While it is entirely fitting to give Dave Marsh his props, and I never failed to pay attention to his writing, especially when I lived in Boston and followed him in the Phoenix, I think “the most politically committed of all the major early rock critics” deserves a comment on his perspective, which largely celebrated and promoted his subjects. If the question was alternately “the most politically incisive of all the major early rock critics,” I would personally nominate the late Ellen Willis who wrote on a wide range of subjects for the Village Voice, generally with a feminist viewpoint. Her contrarian stance was one of the first I ever encountered in print that questioned not just the double standards applied to rock stars of different genders, but the origin and foundation of Pop Music's monolithic presence in a diverse world and what we now call appropriation. She had an essential critical distance that found expression about both musical and artistic icons, as when she wrote in an article about Andy Warhol, "In a reactionary time mass culture is no longer a fount of subversive energy.”
Or, consider her immediate take on the Woodstock festival in her September 1969 New Yorker report on Woodstock: "What cultural revolutionaries do not seem to grasp is that, far from being a grass-roots art form that has been taken over by businessmen, rock itself comes from the commercial exploitation of the blues. It is bourgeois at its core, a mass-produced commodity, dependent on advanced technology and therefore on the money controlled by those in power. Its rebelliousness does not imply specific political content; it can be - and has been - criminal, fascistic, and coolly individualistic as well as revolutionary. Nor is the hip lifestyle inherently radical. It can simply be a more pleasurable way of surviving within the system, which is what the pop sensibility has always been about. Certainly that was what Woodstock was about: ignore the bad, groove on the good, hang loose, and let things happen. The truth is that there can’t be a revolutionary culture until there is a revolution. In the meantime, we should at least insist that the capitalists who produce rock concerts charge reasonable prices for reasonable service."
Each to his own, and yes, times change and we must change with them, but I would call that commitment.
Thanks for reading and writing, Will! I agree that Willis is awesome--she's a real hero of mine. I actually first knew her as an incisive, as you say, political writer, via her column in The Voice and her (mostly) non-music essay collections before I ever learned she'd started out as a music critic. I return to her political and cultural writing often. So I second your enthusiasm-- I'm a big Willis fan. (Though perhaps no one is a bigger fan of her work than Christgau who is the one singling out Marsh in that quote...) I wouldn't want to sign off on Marsh as primarily a celebrator of his subjects though I think there is that in his work. It seems to me his reputation has more often trended in the other direction--have you ever checked out his Wikipedia page, which spends most of its slim space on a sub-category titled "derision of musicians"? There's some of that, too, of course, but >primarily< it is the political that most consistently distinguishes the great breadth of his work across the decades, IMO. I liked that Christgau quote not necessarily because I agree with his rankings but because it seemed a welcome corrective to the limited way in which Marsh and his work are typically discussed. --david
Point taken. I frankly had forgotten that Marsh wrote, "Queen may be the first truly fascist rock band," but reading the "Derision" section of his wikipedia page refreshed my memory. The ubiquity at sports stadiums of "We Are The Champions" is perhaps one of the best arguments ever for sticking with the play-by-play and corny organ music. I think it is time I revisit Marsh's criticism, and especially read what I am not familiar with as well. BTW, being laudatory in itself doesn't disqualify many of my favourite music writers; Peter Guralnick comes to mind. I just wanted to give a shout out for Ellen Willis, who was consumed with how the entire culture commoditises radicalism in the arts. I am showing my age, I'll admit. Time was that Rock seemed ready to take on the powers that be, including the music industry itself. That seems to me to be be more and more of a niche concern. Where are The Fugs and Prince now that we need them?
While it is entirely fitting to give Dave Marsh his props, and I never failed to pay attention to his writing, especially when I lived in Boston and followed him in the Phoenix, I think “the most politically committed of all the major early rock critics” deserves a comment on his perspective, which largely celebrated and promoted his subjects. If the question was alternately “the most politically incisive of all the major early rock critics,” I would personally nominate the late Ellen Willis who wrote on a wide range of subjects for the Village Voice, generally with a feminist viewpoint. Her contrarian stance was one of the first I ever encountered in print that questioned not just the double standards applied to rock stars of different genders, but the origin and foundation of Pop Music's monolithic presence in a diverse world and what we now call appropriation. She had an essential critical distance that found expression about both musical and artistic icons, as when she wrote in an article about Andy Warhol, "In a reactionary time mass culture is no longer a fount of subversive energy.”
Or, consider her immediate take on the Woodstock festival in her September 1969 New Yorker report on Woodstock: "What cultural revolutionaries do not seem to grasp is that, far from being a grass-roots art form that has been taken over by businessmen, rock itself comes from the commercial exploitation of the blues. It is bourgeois at its core, a mass-produced commodity, dependent on advanced technology and therefore on the money controlled by those in power. Its rebelliousness does not imply specific political content; it can be - and has been - criminal, fascistic, and coolly individualistic as well as revolutionary. Nor is the hip lifestyle inherently radical. It can simply be a more pleasurable way of surviving within the system, which is what the pop sensibility has always been about. Certainly that was what Woodstock was about: ignore the bad, groove on the good, hang loose, and let things happen. The truth is that there can’t be a revolutionary culture until there is a revolution. In the meantime, we should at least insist that the capitalists who produce rock concerts charge reasonable prices for reasonable service."
Each to his own, and yes, times change and we must change with them, but I would call that commitment.
Thanks for reading and writing, Will! I agree that Willis is awesome--she's a real hero of mine. I actually first knew her as an incisive, as you say, political writer, via her column in The Voice and her (mostly) non-music essay collections before I ever learned she'd started out as a music critic. I return to her political and cultural writing often. So I second your enthusiasm-- I'm a big Willis fan. (Though perhaps no one is a bigger fan of her work than Christgau who is the one singling out Marsh in that quote...) I wouldn't want to sign off on Marsh as primarily a celebrator of his subjects though I think there is that in his work. It seems to me his reputation has more often trended in the other direction--have you ever checked out his Wikipedia page, which spends most of its slim space on a sub-category titled "derision of musicians"? There's some of that, too, of course, but >primarily< it is the political that most consistently distinguishes the great breadth of his work across the decades, IMO. I liked that Christgau quote not necessarily because I agree with his rankings but because it seemed a welcome corrective to the limited way in which Marsh and his work are typically discussed. --david
Point taken. I frankly had forgotten that Marsh wrote, "Queen may be the first truly fascist rock band," but reading the "Derision" section of his wikipedia page refreshed my memory. The ubiquity at sports stadiums of "We Are The Champions" is perhaps one of the best arguments ever for sticking with the play-by-play and corny organ music. I think it is time I revisit Marsh's criticism, and especially read what I am not familiar with as well. BTW, being laudatory in itself doesn't disqualify many of my favourite music writers; Peter Guralnick comes to mind. I just wanted to give a shout out for Ellen Willis, who was consumed with how the entire culture commoditises radicalism in the arts. I am showing my age, I'll admit. Time was that Rock seemed ready to take on the powers that be, including the music industry itself. That seems to me to be be more and more of a niche concern. Where are The Fugs and Prince now that we need them?