Music criticism as music education?
This bit by Joe Tangeri from Pitchfork’s top singles of the 90s list made me wonder exactly who that list was supposed to be for, and how it was supposed to work:
Quick, what was Melody Maker’s album of the year in 1993? No, it wasn’t Suede’s self-titled debut or Blur’s Modern Life Is Rubbish; it was Tindersticks’ debut, a brave and spot-on choice.
…because, man, quick or not, I had no idea what Melody Maker’s album of the year in 1993 would be before he mentioned the candidates. I didn’t even have the kind of contextual knowledge that would’ve allowed me to come up with those albums, and I didn’t know why it mattered that it was Melody Maker. I couldn’t even narrow it down. Now, granted, I’m not British, and I didn’t grow up as the kind of kid who read music mags obsessively, but neither is Pitchfork’s primary audience, right? So, if that’s the case, then who is this list for, exactly? Just music nerds like us? Or for a wider audience?
What’s interesting, though, is that later in the list, Joe does give us the context:
Suede could have been just another UK music press hype, slapped on the cover of Melody Maker at the earliest possible time (in their case, before their first single) only to disappoint.
So OK: Melody Maker was heavily invested in breaking new UK bands during the Britpop era. And now we know, right? It wasn’t necessarily an intentional accumulation of knowledge, but it happened nevertheless. This is how I learned about pop music: by reading enough criticism that assumed the context that I was able to pick up the received wisdom about bands, sounds, and eras. From these two little bits, if we know that Blur and Suede were Britpop bands, we know that Britpop is now regarded as a high-hype period and that Melody Maker was one of the main players. Useful! I think we probably overlook the socialization function of music criticism more than we should. By immersing yourself in a culture talking about its own history - as music criticism constantly does - you can haphazardly pick up the information you need to participate in that conversation and present as a reasonably knowledgeable observer. The social capital is public domain, as it were. As annoying as criticism’s self-absorption can sometimes be, I think that’s ultimately a really valuable tool.
