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."
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).
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.
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
Love the new/song suggestions this week!
Thanks! Never know if people are into those but I like Including them
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
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).
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.
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