Time Out Chicago panel: Anne Holub

Published by Time Out Chicago (circa 2008), moderator Kris Vire (theater writer) rounded up the town’s most looked-to critics asked them what qualifies each of them as such. In a chat room manner, the critic collective analyzed the roll a critic plays today.

The panel comprised: Jim DeRogatis (music), Don Hall (theater), Anne Holub (music), Sam Jones (books), Nathan Rabin (general pop culture), Donna Seaman (books), Chuck Sudo (food) and Mike Sula (food).

Anne Holub, editor of Gapers Block’s music portal Transmission, spoke up immediately citing the absence of a governing body who officially qualifies someone authority over a subject matter, and whether a critic is good at their job is relatively subjective. Donna Seaman of Booklist says a critic needs to have passion for the subject in order to devote words to an artists’ latest endeavor, to which Holub agrees saying, “You have to have passion for it otherwise, you’re simply not going to bother.”

Holub also argues the artist/critic relationship and because the former is constantly changing their approach to their work and influences of their work, it’s a lifelong pursuit to properly analyze their work and the intentions behind it.

When Seaman said critics must place themselves into contexts and lifestyles outside their own, DeRogatis asked why that’s important (“Do you really want to know how an 11-year-old experienced Hannah Montana?”). Seaman replied that writing is always about exposing the workings of a mind, including a tween with bad taste. From this, Holub says one thing, but unintentional means two separate things.:

“…are you saying critics have to like everything? Can’t they hate things?”

Holub rebutted Seaman’s empathetic tenet by saying critics should be able to say when something is bad, rather than finding ways to say it’s good, including placing oneself into a person of the target audience. What can also be inferred from Holub’s statement is in analyzing an artist’s latest work, good critics are just as likely to hate a piece as they are to like it, an argument supported by a comment further in the conversation:

“It’s the same relationship you have with good friends. Sometimes the disagreements are more fun than the agreements.”

In summation, it seems Holub keeps a close yet objective relationship with the artwork and the artist, but not too objective—it wouldn’t be criticism otherwise.

It also helps to walk in the shoes of an 11-year-old at a Hannah Montana concert. Would I like this if I were 11? In reviewing a piece of work so far removed from the regular rotation of what a 22-year-old college student might be into, it’s important not to consider the musical validity of Hannah Montana from a cannon surrounded by Yeasayer and Arcade Fire—it’s a different ballpark altogether.

But, the review can’t favor Hannah Montana just because she’s famous or because she’s all the rage right now. How does her current work match up to previous? That’s the question that should be considered and not how relevant is her music in society.

The good, the bad and the review: Interpol's self-titled

Two critics give their two cents of Interpol’s self-titled, released Sept. 7 on Matador Records. The general idea of both reviews is “Interpol” is better than the band’s previous release, “Our Love to Admire,” and overall exceptional, but Interpol is out of touch with their original, addictive sound from the early ’00s, a sound we may never hear more of again.

While this theme is prevalent in both reviews, the message is conveyed in different ways.

“Good” review of Interpol’s self-titled, by AJ Ramirez on PopMatters

I’ve heard one of the more difficult reviews to write are ones of which you don’t hold a strong opinion about the artwork—positive or negative. In this review, Ramirez certainly doesn’t fall victim as it gives the reader a rundown of the album so thorough that he has exhausted the ways in which he can articulate the sound of “Interpol” into words.

Ramirez basks in Interpol history and in-crowd gossip with the departure of Carlos D shortly after recording wrapped. He perfectly frames the new album against the currently Interpol backdrop to accurately give the reader context, if not reminding them. Ramirez also cracks into the album’s first two singles, “Barricade” and “Lights,” describing them as album samplers. Ramirez gives “Interpol” a 5/10, but explains well why, in comparison to “Antics” or “Turn On the Bright Lights,” this album isn’t that great, but still an excellent effort to return to the “dark” days of the red and black color scheme.

Interpol has succeeded, and so has Ramirez.

“Bad” review of Interpol’s self-titled, by Matt De Marco of The Hofstra Chronicle

This review is best described as under labored.

De Marco—for one reason or another—didn’t devote enough attention to this album or time to articulate his opinion. While there’s one paragraph that points out what works in the album, most of the paragraphs are brief or belabored rephrasings of their lexical predecessors.

The biggest flaw is De Marco failed to communicate how the album actually sounds. Someone who hadn’t heard Interpol prior to reading this review has no idea what kind of band this is. Is it depressing indie rock or is it really the kind of crap ABC plays in promotion of their latest teen primetime drama, as De Marco so lovingly suggests at the open? Despite the tired art school language De Marco grabbed from his folder of “clever”, last-minute adjectives (repetitive, monotonic, blasé—barf), he makes no attempt to explain more intricately how the album sounds, and how that sound doesn’t work for the Brooklyn three-piece. In the bigger picture, De Marco gives us no insight to who this band is and any frame of reference for this album. How does “Interpol” compare to past works, despite “Our Love To Admire’s” debut on the Billboard charts? Is this album better than that or past albums? Did the band go through a line-up change?