To a certain degree, Christgau’s critical method was self-referential. He had no aesthetic or political litmus test to determine that Cat Stevens’s Buddha and the Chocolate Box was terrible and that Van Morrison’s Moondance was great (although he was allergic to nostalgia and the creeping pretension of the rock-and-roll auteur). Instead, he figured out why he liked a given recording, put that process into words, and then hashed it out with his readers and fellow writers.
Yet this personal approach by no means excluded broader social and political ideas. In fact, listening and reacting often became an exercise in social criticism for Christgau, because he conceived of pop as engaged with mainstream culture. “Rock-and-roll was a medium that insisted on individual freedom, on pleasure, and, at the same time, created social connections among disparate people,” he told me recently. He went on to say: “Carried to its emotional conclusion, [the music] put pressures on capitalism. I looked for writers who could elucidate the details of these tendencies and their contradictions.”
Christgau and his contemporaries were not New Journalists, slyly challenging the strictures of objectivity by writing in the first person. They were participant observers in the musical insurgency they were covering, and their aim was to translate, amplify, and argue its messages. From a journalistic perspective, this meant that to write pop-music criticism was to break cultural news. The audience, and the artists, paid attention. Billy Joel, who Christgau once called “a force of nature and bad taste” (note the backhanded compliment), tore up his detractor’s reviews onstage. And Sonic Youth, who he dubbed a band of “impotent bohos,” upped the ante with a song called “I Killed Christgau With My Big Fuckin’ Dick.”
Almost from the outset, however, there was a problem with Christgau’s view of pop music as a transformative force in the democratic equation. The pop-music industry was not only hugely profitable but also crassly commercial. And as the 1970s wore on, it ever more transparently capitalized on the mythology that pop music was authentically anti-authoritarian.
Punk helped to solve this problem. Political, angry, unromantic, and funny, it was an astringent for the countercultural conceit that it was possible to be both radical and broadly popular. More significant to the critical enterprise, it was flagrantly anti-commercial. And this awakened a new type of pop-music critic who, though grounded in the gospel of Christgau, had lost interest in transforming the mainstream.
In 1980, Ann Powers cut out the lyrics of “Waiting for the Clampdown,” the Clash’s screed against betraying youthful idealism, and hung them inside her Seattle high-school locker. She didn’t consider herself part of the counterculture. Rather, Powers imagined herself inhabiting a compartmentalized pocket on the edge of the mainstream. Here was an anticipation of the identity politics that would shape cultural criticism over the next decade or so. “We thought,” she told me recently, “that we were making a world that was a world within the world.”
Powers and her husband, eric Weisbard, landed at the Voice in the early 1990s. The paper’s music section, which Christgau envisioned as a public square for writers to declare pop’s significance in all of its varied guises, was the perfect home for her. “We assumed,” Powers told me, “that our identities were our politics”—an assumption she put into practice at the Voice, along with such kindred spirits as Erik Davis, Greg Tate, and Lisa Jones. Pop music, to her, was political theater, and writing about it was political advocacy. While Powers didn’t limit herself to covering women, at the Voice her feminist politics were transparent in her coverage of the Riot Grrrl movement, P J Harvey, and Tori Amos.

I posted (and put a lot of work into) a rather lengthy comment earlier in this window about 20 minutes ago but apparently skipped over the Captcha feature in my rush to post it. Error message came up. I went back but poof! my comment was gone.
Is there anyway to retrieve it? I busted my ass writing it.
#1 Posted by richard nusser, CJR on Sat 15 Aug 2009 at 05:49 PM
Richard
I can sympathize. There's nothing you can do to get it back.
Since I had a similar incident a few years ago, I now copy the entire contents of a post (contral-A in Windows, command-A in Mac to highlight all contents, then control-C or command-C). If for some reason the post blows up, you can simply retrive it by repasting it in the new window (control-V or command-V).
#2 Posted by Buzz, CJR on Mon 17 Aug 2009 at 11:10 AM
Although Jacob Levenson’s thoughtful essay on the dearth of serious criticism of pop music was overdue and generally on the mark, I’m compelled to add some comments of my own. Robert Christgau churned out a tremendous amount of copy in his day but he himself might agree that Levenson overplayed his role in putting pop criticism on the media map, aside from his tremendous output. Serious criticism of pop and rock emanted from the Village Voice’s coverage of New York City’s mid-1960s burgeoning downtown arts scene, a mixed-media circus that foreshadowed video rock, punk, glam, art rock, garage rock, etc.
Long before Christgau’s ascension to rock/crit “dean,” serious rock/pop criticism was kick-started into life via the Voice’s Pop Eye colym, written by Richard Goldstein, and the Voice’s Riffs colym, a weekly round of essays, comment and reviews written by at least a dozen Voice contributors, including myself. San Francisco journalist Ralph Gleason performed a similar service on the West Coast (also mentoring the pre-Rolling Stone Jan Weiner). Andy Warhol’s affiliation with the Velvet Underground gave rock and pop intellectual catchet, catching the interest of post-modern academics such as Dave Hickey and others. Time and Life caught the buzz, putting Albert Goldman on the case. And who can forget Tom Wolfe’s NY Herald-Trib magazine interview (later New York Magazine) with Phil Spector -- a New Journalism landmark.
That’s all history now, but history is something that doesn’t pop on today’s news media’s radar, or stir much interest among even the most prolific of today’s print journalists. There are exceptions, of course, such as the Fort Worth Star-Telegram’s making ex-Billboard staffer Cary Darling its pop culture editor.
All that aside, Levenson deserves a great of credit for pointing out the news media’s failure to take today’s pop culture scene more seriously. A closer, more incise inspection of the multi-media swirl is needed– from Tarantino films to alt-rock, gangsta rap, hip hop, Japanese manga and beyond.
#3 Posted by richard nusser, CJR on Mon 17 Aug 2009 at 04:47 PM
Why John Lennon matters? Certainly he made great music together with the Beatles, and as a separate person he was very talented, too. Surely, his lyrics were very socially important. For example, imagine the 1960-ies without the song
"Give Peace A Chance"
and the words from it "When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power the world will know true peace." Since those time no one had ever touched people's hearts as much as the Beatles did. That is why they will always be remembered and loved, in all times ever.#4 Posted by F.H., CJR on Fri 8 Apr 2011 at 06:40 AM
Thirty years after his death, John Lennon is still an icon and an inspiration. Remember his genius with some of his most memorable lyrics and thoughts on peace, love and life.
Best Regards
Tom
#5 Posted by Tom D, CJR on Wed 2 Nov 2011 at 11:09 AM