Comments on: Choice and art http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/12/10/choice-and-art/ by Jeff Jarvis Wed, 03 Dec 2008 00:57:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: John http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/12/10/choice-and-art/#comment-233194 John Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:52:19 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=2295#comment-233194 Referencing John Davidson's post, I don't think we disagree. However, what you refer to as social groups seems to me to be a case of the cream rising to the top. If a band like Clap Your Hands Say Yeah or Grizzly Bear releases a disc without any marketing whatsoever, it's still safe to say that the quality of the work will elevate it. One friend will hear it and tell another, and so on and so on through these social networks (or blogs, e-mail lists, etc.) until it pops onto the radar of someone with a wider audience like Pareles. All of this doesn't mean that those "a generation removed" are better or worse critics than the "club rat," but simply that there is a hierarchy to things. I don't expect mainstream critics to hear everything, but I do expect them to be aware of the best things, and however they accomplish that -- be it by reading MP3 blogs, listening to every disc they receive or going to 2-3 shows a week -- doesn't really concern me. Again, the point of the original piece is that more choice means more crap just as surely as it means more gems, and those who dismiss the need for quality filters are in for a long, hard slog to find something worthwhile. "The reality is that genius has a bigger junk pile to climb out of than ever, one that requires just as much hustle and ingenuity as the old distribution system," Pareles writes. He's not complaining about choice; he's simply defending his profession against perplexing criticism from the very people who ought to be championing his work as being more important than ever. Referencing John Davidson’s post, I don’t think we disagree. However, what you refer to as social groups seems to me to be a case of the cream rising to the top. If a band like Clap Your Hands Say Yeah or Grizzly Bear releases a disc without any marketing whatsoever, it’s still safe to say that the quality of the work will elevate it. One friend will hear it and tell another, and so on and so on through these social networks (or blogs, e-mail lists, etc.) until it pops onto the radar of someone with a wider audience like Pareles. All of this doesn’t mean that those “a generation removed” are better or worse critics than the “club rat,” but simply that there is a hierarchy to things. I don’t expect mainstream critics to hear everything, but I do expect them to be aware of the best things, and however they accomplish that — be it by reading MP3 blogs, listening to every disc they receive or going to 2-3 shows a week — doesn’t really concern me.

Again, the point of the original piece is that more choice means more crap just as surely as it means more gems, and those who dismiss the need for quality filters are in for a long, hard slog to find something worthwhile. “The reality is that genius has a bigger junk pile to climb out of than ever, one that requires just as much hustle and ingenuity as the old distribution system,” Pareles writes. He’s not complaining about choice; he’s simply defending his profession against perplexing criticism from the very people who ought to be championing his work as being more important than ever.

]]> By: John Davidson http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/12/10/choice-and-art/#comment-232522 John Davidson Tue, 12 Dec 2006 03:56:38 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=2295#comment-232522 The vast increase in choice has come hand in hand with a vast increase in filters, and if Web 2.0 has done anything, it's shown the power of social groups and their ability to filter MUCH better than the pre-Internet days. For example, in the mid-90s, tens of thousands of CDs were being released every year...you could band Pareles, DeCurtis, Christgau, and Considine into a room and they'd never be able to legitimately assess more than 1500 titles in one year. So in the pre-Internet days, the social networking component of popular music criticism always feel on freelancers. But that's all changed; we now KNOW that there are thousands of music writers out there who have the basic writing skill, access to resources, and a HUGE platform. And as for expertise, do you trust a 20-something club rat whose seeing live gigs 2 or 3 times per week or someone like DeCurtis, who is a generation removed from hip hop. The filter system now is INFINITELY better than it used to be; if you're wading through the abyss at YouTube or MySpace by yourself, you're missing the point entirely. The vast increase in choice has come hand in hand with a vast increase in filters, and if Web 2.0 has done anything, it’s shown the power of social groups and their ability to filter MUCH better than the pre-Internet days. For example, in the mid-90s, tens of thousands of CDs were being released every year…you could band Pareles, DeCurtis, Christgau, and Considine into a room and they’d never be able to legitimately assess more than 1500 titles in one year. So in the pre-Internet days, the social networking component of popular music criticism always feel on freelancers. But that’s all changed; we now KNOW that there are thousands of music writers out there who have the basic writing skill, access to resources, and a HUGE platform. And as for expertise, do you trust a 20-something club rat whose seeing live gigs 2 or 3 times per week or someone like DeCurtis, who is a generation removed from hip hop. The filter system now is INFINITELY better than it used to be; if you’re wading through the abyss at YouTube or MySpace by yourself, you’re missing the point entirely.

