However, before critics could develop a new case for the contemporary significance of pop music, they had a more basic task in front of them: they needed to revive their own interest in what was truly popular. This was the gist of Kelefa Sanneh’s 2004 New York Times piece, “The Rap Against Rockism,” in which he blasted the critical preoccupation with rock (including such subgenres as grunge and punk) to the exclusion of commercial pop. Since the latter was dominated by brown-skinned musicians, Sanneh argued, this favoritism was essentially racist:
Rockism means idolizing the authentic old legend (or underground hero) while mocking the latest pop star; lionizing punk while barely tolerating disco; loving the live show and hating the music video; extolling the growling performer while hating the lip-syncher. Over the past decades, these tendencies have congealed into an ugly sort of common sense. Rock bands record classic albums, while pop stars create “guilty pleasure” singles. It’s supposed to be self-evident: U2’s entire oeuvre deserves respectful consideration, while a spookily seductive song by an r&b singer named Tweet can only be, in the smug words of a recent vh1 special, “awesomely bad.”
The rockism argument had been circulating among critics since the 1980s. But Sanneh was the first to so acidly and systematically unravel four decades of critical contortions designed to distinguish legitimate pop from bubblegum.
His manifesto was followed by a widely discussed piece in Slate, which raised the banner for what Jody Rosen called “poptimisim.” Rosen denounced any effort to distinguish high from low in pop music. If a writer thinks that Rihanna’s dancehall single “Pon de Replay” is better than the second side of Abbey Road, then he or she should give it critical love. Pavement is noise pollution? Say it. In this way, poptimism restored Christgau’s idea that pop music (and implicitly, pop-music criticism) is an exercise in democracy, precisely because it does not conform to top-down notions of what the culture should look or sound like.
At the same time, poptimism illuminated the degree to which the politics of pop criticism is at loose ends. Writers have historically treated the music as a stand-in for liberation politics, be they sexual (Lou Reed), racial (Chuck Berry), working-class (Bruce Springsteen), or feminist (Ani DiFranco). Poptimism torpedoed such efforts to distinguish politically good music from bad. It also roped in performers whose manipulation of violence, gender, and race don’t fit the standard liberation narrative: Eminem (modern-day Bob Dylan or homophobic misogynist?), Beyoncé (feminist or debased sex toy?), the whole genre of gangster rap (black male empowerment or hyper-capitalist-racial dystopia?). This expansion of the critical canvas, not so coincidentally, put the fun back in pop criticism. What it could not do was define a function for professional critics now that so much of their political ballast had been thrown overboard.
One solution is to focus more intently on musicality. Sasha Frere-Jones in particular has brought a musician’s expertise to his writing at The New Yorker. His 2007 essay on Mariah Carey’s vocal range is an impressive example of this kind of explanatory journalism. But most critics—even those with a grounding in musical theory—are not musicians. For them, limiting the conversation to the technical facility of a pop star is, as Powers pointed out, a little like thinking about a painting as blue.
No, pop music is about the zeitgeist, and pop-music criticism was invented to reveal and critique it. So what can Powers make of the fifteen-year-old girl and the girl’s mother she observed at the Los Angeles Forum, singing along to Nickelback frontman Chad Kroeger’s lascivious lyrics? Just a few years ago, a band like Nickelback would most likely have been dismissed as too commercial, artistically banal, and politically repugnant to warrant critical attention. Now Powers was determined to crack the cultural code of the band, the genre (which she dubbed Flyover Rock), the girl, the fans, and the middle-class world they inhabited.

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