Falling Into You (Part Two)

Some months ago, in questioning arbitration-type criticism, I asked, rhetorically: [W]hat's the value of the 250-word [album] review when samples of the music are available everywhere, for free?

It is now clear, if it wasn't before, that that type of criticism is officially dead, or at least hopelessly corrupt:

How is it that a magazine can review an entire album--and assign a star rating to it--without actually hearing the album?

Case in point: the “review” of Warpaint--the new album by THE BLACK CROWES--in the March issue of Maxim magazine.  The writer--who has not heard the album since advance CDs were not made available--wrote what appears to be a disparaging assessment anyway, citing “it hasn’t left Chris Robinson and the gang much room for growth.”

Incredulously [sic], the magazine gave the album a two and a half star rating--although neither the writer nor the editor could have heard more than one song (the single “Goodbye Daughters of the Revolution”).

When approached for an explanation, the magazine described the review as “an educated guess preview.”  Huh?

Black Crowes manager Pete Angelus says, “Maxim's actions seem to completely lack journalistic integrity and intentionally mislead their readership.   When confronted with the fact that they never heard the album they are claiming to 'review’ in their music section--with a star rating, no less--they attempt to explain that it was an 'educated guess.'  In an email correspondence, Maxim went on to state: ‘Of course, we always prefer to (sic) hearing music, but sometimes there are big albums that we don’t want to ignore that aren’t available to hear, which is what happened with the Crowes. It’s either an educated guess preview or no coverage at all, so in this case we chose the former.’” 

It's unclear to what degree Maxim is being disingenuous here.  A likely explanation is that the rating was awarded on the basis of a leaked copy of the album, but no one's admitting that, and so we're left with the official explanation, which perhaps the most casual expression of nihilism I've heard so far today.*

Then, there's this:

RAPPER Nas was shocked when Maxim gave his new album, "N - - - - r," a 21/2-star review - because it isn't even finished yet. "I'm finishing the album now, and it will be out April 22," Nas told Page Six. Maxim has since apologized for the premature review, but Nas doesn't care. "I'd prefer [a review from] Playboy," the rapper said. "That kind of stuff doesn't reach my radar or effect anybody around me. I don't know what a music rating from Maxim is . . . I don't know what it even means really." Maxim also reviewed the Black Crowes' album, "War Paint," without listening to it in its entirety.

Again, it's entirely possible that the reviewer was privy to some leaked working Nas tracks, but this is getting ridiculous.**

Granted, this is Maxim we're talking about, but you might also remember that a certain small percentage of our professional book reviewers feel it's acceptable to review a title with which one is partially unfamiliar.  It's not a stretch to say that the educated guess preview is relatively widespread, whether it's this sort of speculative back-catalog boilerplate mining or some hack cobbling together his book review from jacket copy and promotional materials.

So I'm mostly Carl Wilson here:

What would criticism be like if it were not foremost trying to persuade people to find the same things great? If it weren't about making cases for and against things? It wouldn't need to adopt the kind of "objective" (or self-consciously hip) tone that conceals the identity and social location of the author, the better to win you over. It might be more frank about the two-sidedness of the aesthetic encounter, and offer something more like a tour of an aesthetic experience, a travelogue, a memoir. More and more critics, in fact, are incorporating personal narrative into their work. Perhaps this is the benefit of the explosion of cultural judgment on the Internet, where millions of thumbs turn up and down daily: by rendering their traditional job of arbitration obsolete, it frees critics to find other ways of contemplating music.

There is no reason, with the number of sampling outlets available, that we need a (perhaps entirely speculative) 2 1/2 star rating--or thumbs up/down, or letter grade--from some fellow at an aspirational-lifestyle, soft-porn glossy.

Yet killing arbitration as an acceptable method of criticism will only do so much.  A richer engagement on the part of critics also requires a worthy audience, or else we risk a critical tea-party, where music snobs contentedly nibble on each other's personal reflections on Céline Dion or Chinese Democracy like petits fours.  Professional critics aside, we will need a significant number of those millions of internet critics (aka the general consumers) to so something other than turn their thumbs up or down when confronted with a song or a book. 

But what?

*    *    *    *    *

(*Of course we shouldn't be so naive as to think that Maxim's mouthpiece isn't onto something here.  I doubt there's any expectation of truth-value for a Maxim review even among its devoted readership, so coverage is everything.  Maxim has no critical reputation to damage, and the Black Crowes are getting press, not to mention extra mileage as the wronged party.  Everybody wins.)

(**If Mel Brooks is to be believed, technology will solve this problem in time.)

Comments

[ed]

I've been considering putting forth some thoughts on the Maxim controversy, but I've glad you've stepped into the fray. I find the double standard interesting. If a blogger offers a review of something and has listened to the work of art in full, he's considered to be some upstart from Terre Haute. If, however, a professional fails to do the same, then he's essentially exonerated even after he's handed his ass to him by both the band and the magazine. Do you think David Peisner will have any trouble getting any work after this? Probably not. And why is his name conveniently elided from the AP news report?

[Pete]

"Maxim's actions seem to completely lack journalistic integrity..."

Um, does anyone truly believe that Maxim's product includes "journalism"? This seems roughly akin to criticizing the Weekly World News for publishing stories that are blatantly untrue.

[Rake]

The temptation is to dismiss this as "What can you expect from Maxim?" but I think it's more interesting if we don't.

(Maxim or no, these speculative piece incidents are becoming less isolated--remember Mitch Albom?)

http://www.metafilter.com/41087/Stephen-Glass-Jayson-Blair-meet-Mitch-Albom

The reviewer is getting some interesting cover from his employer (and perhaps the AP) here, isn't he? The "educated guess preview" concept is dubious in and of itself, because you have the dignified and ethical option of waiting for the preview copy or actual album or--slightly less ethically--having the nearest savvy eight-year-old direct you to a leaked copy.

But to add a numerical rating to an speculative review drives this to the heights of absurdity, where the reviewer is being excused as working under SOP, and all possible meaning is cynically dismissed in favor of "coverage." Apparently an early mention is everything, regardless of, you know, what words mean.

But I'm sure n+1 is preparing a biting satire about this as we speak, in the spirit of fairness and balance.