]]> By: John http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/12/10/choice-and-art/#comment-232190 John Mon, 11 Dec 2006 20:19:36 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=2295#comment-232190 I truly think you've missed the point of Pareles' piece; I'll leave it to you to determine if that's his fault or yours. Regardless, I think your point about all of this choice necessitating changes in the way criticism is offered is also Pareles' point. He is simply saying that, contrary to the cries of Web 2.0 cheerleaders -- you may well be out in front of that group waving your poms proudly in the air, Jeff -- more choice does not necessarily equal more great work. Why? Because someone needs to find these diamonds in the rough. For better or worse, people once were content to assume they could turn on the TV and the best that the medium had to offer would flicker to life on the screen. Today, with cable, YouTube, etc., no one can assume that. You and I both know that there is more great stuff out there today than in the past, but because there is also exponentially more crap to wade through as well, it becomes more difficult to find the good stuff. For those willing to do the work -- or who are tapped into the right critic, peer group or other filtering system -- there surely are more rewards to be found. Many people may be unwilling to devote that kind of time, however, and for them the promise of new media isn't being kept. I look forward to your continued attempt to assess the state of criticism on the Web 2.0 media landscape, particularly if you draw in folks like DeCurtis and Pareles. They clearly have their work cut out for them, but I find it hard to believe that someone with expertise, writing skill, access to resources and a wide platform can't continue to succeed regardless of what is to come. I truly think you’ve missed the point of Pareles’ piece; I’ll leave it to you to determine if that’s his fault or yours. Regardless, I think your point about all of this choice necessitating changes in the way criticism is offered is also Pareles’ point. He is simply saying that, contrary to the cries of Web 2.0 cheerleaders — you may well be out in front of that group waving your poms proudly in the air, Jeff — more choice does not necessarily equal more great work. Why? Because someone needs to find these diamonds in the rough. For better or worse, people once were content to assume they could turn on the TV and the best that the medium had to offer would flicker to life on the screen. Today, with cable, YouTube, etc., no one can assume that. You and I both know that there is more great stuff out there today than in the past, but because there is also exponentially more crap to wade through as well, it becomes more difficult to find the good stuff. For those willing to do the work — or who are tapped into the right critic, peer group or other filtering system — there surely are more rewards to be found. Many people may be unwilling to devote that kind of time, however, and for them the promise of new media isn’t being kept.

I look forward to your continued attempt to assess the state of criticism on the Web 2.0 media landscape, particularly if you draw in folks like DeCurtis and Pareles. They clearly have their work cut out for them, but I find it hard to believe that someone with expertise, writing skill, access to resources and a wide platform can’t continue to succeed regardless of what is to come.

]]> By: Linda Lovelace http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/12/10/choice-and-art/#comment-231759 Linda Lovelace Mon, 11 Dec 2006 08:38:48 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=2295#comment-231759 You tell 'em Jarvis! E.M. Forster thought tolerance was what you got when love ended. But The New York Times' breakup with the new and democratic art world will be devoid even of tolerance. Like the Raj's prohibitive memsahibs, print newspapers hung padlocks from their bloomers to keep out the great unwashed. Now Dr. Aziz is undressing Pareles's muse in the public square one bad article at a time. Off with her jewels. Send her packing to the caves. You tell ‘em Jarvis! E.M. Forster thought tolerance was what you got when love ended. But The New York Times’ breakup with the new and democratic art world will be devoid even of tolerance. Like the Raj’s prohibitive memsahibs, print newspapers hung padlocks from their bloomers to keep out the great unwashed. Now Dr. Aziz is undressing Pareles’s muse in the public square one bad article at a time. Off with her jewels. Send her packing to the caves.

]]> By: the billblog » Who criticises the critics? http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/12/10/choice-and-art/#comment-231119 the billblog » Who criticises the critics? Sun, 10 Dec 2006 21:01:59 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=2295#comment-231119 [...] Yet over at Buzzmachine, Jeff Jarvis weighs has a different take, castigating Pareles for not having faith: Choice is good, not something to be lamented. Indeed, I find it ironic that a critic, of all people, should be complaining about choice. Choice is precisely what necessitates criticism. [...] [...] Yet over at Buzzmachine, Jeff Jarvis weighs has a different take, castigating Pareles for not having faith: Choice is good, not something to be lamented. Indeed, I find it ironic that a critic, of all people, should be complaining about choice. Choice is precisely what necessitates criticism. [...]

]]> By: Beta Alfa 2.0 » De nya medierna ofta missuppfattade http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/12/10/choice-and-art/#comment-231068 Beta Alfa 2.0 » De nya medierna ofta missuppfattade Sun, 10 Dec 2006 19:42:42 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=2295#comment-231068 [...] Kritiker till nya medier som bloggar och videosajter avfärdar ibland det hela med att vara skräp. Andra tycker att det som de har sett har inte varit mycket att hänga i granen. Jeff Jarvis kommenterar sÃ¥dana uttalanden, pÃ¥ ett sätt jag hÃ¥ller med om, sÃ¥ här: “It is a mistake to judge this new medium by the presence of junk; there is junk in all media. And it is a mistake to judge this new medium by the most-watched; those are merely the curiosities that happen to ignite for a moment. That analysis misses the great pockets of niche quality that are growing underneath: See Terry Teachout’s discovery of the treasures of jazz in YouTube.” (BuzzMachine: Choice and art) [...] [...] Kritiker till nya medier som bloggar och videosajter avfärdar ibland det hela med att vara skräp. Andra tycker att det som de har sett har inte varit mycket att hänga i granen. Jeff Jarvis kommenterar sÃ¥dana uttalanden, pÃ¥ ett sätt jag hÃ¥ller med om, sÃ¥ här: “It is a mistake to judge this new medium by the presence of junk; there is junk in all media. And it is a mistake to judge this new medium by the most-watched; those are merely the curiosities that happen to ignite for a moment. That analysis misses the great pockets of niche quality that are growing underneath: See Terry Teachout’s discovery of the treasures of jazz in YouTube.” (BuzzMachine: Choice and art) [...]

]]>