rpk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Robert Krajewski) (08/18/85)
The savaging of Kate Bush's latest single might be vicious, but it's par for the course when considering the usual approach to pop ``criticism'' in England. The usual approach in England is to build something up and then tear it down, on the down side of trend. There are very few music reviews in England that actually talk about the music; politics and fashions lend themselves to the preferred schtick, which is pretentious pseudointellectual ``socially'' minded criticism and hipper-than-thou posturing. England still comes out with quite a bit of good music inspite of this. (Well, maybe lately things are looking grim...) American black music is probably also more appreciated ``over there,'' too. On the other hand, performers as disparate the Clash, XTC, Robyn Hitchcock, the (English) Beat, and Phil Collins (and probably Kate Bush) get fairer treatment from the critics, and longtime support from the audience, in America than in England. The American tendency to hang onto groups and styles can be annoying (generally, the 70s are already smothering whatever changes that were made on the periphery in early 80s), but at least decent performers can build up a following. -- ``Bob'' (Robert P. Krajewski) ARPA: RpK@MC MIT Local: RpK@OZ UUCP: genradbo!miteddie!rpk
jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (08/21/85)
> The savaging of Kate Bush's latest single might be vicious, but it's par > for the course when considering the usual approach to pop > ``criticism'' in England. The usual approach in England is to build > something up and then tear it down, on the down side of trend. There > are very few music reviews in England that actually talk about the > music; politics and fashions lend themselves to the preferred schtick, > which is pretentious pseudointellectual ``socially'' minded criticism > and hipper-than-thou posturing. > > England still comes out with quite a bit of good music inspite of this. > (Well, maybe lately things are looking grim...) American black music is > probably also more appreciated ``over there,'' too. On the other hand, > performers as disparate the Clash, XTC, Robyn Hitchcock, the (English) > Beat, and Phil Collins (and probably Kate Bush) get fairer treatment > from the critics, and longtime support from the audience, in America > than in England. The American tendency to hang onto groups and styles > can be annoying (generally, the 70s are already smothering whatever > changes that were made on the periphery in early 80s), but at least > decent performers can build up a following. > -- > ``Bob'' (Robert P. Krajewski) > ARPA: RpK@MC MIT Local: RpK@OZ > UUCP: genradbo!miteddie!rpk That's the impression I've gotten too. What it means is that the American system favours older, established artists, while the British system favours new, unknown artists. That's probably one of the main reasons why we see so many more new artists coming out of Britian so, even though it seems ridiculous to make vicious attacks on established artists that have nothing to do with their music, maybe it's not so bad after all. The established artists can survive without critical support because they've already built up a following, but the new artists need help. -- Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073 {linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsri!dciem!jeff {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeff