Xgau SezThese are questions submitted by readers, and answered by Robert Christgau. New ones will appear in batches every third Tuesday. To ask your own question, please use this form. January 29, 2025The Consumer Guide in the streaming era, the A Lists (the missing years), softening on Madonna and Taylor (but in different ways), spending time (see: fleeting) relistening to Randy Newman. [Q] I know some of the terms you use to describe your own profession are semi-ironic, but I also know you've taken the "Consumer Guide" title quite literally at times, assessing albums (especially compilations) in terms of their "bang for your buck" ratio and dismissing others as ripoffs. Some reviews make reference to the physical format of the music, noting the number of discs or bonus tracks available. I'm curious about how the changing format of music in the streaming age might have changed your perspective on the "worth" of music to the consumers you're advising. I know you still have a preference for owning the physical editions of albums and reviewing those when you can (though at least a couple albums you've reviewed recently have had no physical release at all), but does the thought that an increasing share of your audience might be exclusively streaming ever influence your thoughts about what an album might be worth to them? (For the record, I'm not one of those streamers.) -- Kurt Grunsky, Toronto [A]
Consumer Guide quote unquote is no longer as much a descriptor as a
brand—a rather profitable one for its (de facto) owner, me, that
is unlikely to be nearly as remunerative for anyone who purloins
it. Since I make it a practice to if possible buy the CD version of
any album that sounds like a potential pick after a (streamed) play or
two, it costs me money I wouldn't be spending if it wasn't making me
more money (though I'm sure I'd still buy some physicals). One reason
it's been so successful is that I don't fake or exaggerate my
responses, which is one of many skills I've mastered in the course of
the decades I've been doing it, and in addition I know from experience
that owning the physical improves the accuracy and detail of my
responses and judgments, sound quality and the surprise factor built
into my regular practice of sticking multiple discs into my changer in
the confidence that I'm unlikely to remember what's coming next. Can
this go on till I'm 90, which for many reasons is unlikely? Maybe,
maybe not. In seven or eight years perhaps I'll know and perhaps I
won't. In the meanwhile I'll help people not waste time on
music I believe is likely or not to be worth said time.
[Q] I know your A Lists come from the original Consumer Guide books, but is there a reason you never compiled one for the 2000s/2010s? I've enjoyed sifting through the '70s/'80s/'90s ones and I'd like more. -- Alex Rubio, A Suburb in Dallas. [A]
You could consult the
Dean's Lists, which started with the
Pazz & Jop poll and continue to this day. But there are no
21st-century Consumer Guide books because nobody offered me money for
one. As I assume you know, in 2001 Tom Hull created
robertchristgau.com, which rendered future CG books unprofitable for
sure—for book publishers and to a lesser extent for me, since
especially given all the new reviews a '00s book would have had to add
to my journalistic oeuvre I would have been sweating blood for my
piddling advance. In the end, as things worked out, the website Hull
invented and sweated over out of pure friendship functioned to spread
my renown (and also his own, which was well-earned indeed). Without it
I doubt And It Don't Stop would exist. So my thanks to him, not for
the first time. And also to the readers it vouchsafed me. On the web
site are the 21st Century
Dean's Lists along with
my ballot for Rolling Stone's best of
the 2000s poll, and there was a
2010s Dean's List right
here on And It Don't Stop.
[Q] Your review of Madonna's debut was published on December 27, 1983 but it mentions the music video of "Borderline" that was only released three months later. I assume you edited the original text, since the grade was also changed from B to A minus. The single was Madge's first top ten entry on the US Billboard Hot 100 and, apparently, the reason of your change of heart as well. I would love to know if there is more to the story? -- Adam, Montreal [A] It probably means I wrote and/or revised the debut review to begin with or with book deadline approaching when I was preparing the '90s CG book. You will note that the next two Madonna albums are both B's merely. So it's my guess, and a guess it is only, that having softened on Madonna throughout the '80s I either wrote in toto or refurbished to to one degree or other a retrospective review of the debut at that time. [PS: Most of the
Consumer Guide columns preserve the original
reviews, offering links to the database where reviews and/or grades
were later revised. However, in a regrettable short cut, the reviews
in the
Dec. 27, 1983 column were, as an
internal comment puts it, "hoisted this from database; should check
against original." The "Additional Consumer News" was added, but the
reviews were never reverted to match the print column. My intention
has always been to restore the original columns -- I don't see any
need to preserve typos and flat-out errors, but standard policy is
to accurately reflect changes of opinion and chronology. I don't know
how many files still exist like this: offhand, I'd guess between 10-20
out of nearly 600 in the directory, possibly more, but not many.
This case particularly bothers me, because I remember a lot of rock
critics writing exceptionally nasty reviews of Madonna's early work,
so I've actually gone looking for the missing review, was confused
not to find what I hazily remembered, and hadn't noticed the reason
it was missing. — Tom Hull]
[Q] Dear Robert, Have you had a chance to see The Eras Tour? Have you warmed up to any of "Taylor's [rerecorded] Version[s]"? What about Midnights or TTPD: The Anthology? Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Holidays. -- Nicholas Wanhella, North Vancouver, British Columbia [A]
I've seen Swift precisely once and would probably make it twice if
some bizzer or publicist approached me with a freebie, not to mention
two. Nor do I care enough about her music to compare alternative
versions absent word-from-the-right-mouth. I started
giving her props in 2008. I
respect her in principle. I think her last album was self-indulgent at
best. Life isn't as long as I am old.
[Q] Once a kid for whom Randy Newman was played this-and-that-way in his household growing-up, with little care for which song belonged to which album, now an adult who in retrospect thinks you underrated those three '70s-'80s albums, it was pleasing to read your mea culpa in the Robert Hilburn book I bought as an Xmas present for my mother—who introduced "Marie" and me all those years ago. I'm a fan of your Randy writing, including that "Newman's lyrics [ . . . ] create ironic tension between his own self-evident sophistication and the naivete of his personas," but also that his "unabashed cynicism" eventually "became an annoyance." Tell me, what has changed for you now about those albums? -- Dean Sterling Jones, Belfast [A]
Those weren't mea culpas, just simple experiments, because Hilburn
wanted me to write something and I seldom do that kind of thing off
the top of my head (except maybe sometimes in, er, Xgau Sez). Said to
myself I haven't heard these in years (because given my line of work
there are many good-to-excellent records I never hear again
post-review except maybe in December when I'm putting the Dean's List
together, which I hope doesn't disillusion you but is just simple time
management) so here's a way for me to play three pretty good records I
haven't heard in years and call it working. Enjoyed them all more than
I anticipated, probably but not definitely played them all at least
twice and whammo, knew what I could write for Bob (H not C). Which
took at least an hour or two because writing takes time. As of course
does music. It exists in time, which is always fleeting.
|
|