11 Comments
Jul 1Liked by Chris Dalla Riva

Love the new/song suggestions this week!

Expand full comment
author

Thanks! Never know if people are into those but I like Including them

Expand full comment

Hi Chris,

You drew some cool insights from these data! Maybe you've seen this, but a couple of our colleagues used word-embedding models to see to what extent Pitchfork reviewers have treated gender and legitimacy (basically the rockism vs. poptimism debate) differently over time. Not sure how/whether it can be connected to your findings on 'feeling' - which are often considered less highbrow/legitimate terms in describing music/art. Their summary:

"First, looking at the overall pattern, discourse in reviews of music on Pitchfork has gradually become more legitimate. This means that in reviews, reviewers more often draw from criteria historically reserved for ‘highbrow’ categories such as seriousness, originality or complexity. Second, this pattern of an increasingly legitimating discourse is accompanied with a decreasing masculine discourse, moving gradually towards including more feminine terms. Third, however, these changing discourses often do not happen simultaneously in the same reviews: reviewers seem to make a trade-off between using a legitimating discourse or a gendered discourse, but not often at the same time. When zooming in on specific genre categories as used by Pitchfork, we find, however, that, fourth, these patterns differ based on genre groups. Whereas the overall pattern towards a legitimating and feminine discourse is especially pronounced for the genres pop and electronic, this is not the case for historically male-dominated genres rap/hip-hop, metal and jazz. Whereas reviews of jazz music make use of a more masculine and legitimate discourse, reviews of music within the rap/hip-hop and metal genres make use of a masculine and illegitimate discourse. In comparison to the other genre categories used on Pitchfork, rap/hip-hop, metal and jazz seem particularly resistant to discursive change."

You can find the article here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42001-022-00182-8

Expand full comment

I feel like Substack is now, in many ways, the vanguard of music criticism in which both pros like Greil Marcus, Nelson George, Ted Gioia, Robert Christgau and David Cantwell (and many, many others) and aspiring critics (I don't hesitate in calling myself a music critic - that's where I hope to go one day) can thrive. The diversity of writing and coverage is awe-inspiring. Probably the best music publication there is these days.

Also love the inclusion of the clip from Elvis' Comeback Special - part of my favourite moment from the special. The whole gospel medley from which 'Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Clip' and "Where Do I Go But To the Lord' comes from (after these two songs, there's a quick appearance of 'Up Above My Head,' then a short transitional piece written by W. Earl Brown, the writer of 'If I Could Dream,' and then Leiber and Stoller's 'Saved') is incredible - Elvis is singing like his very life is on the line (it kind of was).

Expand full comment

I've been a music fan for a long time. I remember subscribing to Rolling Stone in the early 90s. And then deciding the magazine was pointless for me. I had no interest in reading about music. I didn't understand the point about breaking down the lyrics to songs I've never heard. I'm almost never going to buy music based on what the lyrics do or don't say.

Expand full comment

no offence but these people would be better off writing music itself. spotify/yt autoplay algorithm have made reviewers redundant

Expand full comment

How has it made them redundant? Reviewers don’t just suggest ‘yes’ or ‘no’. A good critic can guide you through moments to listen for, or how the album fits in an artist’s career, or where it might fit within the moment it’s made in, or the culture it comes out of and a variety of other things.

Expand full comment

the taste has turn too esoteric to be covered by mass media. plus, image/text boards can effectively crowd source enough background commentary as one may wish

Expand full comment

That sounds terrible. I'll stick with people writing / reviewing / critiquing music.

Expand full comment

The problem with writing about music is that although logically you would assume that the writer KNOWS something about music , in the case of pop music that is rarely true. Compare the jazz criticism in the NY Times to the alleged rock-pop criticism.

Expand full comment

Interesting read, I appreciate the data driven look.

If anyone's interested I've done some research on music criticism over the years. I'll post a couple of links below. Unfortunately the book I edited on the topic (Pop Music & the Press, Temple University Press) isn't in electronic form so I can't share that.

Art to Commerce: The Trajectory of Popular Music Criticism

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376652113_Art_to_Commerce_The_Trajectory_of_Popular_Music_Criticism#fullTextFileContent

Napster and the Press

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282231919_Napster_and_the_Press_Framing_Music_Technology#fullTextFileContent

Re-Viewing Rock Writing: Narratives of Popular Music Criticism

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313250015_Re-Viewing_Rock_Writing_Narratives_of_Popular_Music_Criticism#fullTextFileContent

Expand full comment