article? Please explain. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please be careful to maintain a constructive tone here. Khromegnome (talk) 08:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * All humans are mortal. This does not mean that all mortals are human. Anything that is not trivial will be discussed in secondary sources. Not everything in secondary sources is relevant. If an interviewer mentions the subject's shirt, that they were wearing that shirt on that day is verifiable, but still trivial. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, his political leanings are much more relevant than his like of pornography. First of all because who doesn't like pornography? He's not alone in liking it, he's alone in talking openly about it, which is different. Second of all, because a lot of other celebrities that are much less influential have bits in their Personal life section that discusses their political leanings, so why not Christgau? I get what you're saying and I agree, but seeing how he self-identifies as a Marxist, with that information traced to primary and secondary sources, this particular example doesn't fit with the rest of the things you enumerated. Particularly since he has been branching out into book reviews and what the New Yorker calls "Marxist-adjacent cultural commentary".  PraiseVivec (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The quote from the essay : "Two things about memoirs often annoy me: they go on too much about the nature of memory and there's not enough sex in them. ... As for sex, it's not because I like pornography, which I do, and which performs its arousal function quite well with no outside help. Nor is it because I'm nosy, which I am, and aren't you? It's because in my experience sex and the love that generally comes with it—a big qualification, I know, but even memoirists who've had a lot more loveless sex than I have either include sex in their primary love relationships or should explain why they don't—plays a determinative role in most lives." This quote is about the role of sex in memoirs. He mentions liking porn as an aside, to point out that the role in sex in memoirs is not the same as the role of sex in pornography. The Atlantic (a magazine) is incentivized to sensationalize, since (as evidenced by this thread) this topic is eye-catching and fun to click on, but I don't think that this article provides sufficient evidence of notability at the level appropriate for inclusion in a BLP. Khromegnome (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The convo has stalled a bit, with 4 for exclusion and 2 for inclusion. There is one other specific idea from the discussion that I want to respond to, which is this notion (quoting ) that "Most people enjoy pornography, but how many notable people have multiple reliable sources stating so?" has also articulated the same idea in other words, and I think the underlying idea can be fairly summarized as: "a person commented on an issue of public concern that is not ordinarily discussed, and/or the person expressed a viewpoint that, although seemingly marginal, common sense would suggest is actually a widely held view; therefore, the statement itself is inherently noteworthy."
 * I want to address this line of thinking because it falls outside the issue of "sensationalism", which can be a concern in other cases but I don't really believe is at the heart of the issue here. I think it's clear that the quote is not intended to be "embarrassing" for Christgau, and Christgau himself would not likely think that it's embarrassing. The whole point of the quote is that people shouldn't be ashamed to openly talk about sex, so why would he be ashamed of it? And it really doesn't make sense to believe that Dan56 is trying to discreetly pull off a tiny act of Christgau character assassination; even if I knew less about his motives, I would want to assume good faith on his part. But this argument from Dan56 and Dlabtot actually gets at why, contra, I don't object to the "porn quote" because it's too sensational, but rather because it's so banal and arbitrary.
 * Hypothetical scenario: imagine Christgau had given an answer in some interview talking about his great fondness for vegetables, and the importance of vegetables to a healthy diet. Perhaps he even talked about vegetables at such length that other secondary sources commented on his apparent unusual devotion to vegetables. That would meet this standard of noteworthiness: "Most people enjoy[vegetables], but how many notable people have multiple reliable sources stating so?" Eating vegetables is, of course, totally ubiquitous, yet it's not common for a public figure to specifically comment on it, right? Unless that person is an advocate for healthy eating (like Michelle Obama) or maybe a vegan/vegetarian. Either of those things would be noteworthy, btw: actual sustained advocacy/activism, or adherence to a specific diet, especially a diet with spiritual/political/philosophical significance or relevance to their profession like an athlete's diet. That's also why a reader would care more about what Michael Pollan has to say about vegetables, or what Andrea Dworkin has to say about porn, than what Christgau has to say about porn.
 * I posed a hypothetical, but I could have pulled any number of Christgau's public statements on topics that lack an obvious relation to his life or work. I made up this example because the opinion at issue ("veggies = good") lacks any quality of sensationalism, so is not objectionable on that basis, but it shows that "not many people talk about this common facet of life" as a notability/relevance standard would include any number of obviously banal and tangential opinions, so long as just one other source had commented on it.
 * Anyway, we've probably reached an actionable consensus, right? —BLZ · talk 22:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think so - any objections to removing the quote that contributors feel haven't been properly discussed? Khromegnome (talk)

14:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed sentence in the article and RfC tag here. Khromegnome (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does anyone have a subscription?
If anyone has a subscription to Christgau's substack newsletter, please let me know. Would love to incorporate the reviews into album articles. isento (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Hanging Tree Guitars
in YouTube-playlist form, since it's obscure as fuck anywhere else. isento (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Here's the review:

"A dozen solo or near-solo blues, gospel, and blues/gospel recordings dating back as far as 1991 not counting the Glorifying Vine Sisters’ 1977 “Get Ready,” most featuring guitars crafted by North Carolina luthier Freeman Vines that include some from black walnut that had its literal roots in a lynching tree. Not only do all of these distinct Southern Black performers sound like they’ve long since internalized the sounds they make with their stalwart voices and dexterous hands, but from “Slavery Time Blues” to “Amazing Grace” almost all sing of injustice as if it’s been on their minds their entire lives. Harsh or crooning, solo or unison, the music is occasionally embellished with modest piano or driven by drums, but voices and guitars prevail. Try the explicit opener “Slavery Time Blues” or the gospel-sweet lost-love “Clock on the Wall,” a slow and keening “John Henry” or a fare-thee-well “Amazing Grace” so rough-hewn you’ll play it again to make sure that was the song you just heard. And if you're like me you'll also want to read the eloquent as well as beautiful book that complements this perfectly timed project. All these citizens are set on telling the world how much their lives matter."

isento (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)